Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making ⁎

Daniela Kleinschmita, , Helga Pülzlb, Laura Seccoc, Arnaud Sergentd, Ida Walline a

Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacherstr. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany European Forest Institute, Central Eastern European Regional Office EFICEEC-EFISEE, c/o Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria c Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, Viale Dell'Universita' 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy d National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, Bordeaux, UR ETBX 50, Avenue de Verdun, Gazinet, 33612, Cestas Cedex, France e Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Sundsvägen 3, P.O. Box 49, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden b

A B S T R A C T The overarching aim of this review paper is to investigate the involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy decision-making processes. Three interpretations of governance are distinguished to translate the idea of an orchestra to European (forest) policy making processes, referring to Frank Fischer's differentiation between a centralised state guided by administrative and policy experts on the one hand and deliberative governance driven by citizen participation on the other and a form of governance by participation professionals. The review included in total 81 research articles published between 1998 and 2015 addressing participation and expert involvement in forest policy. The results show that governance by participatory professionals is clearly visible in forest policy making processes in Europe mainly involving traditional groups as forest owners. Whether these participation professionals are engaged in a deliberative process with citizens remains unanswered. The results furthermore show a strong involvement of experts though the literature is rather silent as to how this steering of experts evolves in participatory forest processes. Finally the analysis shows that governance by citizen participation is rather neglected in forest policy processes in Europe. It is perceived as difficult to pursue, even at the local level. Therefore this article found nearly no empirical evidence for a socalled citizen's orchestra with the competence to self-align by deliberation. Instead citizens seem to be no part of the orchestra itself, but remain outside as part of the audience.

“I mean, the great secret is that an orchestra can actually play without a conductor at all. Of course, a great conductor will have a concept and will help them play together and unify them.” Joshua Bell1 1. Introduction This paper has been developed during the COST action FP1207 on forest policy entitled ORCHESTRA. The word orchestra initially brings to mind a concerted action resulting in a harmony that yields a wonderful end result. This is a situation that mirrors what could be achieved by forest policy decision making, which is known to be confronted by a multitude of at least partly conflicting interests. Hence, we have taken

the name and concept of an orchestra literally and used it to frame our paper. With this in mind we distinguish three interpretations of governance to translate the idea of an orchestra to European (forest) policy making processes. We do so by referring to Frank Fischer's differentiation between a centralised state guided by administrative and policy experts on the one hand and deliberative governance driven by citizen participation on the other. The term ‘orchestra’ is used for a large instrumental ensemble lead by a conductor directing their performance, thus orchestrating the orchestra. Transferring this pictorial concept to decision-making processes our first classification of governance is a process of decision making where one actor or a small group of actors acting as one (conductor) steers the process harmonising the diverse interests on forests in the best possible way. The relationship between the conductor

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kleinschmit). National Public Radio Music, Interview with J.Bell, April 24, 2012: Retrieved 15 December 2016 from: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/24/151294671/classical-rock-star-bell-takeson-conducting 1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.011 Received 30 June 2017; Received in revised form 5 December 2017; Accepted 22 December 2017 1389-9341/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Kleinschmit, D., Forest Policy and Economics (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.011

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

egalitarian discussion with one another. In effect these civil society groups, in particular NGOs”, “constitute new forms of social and political engagement” (Fischer, 2009, 70). We classify this third form of orchestration for the national context as (iii) governance by participatory professionals. In the forest policy making context such professionals are primarily drawn from forest owners associations, environmental NGOs as well as forest industry groups. We chose to use these three forms of classification of the functioning of an orchestra (i) governance by experts, (ii) citizen participation in deliberative governance and (iii) governance by participatory professionals as basic categories to review the extent to which participation is taking place in forest policy decision-making and which form and concept of participation dominates. This enables an understanding of what kind of shift from government to governance has occurred as discussed some two decades ago in policy sciences (e.g. Pierre and Peters, 2000; Rhodes, 1996). This shift away from the “one-way-traffic” of the state towards “two-way-traffic” (Kooimann, 1993) involving nonstate actors in political decision-making processes has already resulted in a multitude of empirical as well as normative aspects touched upon in scholarly work. Designs for the involvement of non-state actors as well as criteria and indicators for evaluating this involvement were identified in the past and accompanying problems revealed with the prominent paper on the ladder of citizen participation by Arnstein (1969) paving the way in this regard. Scholarly work on the orchestrated involvement of experts, citizens, and professionals has proliferated ever since. Numerous studies on who is involved, how that involvement is enacted in decision-making processes, and how it is linked to policies have been undertaken (Fung, 2006). In a similar vein many of these issues and features were also dealt with in forest policy research. A comprehensive and modern review of the involvement of experts, citizens and professionals in European forest policy-making processes is however missing. We know they are acting as an orchestra but we are unsure of exactly how well they are doing it or even if they are all playing the same piece of music. With that in mind, this paper has the clear overarching aim to fill that gap and investigate the involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in those processes. Since a comprehensive review of the multitudes of European forest policy-making processes cannot be practicably done, this paper is based on a literature review. For analytical reasons this review paper delineates between experts, citizens and participation professionals acknowledging that this differentiation is somewhat subjective as the borders between these groups are blurred, e.g. each group possesses a certain amount of expertise not just the experts, however experts are citizens as well. We avoid the term stakeholders as experts and citizens present also specific types of stakeholders and therefore this categorisation seems less than helpful to distinguish among them. The term is only used if the reviewed literature directly refer to stakeholders. We instead we employ the term participatory professionals to indicate that those are organised civil society groups in forest policy making processes which are familiar with procedures underlying those decision making processes and at the same time sharing norms and values in their groups. These groups can differ among others a great deal not only concerning their specific interest but as well concerning their level of professionalism and organisation, the (non-)engagement of their members and whether or not they represent public interest. For the sake of clarity this paper is organised in the following form: after briefly presenting the methodology for assessing the material, results from the review are expounded in three sections. Firstly, the meaning of participation is assessed; secondly results from the literature review concerning the involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals are presented. In the final part of the results section literature findings on the interplay between the different groups are presented. In the concluding sections of the paper, the results are discussed in relation to the three outlined interpretations of governance.

and the orchestra can be described as hierarchical or authoritarian, where the attributed knowledge and skills of the conducting expert “is needed to render the competent decisions required for effective social guidance” (Fischer, 2009, 54). Here an orchestra is interpreted as traditional technocratic governmental policy making pursued by an elite group of experts which supposedly have the required knowledge and skills (Fischer, 2009), a form of orchestration we will later refer to as (i) governance by experts. The citation from Joshua Bell, an American violinist and conductor, at the beginning of this paper offers another view on the workings of an orchestra. The musicians themselves have the competence to play in such a way that their individual parts are so harmonised that the role of the conductor is merely supportive. Transferring this interpretation to the world of governance generates an arena of actors with diverse interests that are able to achieve results in a bottom-up process rather than being steered from the top-down. It can represent a model of governance where the general “citizenry, or at least a significant portion of it, is (…) capable of making informed, intelligent assessment about public issues”. This second form of orchestration is understood as supporting the general premise of democracy which understands knowledge as “(…) a product of interaction among competing views” (Fischer, 2003, 16) and is therefore referred to as (ii) citizen participation in deliberative governance. The concept of ‘participatory governance’ (Grote and Gbikpi, 2002; Newig and Kvarda, 2012) when addressed to questions of involvement and citizenship in political decision making is strongly connected to the capacity and competence of the citizenry and their representatives to competently judge different issues (ibid.). The validity of being able to positively support such a position is strongly contested in political science. Some authors perceive such participation as detrimental to effective policy decisions hinting at missing competence and knowledge. Others regard it as an alternative to elitism in policy making and therefore providing a basis for a stronger democracy going beyond mere representation and voting (Fischer, 2009). Fischer (2009) understands technocratic, traditional governmental policy making built on expert knowledge as antagonistic to citizen participation. He acknowledges that the increasing complexity of societies and the governance issues facing them seems to require specialised expert advice. He however suspects that professional expertise can also work “as a barrier to meaningful citizen participation” (ibid., 30) referring to Berube (1996, 15) who harshly characterised experts as “arrogant, exclusive, selfserving, money-grabbing, careerists – and they purchase their status by discrediting everybody else as ‘amateurs’.” Fischer goes on to argue that experts alone are not always able to solve complex problems and furthermore emphasises that they are not neutral hence stressing the value of citizen participation in this second classification of deliberative governance. Given the promising symbolism of an orchestra for policy making it is not surprising that the term has already been used in political science however, thus far the use has been limited to studies on international political processes. Abbott et al. (2015) concentrated on the role of international governmental organisations in orchestration. They present a third interpretation of the picture of an orchestra by distinguishing between the orchestrator (conductor of the orchestra) and the intermediary (a set of actors) that steers another set of actors. They describe the process of orchestration as an indirect and soft governance model as there is no hard control over the activities of the intermediaries. An orchestrator is therefore not a political decision maker, but influences political decision-making processes by making different elements work together in a more aligned fashion. This interpretation differs from the above mentioned second classification in so far as it represents a governance approach that isolates one group, the intermediaries, to achieve concerted action through indirect coordinative activity of lower level actors without having the option of employing sanctions for non-compliance. Fischer refers to those intermediaries as civil society which enables citizens, through groups, to “engage in free, 2

