EU forest governance: “We need capacity, data on the ground, and coordination” (F. Aggestam, Ramsar)

What is the idea behind your book, and the rationale for writing it?

I started looking at "transformative change" from a fairly sceptical perspective. Even though I use the term consistently throughout the book, it's also something of a buzzword, often used without much anchoring in reality. It appears constantly in policy documents and is frequently set out as a target, yet we rarely pin down what it actually means or how we get there.

This is also a continuation of a debate running for decades, arguably centuries, around the integrative use of natural resources, connecting to earlier concepts like sustainable development and sustainability transitions. I wanted to take a critical look at it, with colleagues examining different angles. The book's main output isn't really arguing for or against transformative change as a concept, it's about finding ways to analyse and understand it better.

What do you mean by “transformative change”, and what are the key elements needed to achieve it?

Transformative change is a fundamental change in how we manage, use and think about a natural resource. I focus on forests because they're such a messy environment, used for energy production, biodiversity, physical and mental wellbeing, climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration, and construction. So many sectors rely on this resource, and other resources aren't nearly as socially or culturally embedded. Transformative change in the forest sector implies a fundamental shift in how we look at, manage and perceive forests. It's very difficult to change a person's values, and transformative change is about managing to do exactly that.

I think the book's principal contribution is offering a different way of looking at transformative change. In the final chapter, I introduce what I call the "transformative change triangle". It's a simplification, but the core idea is that transformative change is less about any single element - policy instruments, power structures, and so on - and more about how these aspects of governance interact with one another. It's a more organic view, meant to help structure our understanding.

What is the state of European forest governance, and what role do regulations like the EUDR play in forest management?

In the European context, there's no common forest policy: it's based on subsidiarity, so member states aren't bound by what the Commission says on forestry, except in areas like trade, where a timber regulation gives it some competence. Otherwise, the EU relies on strategies and softer policy instruments. Regulations like the EUDR are tied to trade and traceability, where the Commission does have competence, but it can't dictate how forests should be managed. That's partly what causes fragmentation and uneven uptake nationally, since forestry sectors vary widely from North to South.

Countries with developed forestry sectors, common across northern and central Europe even where forestry isn't a major GDP contributor, aren't interested in the Commission dictating management. In the South, circumstances differ again. With the EU Forest Strategy, eastern European countries that joined in the early 2000s took up much of it nationally, a real uptake of what's essentially a soft instrument. Most other countries haven't done the same; they pick and choose what they implement. The EU agricultural policy also funds certain activities, but Member States decide what to actually do with that funding. The result is a fragmented picture, with very different governance systems from country to country.

What role does forest ownership play in this research?

Forest ownership is fundamental to transformative change, though the owner's role varies by national circumstances. If Turkey decides to manage forests a certain way, that decision will apply to 100 per cent of its forests, since it's all public. Conversely, Sweden, unlike any other European country, doesn't allow public financing of the private forest sector, wanting it to stay economically competitive rather than artificially propped up. Yet 80 per cent of Sweden's forests are privately owned, and if owners decide to act, they can, often faster than the public sector, while the state has relatively little control. But forest owners also tend to be more traditional in their view of stewardship, largely because these are families who have managed the same land for generations and see little reason to change.

What impact do you hope the book will have?

On the research side, I hope it contributes to the broader discussion around methods for analysing natural resource use. On the policy side, it's much harder, particularly at EU level, since many recommendations are unrealistic. In a perfect world, I think we need a common European forest policy, but having worked with member states for so long, I know it will never happen; there's simply no agreement.

I hope the book encourages people to act, particularly within the EU. I'm sometimes pessimistic, we're a bit like the boiling frog: conditions keep deteriorating, but our responses remain too slow and incremental. If the book has any impact, I hope it helps reinforce the urgency of the challenges we face and encourages policymakers to move beyond short-term responses and address the underlying drivers of change, particularly climate change. Ultimately, many of the pressures affecting Europe's forests will only intensify unless we address the underlying problem.

What recommendations, particularly at the EU policy level, do you and your contributors put forward?

I think transformative change is much the same thing as sustainability transition, sustainable development, or integrated natural resource use. The core element is integration, getting fragmented parts of a governance system to talk to each other. We need capacity, the data to understand what's happening on the ground, but also coordination. Perhaps shocks like this summer’s fires will change how people think and act, but it's too early to tell.

The book may be a little too research-focused, but there's a message for the policy world: the need for greater integration. On the Commission side, there's a fair amount of lip service paid to it; infrastructure and processes exist to manage forests more cohesively across Directorates General, but it's still siloed. If there's one thing we need, it's to break those silos down further. Inter-service processes exist where different DGs are supposed to hold effective dialogue, and I think they try, but then revert to working with separate instruments. If we're serious about becoming more transformative, those steps need to be taken more seriously.