No abstract

No abstract

Forest ownership is changing in Europe. Reasons include recent institutional changes in Eastern Europe, changing lifestyles of non-agricultural owners and afforestation. At present, 7 there is little comparative analysis across Europe, and the implications that these changes 8 have for forest management and for the fulfilment and redefinition of policy objectives have 9 not been addressed systematically. This paper has been developed in the framework of a 10 European research network on forest ownership change, based on conceptual work, 11 literature reviews and empirical evidence from 28 European countries. It aims to provide an 12 overview of the state of knowledge, to discuss relevant issues and provide conceptual and 13 practical foundations for future research, forest management approaches, and policy making. 14 In particular, it discusses possible approaches for classifying forest ownership types and 15 understandings of "new" forest ownership. One important insight is that the division into 16 public and private forests is not as clear as often assumed and that an additional category of 17 semi-public (or semi-private) forms of forest ownership would be desirable. Another 18 recommendation is that the concepts of "new forest owners" vs. "new forest owner types" 19 should be differentiated more consciously. We observe that, in research and policy practice, 20 the mutual relations between forest ownership structure and policies are often neglected, for 21 instance, how policies may directly and indirectly influence ownership development, and 22 what different ownership categories mean for the fulfilment of policy goals. Finally, we 23 propose that better support should be provided for the development of new, adapted forest 24 management approaches for emerging forest owner types. Forest ownership deserves 25 greater attention in studies dealing with forest policy or forest management.

Despite the fact that the institutional environment is acknowledged to influence the implementation of regional adaptations of forest management to climate change, there are few empirical studies addressing the institutional factors and opportunities of adaptation. Using Ostrom's institutional analysis and development framework, we aimed to identify: (1) the critical and distinctive characteristics of the forest resource and institutional context that may determine how climate change-adaptive forest management measures are implemented and (2) the opportunities for implementing the planned adaptation measures. The analysis is performed on ten European case study regions which differed in many resource-dependent factors, policy arena factors and incentives for changes. The main factors influencing the adaptation are the ownership pattern, the level of policy formation and the nature of forest goods and services. Opportunities for adaptation are driven by the openness of the forest management planning processes to the stakeholders participation, the degree to which business as usual management is projected to be non-satisfactory in the future, and by the number and nature of obstacles to adaptation. Promoting local selfgovernance mechanisms and the participation of the Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The decisions and actions of private forest owners are important for the delivery of forest goods and services. Both forest ownership, and policies related to forest owners, are changing. Traditionally in most countries, government extension officers have advised and instructed forest owners, but this is evolving, with greater importance given to a range of actors, objectives, and knowledge types. Drawing on literature and mixed data from 10 countries in Europe, this paper explores how forestry advisory systems can be conceptualized, and describes their current situation in Europe. Drawing parallels with the concept of AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems), we propose the term FOKIS (FOrestry Knowledge and Information Systems), as both a system (a purposeful and interdependent group of bodies) and a method for understanding such systems. We define four dimensions for describing FOKIS: owners, policy goals, advice providers, and tools. We find different roles for extension in countries with centrally controlled, highly regulated forest management, and advisors in regions where forest owners have more freedom to choose how to manage their forest. We find five trends across Europe: increased flexibility, openness and participation of owners as sources of information; increasing reliance on information and persuasion rather than enforced compliance; a shift of attention from timber to a wider range of ecosystem services such as biodiversity and recreation; a shift of funding and providers from public to private sector; emergence of new virtual communication tools. The approach provides a way to make sense of comparisons and change in FOKIS, and opens up an important research field.