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

Table 1 Types of participants involved in forest policy processes as identified in the participation literature review. General type/category/nature Public administration

Technical/professional experts

Environmentalists/environmental groups Recreational and other non-specific forestry interests

Forest products and services producers

Forest products traders Forestry workers The public

Scientists

Participating actors and groups as denominated in the literature Civil servants of the regional administration assigned to the different bodies of the environmental section (e.g. Rico • and González, 2015) agents of different ministries (e.g. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2011) • Civil of public authorities (e.g Forest Service) (e.g. Maier et al., 2014) • Officials of forestry associations (Rico and González, 2015) • Technicians technicians (e.g. Özturk and Türker, 2006) • Managerial who perform their duties as environmental professionals (e.g. Rico and González, 2015) • Technicians (e.g. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel 2011) • ENGOs associations (e.g. Maier et al., 2014) • Hunting associations (e.g. Maier et al., 2014) • Agricultural Sámi reindeer herding (e.g. Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013) • Traditional forest owners (e.g. Malovrh et al., 2015; Maier et al., 2014) • Private and landowner associations (e.g. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2011) • Forest as public forest owners (e.g. Secco et al., 2011; Kangas et al., 2010) • Municipalities (e.g. Lazdinis et al., 2009; Kangas et al., 2010) • Industry of sawmills (e.g. Özturk and Türker, 2006) • Members of forest-wood chain (e.g. Paletto et al., 2015) • Actors (e.g. Lazdinis et al., 2009) • Traders (e.g. Lazdinis et al., 2009; Kangas et al., 2010) • Workers unions (e.g. Kangas et al., 2010) • Labour of civil society or general public (e.g. Rico and González, 2015) • Representatives citizens (e.g. Maier et al., 2014) • ‘Regular’ (e.g. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel 2011) • Citizens (e.g. Lazdinis et al., 2009) • Consumers and rural residents (e.g. Özturk and Türker, 2006) • Urban people’ (Rantala, 2012) • ‘The academic sphere (e.g. Rico and González, 2015) • Forestry-related science’ (e.g. Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013) • ‘Traditional scientific experts (e.g. Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013; Maier et al., 2014) • Experts, Centres and Universities (e.g. Jiménez et al., 2009) • Research • Scientists (e.g. Maier et al., 2014)

2. Material and review design

overview of those two different sets of articles is provided in Appendixes A and B. Only two articles (Kangas et al., 2010 and Maier et al., 2014) were found in both sets of articles. They naturally have to be deducted from the overall number of articles reviewed as they appear twice. Furthermore, some additional papers that added significantly to the substance of the review materials were also included in the present article (see Appendix C). The identified papers related to participation were firstly categorised depending on if they had conducted empirical (24), literature review (5) or conceptual studies (3) of participation. If the paper only recommended participation as a promising possibility for solving observed conflicts (3) the paper was put in a separate category. Papers referring to forest policy and science or expertise included papers dealing specifically with the science-policy interface in the forest sector (16) and papers just mentioning the role of science/scientists or expertise/experts in the decision-making process (20). These papers have been firstly analyzed to identify the policy issue addressed and the category of science concerned. A variety of issues related to forest management are concerned but many papers deal more specifically with environmental problems associated with sustainability (e.g. biodiversity, climate change, Natura 2000). The papers often refer to “forestry science” but also to different category of science like “conservation science”, “ecological science”, “natural science” and “modelling”. On the onset of the review we defined three basic questions; why, how, and who? Each paper was analyzed in search of motivations and rationales. In the case of participation we searched for why participation should be pursued and for articles about the science-policy interface we tried to find out the motivations and rationales for more science-based policy or on the contrary for less science-based policy. Why the authors argue for “more” or “less” science-based policy (explicitly or implicitly) was reported in an excel sheet. In search of an answer to the second (how?) question we analyzed recommendations for how participation could become or had been

The review included in total 81 research articles published between 1998 and 2015. Those articles were selected based on a keyword search on Scopus, a database for peer-reviewed scientific articles. The two search strings used, aimed at covering aspects of participation, expertise and forest policy. The first set of keywords included “forest policy” + “participation”, and the second set of keywords included “forest policy” + “science” or “expertise” appearing in the title, abstract or keywords. Since the main aim of the article was to review the participation of experts, citizens and participatory professionals purely in European forest policy-making, non-European cases as well as articles referring to a stakeholder-science interface only were excluded from this review. An exception was made for some American and Canadian articles that provided some particularly beneficial general insights and that were not a country specific analysis in relation to forest policy experts and scientists. Finally, having reading through abstracts and article texts, only those articles were selected that: (a) included research results and discussed some form of participation (public, expert, etc.) in a forest-related policy-making process in a European context; or. (b) discussed the science-policy interface and/or provided arguments in relation to the role of science in the policy making process, and/ or analyzed how forestry science and scientists are influenced by policy makers. The search identified 33 papers relating to participation and forest policy and 37 papers referring to forest policy and science or expertise.2 These key texts built the basis for the present review article. An

2 Authors three and five conducted the analysis of papers covering participation, author four conducted the analysis of papers related to science-policy interface.

3

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

not contribute to their intensification (Stojanovska et al., 2014). In addition, participation has also been reported as having a merely strategic function (Maier et al., 2014). The involvement of different ownership groups, and in particular private forest owners, is considered a key to increase their active engagement in forest land management and give more value to underutilised national forest resources. For this, greater cooperation of forest owners with public forest administrations and with other forest owners is required (Malovrh et al., 2015). However, their influence is caselimited due to the prevalence of expert-driven processes (Maier et al., 2014) and prescriptive planning systems (Weiland, 2012). Some of the reviewed studies that did not focus on participation processes per se still concluded that participation can be a solution to observed problems. More specifically, Vuletić et al. (2010), for example, conclude from their study on forestry sector structures in Central and South-Eastern Europe that more participation is needed in the future in order to ensure sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests. Studies from Sweden and Slovenia confirm these normative expectations of participation (Angelstam et al., 2011 and Simončič and Bončina, 2015). Only one paper questions the very foundations of participation in the forest sector (Weber and Schnappup, 1998), basing their criticism on the question of legitimacy for the inclusion of environmental organisations in German forestry policy processes. They also identified preexisting participation forms in the forest sector and explored to what degree and in what areas participatory approaches could be implemented. Their conclusion was that increased public participation and stakeholder participation cannot be avoided, but foresters should make the best out of the situation and take on the role of mediators and brokers between society and forest ecosystems. Although not necessarily taking a critical stance towards participation, specific characteristics of forest policy participatory processes are often reported as difficult or problematic: In some cases, processes intended to be openly participatory transformed into “multilateral communication processes without political commitment” (RuppertWinkel and Winkel 2011: 429). In this regard Hogl et al. (2012: 302) summarise their collected case studies in the following way: “While some of our cases provide evidence that NMG [new modes of governance] practices can deliver enhanced legitimacy and lead to substantial procedural and institutional changes, others convey more pessimism. The overall picture remains rather fragmented and sobering”. Studies have identified a few key factors relevant for successful participation: Those comprise appropriate allocation of resources such as time and finances which also take into account resource efficiency (e.g. Appelstrand, 2002; Rojas-Briales, 2005). According to some authors those investing time and money should gain and not loose from the exchange (e.g. Faehnle and Tyrväinen, 2013; Mårald et al., 2015). Soft-skills such as competences and expert knowledge within the organisation of the process as well as among the participants are seen as important requirements (e.g. Aguilar and Montiel, 2011; Maier et al., 2014; Mårald et al., 2015). Power relations among participants and groups of participants have to be acknowledged and managed accordingly (e.g. Buchy and Hoverman, 2000; Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013). Both the language and the quality of the communication internally and externally to the participatory processes is examined by several studies (e.g. Appelstrand, 2002; Buchy and Hoverman, 2000; Böhling and Arzberger, 2014; Elsasser, 2007). Input legitimacy and then, even more importantly, adequate representation lay the groundwork to achieve a good process and a legitimate outcome (e.g. Hogl et al., 2012; Elsasser, 2007). Achieving good representation is difficult albeit the fact that the main aim is to reach as broad perspective as possible on the issue at hand (Faehnle and Tyrväinen, 2013; Hogl et al., 2012). Social and group learning includes both increasing participants' knowledge on the issue at hand as well as about each other's opinions and perspectives, and this then leads the way to agreement (e.g. Appelstrand, 2002; Kangas et al., 2010). Trust needs to be formed between both individual

