No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this article, the development and operationalisation of forestry-wood chain indicators within the frame of sustainability impact assessment are discussed. The analytical framework follows a distinction between indicator definition and selection in a first phase, and a second operational phase of indicator application in terms of interconnecting material flows, calculation of chain performance and utilisation within evaluation components. A clear boundary drawing effort in terms of the development of indicator definitions, related subclasses, and measurement units as well as the creation of conversion factors between indicator values and individual chain stages supports this. Economic, social and environmental indicators have to respond to data collection needs on individual process levels (that correspond to sub-divisions of the forestry-wood chain). For the usage of indicators within evaluation tools, a functional hierarchy has to be provided that supports clear preference elicitation as well as information on related externalities. In total, this paper aims at demonstrating an enhanced spectrum in the use of sustainability indicators, and the challenges that arise from a developing and applying multi-functional indicators in sustainability impact assessment.

Context Achieving sustainable development as an inclusive societal process, and securing sustainability and resilience of human societies as well as the natural environment are wicked problems. Realising sustainable forest management (SFM) policy in local landscapes is one example. Objectives Using the European Union as a case study for the implementation of SFM policy across multiple governance levels in different contexts, we discuss the benefits of adopting an integrated landscape approach with place and space, partnership and sustainability as three pillars. Methods We map the institutional frameworks for implementing SFM policy within all EU member states. Next, we analyse whether or not there is EUlevel forest governance, and how power is distributed among EU, member state and operational levels. Results Mechanisms to steer a centralized forest governance approach towards SFM in the EU are marginal. Instead, there is a polycentric forest governance with 90 national and sub-national governments, which create and implement own and EU-wide SFMrelated policies. Additionally, both among and within regional governance units there is a large variation in governance arrangements linked to land ownership at the operational level. Conclusions To effectively translate EU-wide SFM and SFM-related policies into action in local landscapes, it is crucial to acknowledge that there are different land ownership structures, landscape histories and alternative value chains based on multiple ecosystem services. Therefore regionally adapted landscape approaches engaging multiple stakeholders and actors through evidence-based landscape governance and stewardship towards sustainable forest landscape management are needed. Model Forest, Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research platform and Biosphere Reserve are three of many examples. Keywords Ecosystem services Á European Union Á Land ownership Á Landscape history Á Region Á Value chain The authors stating that the contents represents only the authors' views.

No abstract