successful. We also identified proposals for how to change the scientific influence on the decision-making process in the forest sector. The analysis was made so that reoccurring motivations, rationales, and aspects related to the questions why and how were defined as categories and listed in an Excel sheet. Each paper was then once again analyzed for motivations, rationales, and aspects and then categorised accordingly. From this compilation a synthesis covering all identified categories and aspects was made, building on the findings in the original papers. For the last (who?) question, the identified types of participants, including experts and scientists are summarised in Table 1. 3. Results The absolute majority of the reviewed articles in this paper were empirical in nature, i.e. they were based on qualitative, quantitative, or mixed analysis of real participatory processes. However, in some cases (e.g. Mårald et al., 2015), the participatory process was just experimental, not designed for actually influencing decisions. Very few papers included in the review did not analyse an actual participatory process, but instead recommended participation as a solution to empirically observed problems. 3.1. Reconstructing participation Participation is framed in the literature as inherent to new modes of governance (e.g. Valkeapää and Karppinen, 2013; Böhling and Arzberger, 2014), and perceived as part of the political modernisation process with demands for participation being based on legislation and seen as a consequence of failed regulations or political realities and international conventions (Vuletić et al., 2010; Stojanovska et al., 2014; Valente et al., 2015). Stojanovska et al. (2014) directly refer to recommendations made by the European Commission, while Valente et al. (2015) are the only ones referring to national (Croatian) legislation demanding participation. Maier et al. (2014) see participation as “an important element of the state's policy” and as a new approach to open up policy-making. From the above participation can be seen as a process or a policy instrument. The former notion emphasises the normative idea of democracy, while the latter focuses on methodological and procedural aspects (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000). One paper describes this distinction between meanings of participation as “an end in itself” or as “a means to an end” (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000). The papers reviewed present a great variety in rationales and motivations for participation. Often recurring themes are sustainability (24 papers) (e.g. Appelstrand, 2002; Faehnle and Tyrväinen, 2013), democracy (17) (e.g. Aguilar and Montiel, 2011; Elsasser, 2007) as well as aspects closely related to democracy and good governance such as empowerment (6), influence (18), legitimacy (13) (e.g. Rantala, 2011 and Rantala, 2012), representation (13), transparency (13), accountability (12) and efficiency/effectiveness (16). Sustainability stands out as the most frequently named rationale for participation. It is argued that gathering, integrating and taking into account society's perspectives in relation to a forest-related objective or problem makes the resulting policy decisions and implementation more sustainable (e.g. Appelstrand, 2002; Rico and González, 2015; Stojanovska et al., 2014; Faehnle and Tyrväinen, 2013; Schlyter et al., 2009). Valente et al. (2015) go even further, mentioning participation as one of three prerequisite principles promoting sustainability due to its capacity/ability to facilitate social learning and empower communities to take action. Conflict management and resolution is seen in some papers as a pragmatic aim of participation, well integrated into democratic and sustainability rationales. Processes of participation partly have the ambition to provide an arena for those conflicts that need mediation (e.g. Aguilar and Montiel, 2011; Acosta and Corral, 2015; Papageorgiou et al., 2012) or de-escalation (Valente et al., 2015). However, participants can also choose to avoid conflicts (Storch et al., 2012) or at least 4

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

collaboration and coalitions with stakeholders (Werland, 2009). For example, interdisciplinary research programs on forest ecosystems have flourished. They seek to provide policy makers with improved cost-tobenefit ratios for their forest management strategy in order to help them to arbitrate conflicts that arise between different forest functions (Farrell et al., 2000). Forest economists develop analytical tools to quantify all the different ecosystem values and stakeholders preferences in economic terms with the aim of incorporating them into the design and evolution of policy instruments (Biénabe and Hearne, 2006; Watson, 2005). Similarly, research on forest sector modelling is expected to “address the ‘right’ questions (i.e. those considered important by decision makers in national governments, forest industry or in the European Commission)” and to develop models that “can be used directly for forecasting and policy analysis” (Toppinen and Kuuluvainen, 2010: 7). From this perspective, the lack of scientific information and/ or the very low consideration given to this knowledge by decision makers is supposed to lead to ineffective policy outcomes. When available, science-based information can often be the guarantee that in a context of “political inertia”, “resulting policy paths will have some grounding in technical, economic and procedural reality” (Ellefson, 2000: 83). In fact, according to Franklin and Johnson (2014) without ‘strong scientific evidence’ the public will remain sceptical and reluctant to the implementation of ‘good’ forest management practices. Other authors (Burley et al., 2001) argue that without science basedinformation the political debate is considered to be based upon emotions and lead to more confusion and serious conflicts. Winter et al. (2014) even fear that without the authority of science the implementation process can be ineffective on the ground since the consensus between stakeholders is not up to the initial mark as defined by science. Following these considerations, those who advocate for more science-based policy consider that (scientific) facts have an important role to play in all segments of the policy process (Ellefson, 2000). Science based information can help define the range of issues, identify the problem to be solved, evaluate the different options to address this problem and define the potentially more effective ones (prospectively or retrospectively). This linear approach definitely makes a clear distinction between values that are based upon science-based knowledge (facts) and non-factual values. The incorporation of non-factual values in the decision making process is usually regarded as unavoidable; however they purportedly lead to suboptimal policy when they are taken into account. In critique of this overly apolitical perspective, some scholars advocate that there are no ontological differences between values and that the decision making process is, first and foremost, built on value (and fact) bargaining (Grundmann, 2009). The hierarchy of values is not predetermined, but rather is deemed to be the result of the political process. They support a non-rational and non-linear conceptualisation of the policy process and argue that the values based on scientific facts and the science-led policy processes do not necessarily contribute to the increased effectiveness and legitimacy of the political action (Kleinschmit et al., 2009). Many theoretical foundations of critical policy analysis – which have been widely applied in forest policy study (de Jong et al., 2012) – are grounded in this approach. They emphasise the influence of cognitive and normative frames (paradigms, belief systems and référentiels) in (forest) policy-making and shed light on the influence of ‘world views’ in policy analysis (Surel, 2000). Moreover, several studies on forest policy design and implementation processes reveal that scientists and experts are often involved in the production of normative rules with limited democratic control to guarantee credibility and legitimacy within society (Rametsteiner et al., 2011; Failing and Gregory, 2003). According to the research form the field of Science and Technology Studies, the first argument to promote ‘less science-based policy’ is that the scientific field, as well as every stakeholder group pursues its own objectives, conveying its own values. These values are typically non-

participants (Kvarda and Nordbeck, 2012) as well as between participants and the governance system (e.g. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2011; Faehnle and Tyrväinen, 2013; Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013). Commitment to the process and outcomes by participants, politicians and decision-makers, are often emphasised aspects that relate to the institutionalization of participation and as to what effect the process will have in practice (e.g. Buchy and Hoverman, 2000; Hujala et al., 2013; Kvarda and Nordbeck, 2012; Kangas et al., 2010). Less often mentioned aspects are the timing of the process in relation to other decisions and processes (Lund, 2012; Buchy and Hoverman, 2000), the facilitation of group dynamics (Valente et al., 2015) as well as the level of convenience for participants to become involved (Eiter and Vik, 2015). In many studies a general common, rather intuitive categorisation of group types involved in forest policy- and decision-making processes can be observed (see Table 1). No common agreement as to who presents a stakeholder and as to who belongs to which group exactly is ascertainable. 3.2. Involvement of experts in forest policy decision making The reviewed papers often referred to experts as scientists and technical experts, but less as public administration officials (see Table 1). The analysis showed that as early as the 1990s the role of expertise in policy making processes in connection with the emergence of a new, more diverse, and academically based forest-related knowledge was being discussed. The ‘command and control’ system of governments implemented by forest administrations was criticised for being too technocratic including the predominant role of forestry experts who were influenced by certain groups. In this context, both the rationality and legitimacy of traditional forest-related knowledge was contested. In many countries, this knowledge – provided by state administrations – has been challenged by environmental groups drawing on the knowledge base being assembled by scientists in the fields of conservation biology and landscape ecology (Lertzman et al., 1996). This resulted in a controversial debate about the values assigned to forest management and the appropriate role of facts – provided by scientific experts – in the definition, selection and prioritisation of these values during the policy making process (Hoberg, 2004). Here the values are designed as political arguments which enter the decision making process and frame the way public problems are defined and policies are designed. Considering this debate in terms of politics of the science-policy interface (Wesselink et al., 2013), the question to answer is whether a hierarchy of values can be defined independently from the scientific facts or not. In the reviewed literature, varying positions were identified: The first group of scholars advocates the ‘scientification of politics’ (i.e. more science-based policy) and asks for better communication, translation and integration of scientific knowledge. The second one often criticises what they claim is the ambiguity around the ‘politicisation of science’. Wesselink et al. (2013) argue for less sciencebased policy or at least consider that the hegemony of scientific/expert knowledge should be reconsidered. While some scholars consider that “it is the duty of forest scientists to provide the knowledge that will allow politicians to honour their commitment to sustainable forest management” (Farrell et al., 2000: 15), traditional forest research lacks theoretical foundations and methodological tools to grasp the complexity of the multi-scale ecological, economic and social processes. Consequently, public institutions foster research and innovation activities in the forestry sector and many researchers argue that more policy-oriented scientific knowledge is needed to provide better solutions to forest related policy problems (Burley et al., 2001). Consequently they pay attention to the form and nature of the policy debate and conclude that their approach has to “become more comprehensive and complex to remain useful to policy makers” (Adams and Haynes, 1999: 151). They also focus on the challenge of improving the knowledge transfer through inter-science 5

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

individuals with some professional skills in forestry (e.g. academics, members of associations, managers). All the others contributions came from organised and forest-oriented groups (Lazdinis et al., 2009). In a study from Finland (Kangas et al., 2010) about stakeholder perspectives on successful participatory processes all groups regarded it as irrelevant to involve the general public in regional forest programs development. An increasing trend towards civil society participation is also being witnessed “as hardly affecting the ideologies and interests of the involved groups [… so that], no substantial mutual policy learning amongst stakeholders, or improvement of the overall relationship amongst actors representing production and conservation interests, is observed” (Maier et al., 2014: 166). A more optimistic stance is to regard the situation as a consequence of the fact that “it is too early to assess the long-term effects of increased participation in forest policymaking” (Maier et al., 2014: 166). Being more pessimistic, it could be understood to be a consequence of poorly legitimated, designed and implemented participatory processes (e.g. Kangas et al., 2010; Secco et al., 2011; Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013). However, the influence of citizens is considered to become higher (and “gradually getting stronger”) at the very local level, e.g. in communal forests, where “public managers actively approached the interested public” (Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2011: 429). This is in line with Maier et al. (2014: 175), who stated that “more effective (and less polarised) participation processes will likely take place at the local level, as opposed to the state policy level”. Hogl et al. (2012: 301) confirm that implementation on the national level as compared to subnational levels is more difficult due to “hierarchical steering, sectoral isolationism and expert-centred decision- making”.

factual ones since they are based on specific strategies, institutional context or cultural entrenchment (Kelly, 2014; Grundmann, 2009). What is often called the ‘politization of science’ (Weingart, 1999) can be considered a proof of science-based values not necessarily being more legitimate or accountable than those of other actors. About the incorporation of scientific input into urban forestry policy-making, Janse and Konijnendijk (2007: 25) said: “science is very political in the sense that it is infused with values and scientists are members of policy communities that react to the norms and conventions of their disciplines, and political incentives within their professional networks”. In this perspective, the rationality of scientific facts is being undermined. A second argument presented refers to the difference in logic between social and scientific approaches (Buttoud, 2015), and to the problem of “misuse” of scientific knowledge by politics (Krott, 2012). While decision makers want short term and salient solutions, scientists are engaged in research activities which require often long-term experimentation and specific validation processes. The risk is that only scientific facts in line with policy relevant topics are incorporated in the decision making process, and that most of the controversial and nonsteady-state scientific knowledge remains out of the public debate. The use of scientific arguments for political purpose can thus be criticised for being interest-driven and oriented towards short-term goals. Consequently, some scholars argue that in some cases the legitimacy of scientific evidence is challenged. For example, during the participatory process that led to the preparation of the Regional Forest Programme in Finland, Kangas et al. (2010: 219) identified groups of stakeholders who “felt that scientifically sound information was among the least important factors in the process”. Scientific information and analysis has been identified by different studies as an essential ingredient of participatory processes to inform deliberation (Reed, 2008). This suggests a combination of scientific knowledge with other non-state and non-scientific knowledge. However, the dominance of expert and/or scientific knowledge is often mentioned among the critical issues for limiting the involvement of and the taking into account of non-expert knowledge in political processes. Finally, all the scholars that dealt with the science-policy interface in the forest sector promoted a more open decision making process. It is either to consolidate the scientific baselines of political action with more incorporation of rational knowledge about forest ecosystems dynamics, or to mitigate the domination of forest policy by experts from traditional forest stakeholders groups and administrations. To improve the interface, many of the scholars argue for the development of an interdisciplinary and integrated forestry science that could make scientific knowledge significantly more effective and useful for decision makers. Others favoured that more emphasis be placed on the place of scientists and scientific facts in the participation processes, without neglecting the necessary evolution of the scientific field. They ask for policy-making practices which leave more room for public debate about science based recommendations with regard to the uncertainty of forestry developments and to the diversity of forest related interests.

3.4. Involvement of participatory professionals in forest policy making As for participatory professionals involved in European forest policy making, approximately a quarter of the papers explicitly refer to organised groups representing different interests more or less directly linked to forest management and forestry issues. The literature does surprisingly categorise those groups only very intuitively (see Table 1). Among them are environmental NGOs, recreational groups and groups with non-specific forest interests (e.g. agricultural associations), forest products and service producers (e.g. owners, industry etc.), forest traders, and forest workers etc. What unites them is the fact that they represent a larger group, while being broadly familiar with other participants' interests and positions. However, not all of these groups may be granted access in all contexts. The majority of the articles refer to representation through (stakeholder) groups without precisely defining them: Who is a representative and for whom does it remain a struggle to take part in participatory processes. Even in those studies where participatory professionals are understood to comprise “(…) those people most directly related to the organisation or phenomenon under study” (Rico and González, 2015: 29) the criteria of “as representative as possible” appears incompletely defined. Any detailed definition of adequate representation is hard to come by and instead general terms are used, for example terms such as cross-sectoral (Appelstrand, 2002) and balanced representation (Papageorgiou et al., 2012). Eiter and Vik (2015) evaluate the performance of representativeness based on the efforts made to include different groups in participatory planning, for example campaigns directed to youth and second-home owners. Buchy and Hoverman (2000) regard adequate representation as ensuring non-exclusion. Elsasser (2007: 1019) mentions the lack of proper definitions in the context of national forest programmes and concludes that “there is no concrete guideline as to who should be involved in such a process”. Accordingly, authors often describe representation as unsuccessful, insufficient or imbalanced based on the identification (made by the researchers themselves or by participants) of relevant but non-participating, excluded or too lowly empowered groups (e.g. Giessen, 2012; Papageorgiou et al., 2012; Storch et al., 2012; Kvarda and Nordbeck,

3.3. Involvement of citizens in forest policy making Less than 5% of the articles included in the review refer to citizens or ‘the general public’, while approximately 15% refer to both. Therein the general public is typically considered a special type of actor that requires ad hoc instruments for being involved in an effective and useful way, or alternatively they recommend it to be involved in a more systematic and substantial way. The review also shows that different ways as how to refer to citizens exist (see Table 1). In particular the role of citizens, referred to as “the public” in the reviewed literature, in consultation processes or policy forums is extremely limited, especially for policy processes at supra-national (e.g. EU) and national levels. For example, in the internet-based public consultation on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy carried out in 2004, only 12 out of 58 contributions received (21%) were from 6

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

Failing and Gregory (2003: 130) outline this interplay in more detail in their study about forest biodiversity conservation. They clearly attribute a distinct but complementary role to scientific facts and public values: “The discussion about which management strategy to select should be based on a discussion about the expected performance of each strategy (informed by science) and a discussion about trade-offs among objectives (informed by public values)”. It is noteworthy that here the selection of both relevant scientific facts and public values should be submitted for discussion during the policy process. Hence, promoting less science-based policy does not imply that scientific facts should not be incorporated into the decision making process, but critical scholars argue for a better articulation (orchestration) between scientific knowledge and public values. For instance, Winkel et al. (2015: 30) consider that “it does not seem a promising concept to either diminish the science core of Natura 2000 or return to a strongly science based policy approach alone”. In order to avoid the risk of invalidating science and undermining the democratic accountability, the issue is to explicitly identify the boundaries between science and politics and to clarify the distinction/relationships between facts and values (Hoberg, 2004). Some studies even push for recognising the validity of values which do not fit with scientific validation schemes, i.e. when it comes to tensions between (western) scientific and local indigenous knowledge regarding forest issues (Aicher, 2014). This way of challenging the ‘hegemony’ of scientific knowledge is taken up by some authors who “argue that in the context of irreducible uncertainty and complexity, science is not sufficient as input” for decision making (de Koning et al., 2014: 3667). Such a forest science-policy interface attributes a central role to participation processes as they aim to achieve a balance of power between scientific experts and participation professionals. For instance, Maier et al. (2014) report that civil society organisations have challenged the traditional German forest policy approach (i.e. expert-based decision making) by demanding stronger consideration of non-timber production interests, and more participation of actors from beyond the traditional forest sector. In the same vein, Krott (2012) focuses on power considerations in relation to the science-politics boundary lines, while placing an increased emphasis on the scientific facts transfer process. According to him, scientists should acknowledge that they are dominated by strong participatory professionals, which he calls stakeholders, who make use of scientific arguments to consolidate their political influence on the weakest ones. Therefore, he argues for strategic action by scientists “to enforce proper use of scientific discourses to weaker stakeholders and/or to support specific arguments with strong stakeholders” (Krott, 2012: 41). One article (Jolibert and Wesselink, 2012) specifically deals with the interplay between scientists and participatory professionals. It explored the impacts of conducting research in a more participatory way through the analysis of stakeholders' engagement in 38 EU-funded FP6 biodiversity research projects. According to their observations, in half of the cases “stakeholders were engaged during the dissemination stage and not at critical stages of problem definition and methods selection” (Jolibert and Wesselink, 2012: 100). In contrast, Mårald et al. (2015: 750) refer to “a dynamic science-stakeholder exchange, as an approach to tackle complex and controversial issues in forest management”.

2012; Kangas et al., 2010; Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013; Maier et al., 2014). Differences can be noted on the types of actors involved depending on regional locations. In Slovenia and Serbia, for example, where there is not a long tradition of public participation in decision-making, the first stakeholders to be more actively involved in policy-making were private forest owners. Depending on their attitudes and interests, Malovrh et al. (2015) categorised them as ‘active’, ‘multi-objective’, ‘passive’ and ‘uninterested’ when displaying different degrees of willingness to cooperate with public forest administrations. However, this willingness to cooperate, where existing, is mainly linked to the sharing of information and increasing active involvement in policy implementation, rather than to participate in large-scale deliberative policy-making processes (Malovrh et al., 2015). Some articles (e.g. Maier et al., 2014; Kangas et al., 2010) focus specifically on stakeholders' perceptions about participatory forest policy processes. Kangas et al. (2010) thereby identify a range of different positions, catalogued as “pragmatic-consensus seekers” to “reformers”, “expertise-oriented actors” and “participation sceptics”. According to these German and Finnish case studies, the most sceptical stakeholder groups in terms of participation include industry and private forest owners, while the most supportive ones are nature conservation organisations and environmental administration groups. In both studies, forest administration has the highest internal variation of positions, with high level officials being more positive and local level staff being more concerned with participation. What clearly emerges from the literature review is that a well-balanced distribution among the interests of different groups is often recommended as a prerequisite for successful involvement in forest decision-making (e.g. Appelstrand, 2002; Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2011; Sheate and Partidário, 2010; Vacik et al., 2014; Maier et al., 2014), but difficult to realise in practice. Within the European Commission, for example, at least three different committees or advisory groups are permanently established for actors to interact (Lazdinis et al., 2009). Even if all the main groups of interests are somehow mentioned, the number of representatives is not equally distributed among them and it remains unclear whether internal mechanisms exist to guarantee balancing opinions. Similar findings are found in Davenport and Wood (2006) stemming from the international level, where disengagement by civil society is described as the major threat to the global forest policy process. Lazdinis et al. (2009) argue that the number of multiple stakeholders increased at the EU level, but at the same it appears that “the number of interest groups prepared to actively participate in […] forest and forestry related policy- and decision-making is not large” (Lazdinis et al., 2009: 53) as a higher number of responses to the EU Forestry Strategy in an online consultation came from governmental bodies and national forestry authorities. 3.5. Interrelation between experts, citizen and participation professionals in forest policy making The bulk of the literature reviewed concentrates on the involvement of experts and participatory professionals and to a limited extent on citizens in forest policy processes. Even fewer studies address their interlinkage. Most of these scholars base their argumentation on the delineation between the input from scientific experts and from participatory professionals. While the former is supposed to contribute with scientific facts, the latter are understood to integrate public values. Along those line, Saarikoski and Raitio (2013) argue for joint factfinding as a method to integrate “expert knowledge and stakeholder concerns and hence can also incorporate distributional impacts and the human dimensions of policy-making situations”. Some scholars such as Failing and Gregory (2003), based on the understanding of neutral, rational scientific facts, argue for better orchestration between scientific knowledge and public values.

4. Discussion The review shows a general acceptance of decision-making processes opening up for non-state actors albeit for different reasons. Some studies argue for participation for technical reasons, e.g. as a means for avoiding or managing a potential or actual conflict. Others emphasise the democratic notion of participation promoting legitimacy, representation, transparency, and empowerment (for example Rantala, 2011 and Rantala, 2012). This notion is strongly in line with the basic idea of Fischer (2009) for deliberative governance. With the aim of 7

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

the review shows some scholars argue against this as they fear that controversial or scientific knowledge not in line with relevant political topics will not receive political attention as well as it risks being excluded from the public debate or being misused. From this second perspective, scientists appear as a (group) participant type that not necessarily is organised nor holds specific values. In this way scientific experts can both theoretically and practically contribute to support deliberation between citizens. This article has shown that governance by experts still plays a very important role in forest policy processes throughout Europe, reproducing the metaphor of a conductor orchestrating the orchestra. The literature is rather silent as to how this steering of experts evolves in participatory forest processes. Scientific experts becoming too powerful in policy processes are seen as a critical failure when political norms and deliberation processes are replaced by scientific necessities. One consequence may be a loss of democratic legitimacy of such expert driven political decisions (Habermas, 1969; Pregernig and Böcher, 2009). In this vein Frank Fischer claims that “the tension between professional expertise and democratic governance is an important political dimension of our time” (Fischer, 2000, IX). On the other side of the coin it has to be noted that expertise is no longer understood as being exclusively related to science: Other forms of expertise (lay knowledge, counter expertise from civil society actors such as NGOs) should be laid out in governance processes as important instruments for balancing scientific expertise and leading to a more accountable means of bringing expertise into politics to validate the truth of their claims in discursive argumentation (Risse, 2004, 294). Habermas (1969) argued in the late 1960s that there cannot be a strict separation between the spheres of scientific experts and political actors. For him the relation between expertise and the political process is better understood as a mutually critical relationship of discourse and communication between science and politics. Thus, he proposes that the basis of all knowledge is procedural, that is, the product of rational discourse. Habermas' ideas have been adopted by Weingart (2003) in his recursive model of the science-policy-interface, which brings us back to the citation at the beginning of the paper as to whether orchestras do actually need a conductor. Most authors argue for a well-balanced interest representation as a prerequisite for participatory processes (more recently Johansson, 2016), while at the same time the involvement of the “public” is perceived as difficult and the involvement of citizens only of minor importance. Instead, citizens seem to not be part of the orchestra itself, but remain outside as part of the audience listening, applauding, or heckling it. In this issue Weber (2016) discuss the dominance of representation instead of deliberation. The proposed theoretical ideal of Fischer (2009) of deliberative governance based on an informed citizenry, interacting communicatively and thereby contributing to political actions therefore finds no evidence in the empirical studies of forest policy. However, some authors point towards local levels as their work indicates that an interested public may be more easily approached. In contrast to the supra-national level where citizens hardly know that they can participate in decision-making or that they at least have the chance to voice their preferences and concerns during a consultation phase with the European Commission. Future forest policy processes may also want to consider that scientific advice ought to be opened to citizens' scrutiny (Fischer, 2000, 2012) and regular exchanges and deliberation between experts and citizens could potentially enhance acceptance of decisions taken or at least increase the shared knowledge base. Furthermore, there are potentially important lessons to learn from studies following participatory processes and discourses over a longer period of time. In this issue, Weber (2016) and Tikkanen (2016) show a regression of participation from deliberation to “involvement of a small number of interest groups” and respectively “a strategic-turn”, where there is developing “an increasing contradiction between the underlying rhetoric and practical policy actions”. Lindstad (2016) analyse

achieving sustainability, a motivation for participation appears that combines the normative reasoning of democracy and the technical reasoning for participation. A number of authors voice criticism regarding the ability to successfully design participatory forest policy processes, others instead identify key factors for successful participation. A similar emphasise can be found as well in more recent literature (Marta-Costa et al., 2016). Among them adequate resourcing and having soft-skills were seen as requirements, while the management of power relations among actors, building trust and the support of social learning as well as the importance of internal and external communication, input legitimacy and representation, as well as commitment to the process and its outcomes were understood as important factors. Hence, in a nutshell, participation is on the one side perceived as a potential means to resolve conflicts, but on the flip side a participatory design does not necessarily lead to deliberative forest policy making. Studies that are more recent confirm or even further stress the limits when talking about non-participation due to lack of representation (Logmani et al., 2017; Balest et al., 2016a). However, Balest, Hrib, Dobsinská, and Paletto (2016a), Balest, Hrib, Dobsinská, and Paletto, 2016b in their review of all NFP in Europe concluded that for participation “strengths (e.g. review of problems and policies, cross sector approach) outweigh the weaknesses (e.g. time and efforts consuming, lack of trust)”. The review reveals a diversity of actors perceived as eligible or essential to be involved in political decision making indirectly attributing them the role of an intermediary orchestrator. It furthermore reveals a lack of clarity of demarcation of actor groups. Most of the reviewed studies use the term stakeholder without defining what a stakeholder actually is and thus obscuring the exact make-up of the various sets of actors. However, the majority of the reviewed studies equate stakeholders to interest groups of the forest sector, in particular those traditionally participating in forest policy processes such as forest owners (in this issue: Schulz et al., 2016). This result supports the general trend towards a high degree of participation by interest groups in policy making (Fischer, 2000). These groups, whether ENGOs or from the forest sector, are deemed to become and act increasingly professionally and with a pragmatic relationship to state actors. These actors which we labelled “participatory professionals” have become more centralised and organised in a top-down manner foiling the idea of intermediaries engaging and supporting communicative action of citizens. In comparison to Forest interest groups representing a a group of actors with specific interests, ENGOs supposed to act as an intermediary might face the problem of coordination as they are not representing actors with special interest in forest policy. Systematic knowledge about the engagement of ENGOs with citizenry in the area of forest policy is however currently not available and therefore whether intermediaries have the strength to engage and support citizens is to be further researched. Interestingly the literature failed to discuss the role of administratively based experts that work from within an administration and influence the way decisions are taken in forest policy making processes. Those take action not only in international forest policy making processes and particular in the EU, but also at the national level. Regarding the specific role of scientific facts and experts in forest policy processes the literature review shows clearly that two dominant viewpoints exist which influence the way scientists engage in forest-policy processes. While the first one presents science as value neutral, aiming to translate and integrate scientific facts into forest policy-making processes, the second one opposes this view presenting science as not value free. This first perspective supports the traditional top-down governmental policy making point of view where governance is built on power, asserting expert status to specific, mainly scientific actors promoting scientific facts on the input side and not being expected to get involved in value creation. This is in line with Fischer's idea of an elite group of experts providing knowledge and taking policy decisions. The scientist's role as the honest broker and bearer of important knowledge is seen as an asset to the participatory process (in this issue; Teder and Kaimre, 2016). As 8

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

similar trends and find a tiredness among participants and strategic choices made by stakeholders selecting the “process giving the greatest influence on police development at any time”.

participation is rather neglected in forest policy processes in Europe. It is perceived as difficult to pursue, even at the local level. Therefore, this article found nearly no empirical evidence for a so-called citizen's orchestra with the competence to self-align by deliberation. In conclusion it can be said that the analysis revealed mixed results that do not necessarily support one governance perspective over another, but instead governance by participatory professionals, often called stakeholders (orchestration by intermediaries), and by experts (orchestration through a conducter) seem to currently dominate participatory forest governance while citizens most often are somewhat isolated from forest decision-making processes. Different traditions in acknowledging the value of participation between Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western democracies may come into play here as well, but the literature review has not provided any notable evidence to support such an argument. Hence, the citation at the beginning of this article, claiming that the orchestra can orchestrate itself is not supported by literature on participatory forest policy processes. More comparative in-depth research would be needed to see whether differences show across European regions. Since the literature review clearly showed that the concept of participation is perceived as critical by some actors it would be necessary to clarify exactly what this means, what governments expect from it, and what role participants can play.

5. Conclusions This article aimed to study the role of participation and especially the role of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals, often referred to as stakeholders in the literature, in forest-policy making processes in Europe. Starting from the notion that forest policy governance can be orchestrated, albeit in three different ways, the articles has shown that the third form of governance by participatory professionals is clearly visible in forest policy making processes in Europe. The general trend in other sectors is mirrored in forest policy processes. Most intermediaries, e.g. forest owner associations or forest industry associations, engage in coordinative activities with their respective group members. The literature review has shown that governance by experts still plays a very important role in forest policy processes throughout Europe. Whether and how the steering through experts evolves in participatory forest processes is contested in the literature. Moreover expertise is no longer understood as being exclusively related to science. Finally, as the analysis has shown governance by citizen

Appendix A. Selection of articles based on a Scopus search that relate to forest policy and stakeholder participation in Europe (1998–2015)

Article

Geography

1. Acosta and Corral, 2015 2. Aguilar and Montiel, 2011 3. Angelstam et al., 2011 4. Böhling and Arzberger, 2014 5. Elsasser, 2007 6. Garcia-Gonzalo et al., 2015 7. Jiménez et al., 2009 8. Kangas et al., 2010⁎ 9. Konijnendijk, 1999 10. Lazdinis et al., 2005 11. Lazdinis et al., 2009 12. Maier et al., 2014⁎ 13. Malovrh et al., 2015 14. Mårald et al., 2015 15. Özturk and Türker, 2006 16. Primmer and Kyllönen, 2006 17. Rantala, 2011 18. Rantala, 2012 19. Rico and González, 2015 20. Rojas-Briales, 2005 21. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2011 22. Saarikoski and Raitio, 2013 23. Schlyter et al., 2009 24. Secco et al., 2013 25. Secco et al., 2011 26. Simončič and Bončina, 2015 27. Stojanovska et al., 2014 28. Urbanová, 2011 29. Valente et al., 2015 30. Valkeapää and Karppinen, 2013 31. Vuletić et al., 2010 32. Weber and Schnappup, 1998 33. Winkel and Sotirov, 2011

Tenerife, Spain Southern Europe Sweden Bavaria, Germany Germany Portugal Spain Finland European Baltic European Baden-Württemberg, Germany Slovenia and Serbia Sweden Turkey Finland Finland Finland Spain Mediterranean Germany Finland Sweden Italy and Montenegro Italy Slovenia Rep. Macedonia Czech Republic Portugal Finland Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, Serbia, Slovenia Germany Germany and Bulgaria

⁎

Two papers appeared in both review sets.

9

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

Appendix B. Selection of articles based on a Scopus search for the key words “forest policy” and “science” or “expertise” in Europe; in addition articles were included that provide a more general introduction (1999–2015)

Article

Geography

1. Adams and Haynes, 1999 2. Aicher, 2014 3. Ananda and Herath, 2005 4. Biénabe and Hearne, 2006 5. Burley et al., 2001 6. Buttoud, 2015 7. Corley, 2004 8. De Koning et al., 2014 9. Ellefson, 2000 10. Failing and Gregory, 2003 11. Farrell et al., 2000 12. Franklin and Johnson, 2014 13. Groen et al., 2013 14. Grundmann, 2009 15. Guldin, 2003 16. Hoberg, 2004 17. Innes, 2003 18. Janse, 2008 19. Joyce, 2003 20. Kangas et al., 2010 21. Kelly, 2014 22. Kleine, 2009 23. Kleinschmit and Sjöstedt, 2014 24. Kleinschmit et al., 2009 25. Klenk and Hickey, 2011 26. Krott, 2012 27. Lee and Heino, 2010 28. Maier et al., 2014 29. Rametsteiner et al., 2011 30. Toppinen and Kuuluvainen, 2010 31. Umans, 1993 32. Watson, 2005 33. Werland, 2009 34. Winkel et al., 2015 35. Winkel and Jump, 2014 36. Winter et al., 2014

General Tropical forest Americas, Costa Rica International North America, USA Europe North America, USA International Europe North America, USA Europe Americas, Costa Rica North America, USA North America, USA Europe North America, USA Finland North America, USA Developing countries Sweden North America, Canada International Germany Europe Europe International International Europe Europe Europe

Appendix C. Additional articles that fit the scope of the review, but not were included in the Scopus search results

Article

Geography

1. Aasetre, 2006 2. Boon et al., 2012 3. Eiter and Vik, 2015 4. Faehnle and Tyrväinen, 2013 5. Giessen, 2012 6. Kvarda and Nordbeck, 2012 7. Leskinen, 2004 8. Lund, 2012 9. Paletto et al., 2015 10. Papageorgiou et al., 2012 11. Sheate and Partidário, 2010 12. Storch et al., 2012 13. Weiland, 2012

Norway Denmark Norway Finland Germany Austria Finland Denmark Italy Greece Portugal and the United Kingdom Germany Slovenia and Croatia

10

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

References

Franklin, J.F., Johnson, K.N., 2014. Lessons in policy implementation from experiences with the northwest Forest plan, USA. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (14), 3607–3613. Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 66 (1), 66–75. Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Bushenkov, V., McDill, M., Borges, J., 2015. A decision support system for assessing trade-offs between ecosystem management goals: an application in Portugal. Forests 6, 65–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f6010065. Giessen, L., 2012. Temporary governance and persistent government: Rural policy integration in pilot and mainstream funding programs. In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham/ Northampton, pp. 155–177. Participatory governance. In: Grote, J., Gbikpi, B. (Eds.), Political and Societal Implications. Springer. Groen, T.A., Verkerk, P.J., Böttcher, H., Grassi, G., Cienciala, E., Black, K.G., ... Petrova, L., 2013. What causes differences between national estimates of forest management carbon emissions and removals compared to estimates of large-scale models? Environ. Sci. Pol. 33, 222–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.06.005. Grundmann, R., 2009. The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5), 398–403. Guldin, R.W., 2003. Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future. Forest Policy Econ. 5 (4), 329–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1389-9341(03)00042-X. Habermas, J., 1969. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Hoberg, G., 2004. Science, politics, and us forest service law: the battle over the forest service planning rule. Nat. Resour. J. 44 (1), 6. Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M., 2012. Effectiveness and legitimacy of environmental governance - synopsis of key insights. In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham/ Northampton, pp. 280–304. Hujala, T., Khadka, C., Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., 2013. Review. Supporting problem structuring with computer-based tools in participatory forest planning. Forest Syst. 22 (2), 270–281. Innes, J.L., 2003. The incorporation of research into attempts to improve forest policy in British Columbia. Forest Policy Econ. 5 (4), 349–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1389-9341(03)00034-0. Janse, G., Konijnendijk, C.C., 2007. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry—experiences from the neighbourwoods project. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (1), 23–40. Janse, G., 2008. Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe—a survey on both sides of the science/policy interface. Forest Policy Econ. 10 (3), 183–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.001. Jiménez, P., Díaz-Fernández, P.M., Iglesias, S., Prada, A., García del Barrio, J.M., Alba, N., Alia, R., 2009. Estrategia para la Conservación y Uso Sostenible de los Recursos Genéticos Forestales en España. Investigacion Agraria Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 18 (1), 13–19. Johansson, J., 2016. Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: the process of initiating a National Forest Program. Forest Policy Econ. 70, 137–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001. Jolibert, C., Wesselink, A., 2012. Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: the influence of stakeholder engagement. Environ. Sci. Pol. 22, 100–111. Joyce, L.A., 2003. Improving the flow of scientific information across the interface of forest science and policy. Forest Policy Econ. 5 (4), 339–347. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S1389-9341(03)00033-9. Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., 2010. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for regional forest programmes in Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 12 (3), 213–222. Kelly, E.C., 2014. Cultural entrenchment: explaining gaps between ecosystem-based management policy and practice in the forests of Newfoundland. Forest Policy Econ. 46, 10–18. Kleine, M., 2009. Capacity building for effective work at the interface of forest science and forest policy. Mt. Res. Dev. 29 (2), 114–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/mrd. 1095. Kleinschmit, D., Böcher, M., Giessen, L., 2009. Discourse and expertise in Forest and environmental governance — an overview. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5–6), 309–312. Kleinschmit, D., Sjöstedt, V., 2014. Between science and politics: Swedish newspaper reporting on forests in a changing climate. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 117–127. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.011. Klenk, N.L., Hickey, G.M., 2011. Government science in forestry: characteristics and policy utilization. Forest Policy Econ. 13 (1), 37–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2010.08.005. Konijnendijk, C.C., 1999. Urban forestry policy-making. A comparative study of selected cities in Europe. Arboricultural J. 23 (1), 1–15. Kooimann, J., 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. Sage Publications, London. Krott, M., 2012. Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for Forest policy. Forest Policy Econ. 16, 35–42. Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., 2012. Legitimacy and policy effectiveness of national strategies for sustainability in Austria. In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 69–88. Lazdinis, M., Carver, A., Schmithüsen, F., Tõnisson, K., Vilkriste, L., 2005. Forest-Sector Concerns in the Baltic States: implications for an Expanded European Union. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18 (9), 839–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920500205517.

Aasetre, J., 2006. Perceptions of communication in Norwegian forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 8, 81–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.06.001. Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Sindal, D., Zangl, B., 2015. Two logics of indirect governance: delegation and orchestration. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 1–11. Acosta, M., Corral, S., 2015. Participatory multi-criteria assessment of forest planning policies in conflicting situations: the case of Tenerife. Forests 6 (11), 3946–3969. Adams, D., Haynes, R., 1999. Forest sector modeling. In: Yoshimoto, A., Yuutake, A. (Eds.), Global Concerns for Forest Resource Utilization. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 151–168. Aguilar, S., Montiel, C., 2011. The challenge of applying governance and sustainable development to wildland fire management in Southern Europe. J. For. Res. 22 (4), 627–639. Aicher, C., 2014. Discourse practices in environmental governance: social and ecological safeguards of Redd. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (14), 3543–3560. Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2005. Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory. Ecol. Econ. 55 (3), 408–419. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.015. Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Jonsson, B.-G., Roberge, J.-M., 2011. Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: the policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica 45 (5), 1111–1133. Appelstrand, M., 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners. Forest Policy Econ. 4 (4), 281–290. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. AIP Journal 35 (4), 3–4. Balest, J., Hrib, M., Dobsinská, Z., Paletto, A., 2016a. The formulation of the National Forest Programme in the Czech Republic: a qualitative survey. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.02.002. Balest, J., Hrib, M., Dobsinská, Z., Paletto, A., 2016b. Analysis of the effective stakeholders' involvement in the development of National Forest Programmes in Europe. Int. For. Rev. 18 (1), 13–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206122. Biénabe, E., Hearne, R.R., 2006. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy Econ. 9 (4), 335–348. Böhling, K., Arzberger, M.B., 2014. New modes of governance in Bavaria's alpine forests: the “mountain forest initiative” at work. Forest Policy Econ. 49, 43–50. Boon, T.E., Nathan, I., Lund, D.H., 2012. The national park process in Denmark: A network governance approach to democratize nature policy-making? In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 89–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/ 9781849802703.00013. Buchy, M., Hoverman, S., 2000. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy Econ. 1 (1), 15–25. Burley, J., Seppälä, R., El-Lakany, H., Sayer, J., Krott, M., 2001. Voicing interests and concerns: challenges for Forest research. Forest Policy Econ. 2 (1), 79–88. Buttoud, G., 2015. Research and innovation in sustainable forestry: lessons learnt to inform the policy making community. Annals Silvicultural Res. 38 (2), 74–77. Corley, E.A., 2004. US national forest policies regarding logging: a case study of citizens and scientists in the Chattahoochee National Forest. Policy Stud. 25 (2), 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144287042000262198. Davenport, D.S., Wood, P., 2006. Finding the way forward for the international arrangement on forests: UNFF-5, -6 and -7. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Env. Law 15 (3), 316–326. De Jong, W., Arts, B., Krott, M., 2012. Political theory in forest policy science. Forest Policy Econ. 16, 1–6. De Koning, J., Turnhout, E., Winkel, G., Blondet, M., Borras, L., Ferranti, F., Geitzenauer, M., Sotirov, M., Jump, A., 2014. Managing climate change in conservation practice: an exploration of the science–management Interface in beech Forest management. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (14), 3657–3671. Eiter, S., Vik, M.L., 2015. Public participation in landscape planning: effective methods for implementing the European landscape convention in Norway. Land Use Policy 44, 44–53. Ellefson, P.V., 2000. Integrating science and policy development: case of the National Research Council and us National Policy focused on non-federal forests. Forest Policy Econ. 1 (1), 81–94. Elsasser, P., 2007. Do “stakeholders” represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany. Forest Policy Econ. 9 (8), 1018–1030. Faehnle, M., Tyrväinen, L., 2013. A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34, 332–341. Failing, L., Gregory, R., 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for Forest policy. J. Environ. Manag. 68 (2), 121–132. Farrell, E.P., Führer, E., Ryan, D., Andersson, F., Hüttl, R., Piussi, P., 2000. European Forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. For. Ecol. Manag. 132 (1), 5–20. Fischer, F., 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham. Fischer, F., 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fischer, F., 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fischer, F., 2012. Participatory governance: from theory to practice. In: Levi-Faur, D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 457–471.

11

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

D. Kleinschmit et al.

10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.011. Secco, L., Pettenella, D., Gatto, P., 2011. Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? Forest Policy Econ. 13 (2), 104–112. Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D.M., Gatto, P., 2013. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: a set of indicators. Forest Policy Econ. 49, 57–71. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.006. Sheate, W.R., Partidário, M.R., 2010. Strategic approaches and assessment techniquespotential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30 (4), 278–288. Simončič, T., Bončina, A., 2015. Are forest functions a useful tool for multi-objective forest management planning? Experiences from Slovenia. Croatian J. Forest Eng. 36 (2), 293–305. Stojanovska, M., Miovska, M., Jovanovska, J., Stojanovski, V., 2014. The process of forest management plans preparation in the republic of Macedonia: does it comprise governance principles of participation, transparency and accountability? Forest Policy Econ. 49, 51–56. Storch, S., Krott, M., Böcher, M., 2012. Institutionalization of accountability within mission-oriented research: the example of the decision support system forest and climate change. In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 260–279. Surel, Y., 2000. The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. J. Eur. Public Pol. 7 (4), 495–512. Teder, M., Kaimre, P., 2016. The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: a case of Estonian forestry policy. Forest Policy Econ. 0–1. (March 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.007. Tikkanen, J., 2016. Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process. Forest Policy Econ. 0–1. (April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2017.04.009. Toppinen, A., Kuuluvainen, J., 2010. Forest sector modelling in Europe—the state of the art and future research directions. Forest Policy Econ. 12 (1), 2–8. Umans, L., 1993. A discourse on Forestry science. Agric. Hum. Values 10 (4), 26–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02217558. Urbanová, M., 2011. The national forest programme of the Czech Republic: an introduction of the 1993-2010 development. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 59 (3), 185–192. Vacik, H., Kurttila, M., Hujala, T., Khadka, C., Haara, A., Pykalainen, J., Honkakoski, P., Wolfslehner, B., Tikkanen, J., 2014. Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 144, 304–315. Valente, S., Coelho, C., Ribeiro, C., Marsh, G., 2015. Sustainable Forest Management in Portugal: transition from global policies to local participatory strategies. Int. For. Rev. 17 (3), 368–383. Valkeapää, A., Karppinen, H., 2013. Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy. Forest Policy Econ. 28, 52–59. Vuletić, D., Potocic, N., Krajter, S., Seletkovic, I., Furst, C., Makeschin, F., Galic, Z., Lorz, C., Matijasic, D., Zupanic, M., Simoncic, P., Vacik, H., 2010. How socio-economic conditions influence forest policy development in Central and South-east Europe. Environ. Manag. 46 (6), 931–940. Watson, R.T., 2005. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy Interface. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 360 (1454), 471–477. Weber, N., 2016. Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany. Forest Policy Econ. 0–1. (April). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.002. Weber, N., Schnappup, C., 1998. Partizipation - Ein neues grundprinzip in der forstpolitik? Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 169 (9), 168–174. Weiland, S., 2012. Reflexive governance: A way forward for coordinated natural resource policy? In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 178–195. Weingart, P., 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. In: Science and Public Policy. vol. 26(3). pp. 151–161. Weingart, P., 2003. Paradox of scientific advising. In: Bechmann, G., Hronszky, I. (Eds.), Expertise and its Interfaces: The Tense Relationship of Science and Politics. Edition Sigma, Berlin, pp. 53–89. Winkel, G., Jump, A., 2014. Perspectives on forest conservation: building evidence at the frontier between policy and conservation science. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (14), 3359–3372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0824-1. Werland, S., 2009. Global Forest governance—bringing forestry science (back) in. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5), 446–451. Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K.S., Georgiadou, Y., Turnhout, E., 2013. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy Interface. Environ. Sci. Pol. 30, 1–9. Winkel, G., Sotirov, M., 2011. An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria. Forest Policy Econ. 13 (2), 143–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol. 2010.06.005. Winkel, G., Blondet, M., Borrass, L., Frei, T., Geitzenauer, M., Gruppe, A., Jump, A., de Koning, J., Sotirov, M., Weiss, G., Winter, S., Turnhout, E., 2015. The implementation of Natura 2000 in forests: a trans- and interdisciplinary assessment of challenges and choices. Environ. Sci. Pol. 52, 23–32. Winter, S., Borrass, L., Geitzenauer, M., Blondet, M., Breibeck, R., Weiss, G., Winkel, G., 2014. The impact of Natura 2000 on Forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (14), 3451–3482.

Lazdinis, M., Angelstam, P., Lazdinis, I., 2009. Governing forests of the European Union: institutional framework for interest representation at the European Community level. Environ. Pol. Govern. 19 (1), 44–56. Lee, D.K., Heino, J., 2010. Sixty years of collaborative partnership between FAO and IUFRO: towards the next sixty. Unasylva 61 (1-2), 12–13. http://www.fao.org/ docrep/012/i1507f/i1507f00.htm. Lertzman, K., Rayner, J., Wilson, J., 1996. Learning and change in the British Columbia Forest policy sector: a consideration of Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework. Canadian J. Political Sci. 29 (1), 111–133. Leskinen, L.A., 2004. Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 6 (6), 605–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1389-9341(03)00009-1. Lindstad, B.H., 2016. “What”s in it for me?’ - Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve, (2016). For. Policy Econ. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.003. Logmani, J., Krott, M., Lecyk, M.T., Giessen, L., 2017. Customizing elements of the international Forest regime complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest. Forest Policy Econ. 74, 81–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11. 004. Lund, D.H., 2012. Scientific and local knowledge in the Danish national park process. In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 242–259. Maier, C., Lindner, T., Winkel, G., 2014. Stakeholders' perceptions of participation in forest policy: a case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land Use Policy 39, 166–176. Malovrh, Š.P., Nonić, D., Glavonjić, P., Nedeljković, J., Avdibegović, M., Krč, J., 2015. Private Forest owner typologies in Slovenia and Serbia: targeting private Forest owner groups for policy implementation. Small-Scale Forestry 14 (4), 423–440. Mårald, E., Sandström, C., Rist, L., Rosvall, O., Samuelsson, L., Idenfors, A., 2015. Exploring the use of a dialogue process to tackle a complex and controversial issue in forest management. Scand. J. For. Res. 30 (8), 749–756. Marta-Costa, A., Torres-Manso, F., Pinto, R., Tibério, L., Carneiro, I., 2016. Stakeholders' perception of forest management: a Portuguese mountain case study. Forest Syst. 25 (1), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2016251-08122. Newig, J., Kvarda, E., 2012. Participation in environmental governance: legitimate and effective? In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 29–45. Özturk, A., Türker, M.F., 2006. Determining demand priorities of various stakeholders regarding Forest goods and services in the context of sustainable forestry: a case study from Turkey. J. Appl. Sci. 6 (1), 43–46. Paletto, A., Hamunen, K., De Meo, I., 2015. Social network analysis to support stakeholder analysis in participatory Forest planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 28, 1108–1125. Papageorgiou, K., Kassioumis, K., Vakkas, M., 2012. The shift from hierarchy to governance in national park management: analysing participation, coordination and political commitment. In: Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 133–154. Pierre, J., Peters, B.G., 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Macmillan, London. Pregernig, M., Böcher, M., 2009. Expertise in European Environmental Governance: Social Dynamics and Challenges in the Interaction between Science and Politics, Paper Presented at the 9th Nordic Environmental Social Science Conference (NESS). MIMEO, London. Primmer, E., Kyllönen, S., 2006. Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. For. Policy Econ. 8 (8), 838–853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.01.002. Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., Frederiksen, P., 2011. Sustainability indicator development—science or political negotiation? Ecol. Indic. 11 (1), 61–70. Rantala, T., 2011. Democratic legitimacy of the forest sector and nature conservation decision-making in Finnish print media discussion. Silva Fennica 45 (1), 111–138. Rantala, T., 2012. Legitimacy of forest and nature conservation policy: a conceptual framework with illustrations. Scand. J. For. Res. 27 (2), 164–176. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141 (10), 2417–2431. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies 44 (4), 652–667. Rico, M., González, A., 2015. Social participation into regional forest planning attending to multifunctional objectives. Forest Policy Econ. 59, 27–34. Risse, T., 2004. Global governance and communicative action. Gov. Oppos. 39 (2), 288–313. Rojas-Briales, E., 2005. Decentralization and participation: key challenges for Mediterranean public forest policy. In: Merlo, M., Croitoru, L. (Eds.), Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value. CABI Publishing, pp. 373–390. Ruppert-Winkel, C., Winkel, G., 2011. Hidden in the woods? Meaning, determining, and practicing of “common welfare” in the case of the German public forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 130 (3), 421–434. Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., 2013. Science and politics in old-growth Forest conflict in upper Lapland. Nature and Culture 8 (1), 53–73. Schlyter, P., Stjernquist, I., Bäckstrand, K., 2009. Not seeing the Forest for the trees? The environmental effectiveness of Forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5–6), 375–382. Schulz, T., Lieberherr, E., Zabel, A., 2016. Network governance in national Swiss forest policy: balancing effectiveness and legitimacy. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/

12