Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol Guest Editorial Research trends: Orchestrating forest policy-making: Involvement of scientists and stakeholders in political processes☆ 1. Background The term “orchestration” is predominately used in relation to studying or practicing music. Recently the term has also been used to describe the automated coordination and management of complex computer systems in order to make their service-oriented architecture and provisioning more efficient. Both terms conceptualize a process of different elements working together in an aligned way. This special issue addresses as well the question of how ‘elements’ work together, focusing on European forest governance and on the orchestration of stakeholders and experts in forest governance. During the last two decades, policy-making has shifted towards becoming a broader, more inclusive and encompassing process in comparison to conventional hierarchical governmental decision-making processes (e.g. Pierre and Peters, 2000; Rhodes, 1996). This shift towards governance implies governing within and through networks where public and non-state actors collaborate, form different coalitions and compete (Rhodes, 2007). Boundaries between and within public, private and civic actors have become considerably blurred because of this development. Furthermore, the role of scientific expertise has changed. Other forms of expertise have become increasingly relevant, including practitioners and laypersons expertise but also citizens’ science. Actors taking part in multi-level and cross-sectoral forest-related policy-making processes increasingly find themselves involved in complex situations. Situations where relationships are defined more contextually, no hierarchical order is dominating the scene and new actors from other sectors have more direct influence on decision-making processes. Participation of non-governmental actors and the inclusion of expertise are two key characteristics of the governance development in the last two decades. Both trends can be observed also in forest policy-making and have been investigated in forest policy research. Literature reviews about stakeholder participation have distinguished between different types and purposes of participatory processes (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000), described supportive tools (Hujala et al., 2013) and have given practical guidelines for successful participation of stakeholders (Appelstrand, 2002; Reed, 2008). While participation of non-governmental actors is meant to result in improved governance through for example enhanced social learning and reflexivity (Buttoud et al., 2011), it often fails due to institutional obstacles and political unwillingness (e.g. Cheng et al., 2011; Secco et al., 2011). Powerful actors can on the contrary make use of participatory processes for their own purposes and consolidation of power (Winkel and Sotirov, 2011). In governance settings a renegotiation of what should constitute valid knowledge is taking place when forestry expertise and knowledge are questioned by new actors and their expertise (Lawrence, 2009). Forest scientists have been found to play important roles in forest policy-making processes by for example selecting scientific information and translating scientific language to more accessible terminology (Nagasaka et al., 2016). Notably, there is a risk for scientification of politics if only experts are invited to take part in policy-making processes and a risk for politicization of science when politicians legitimatize their decisions by purposefully selecting scientific evidence to further their interests (Lund et al., 2009). Both cases put democracy at risk. Governance is always a political project where knowledge is not neutral (Grundmann, 2009). The two trends, participation of non-governmental actors and inclusion of expertise create options as well as challenges for democracy in forest policy making. More than that, some scholars perceive both developments as antagonistic (Fischer, 2009). He argues that the complexity of political issues seems to require specialised expert advice but suspects that professional expertise can also work “as a barrier to meaningful citizen participation” (ibid., p. 30). For a comprehensive understanding of the challenges of democracy in today’s forest governance, one needs to examine both the participation of stakeholders and citizens, and the inclusion of expertise in forest policy-making (Lund, 2015; Green and Lund, 2015). The current special issue integrates these two perspectives in a European forestry context. As the forest-based bioeconomy concept evolves in Europe, governmental approaches rather than governance are evident (Pülzl et al., 2017) and more citizen participation is called for (Mustalahti, 2017). Future developments are likely to build on already present structures and it is therefore of great importance to investigate current means and methods for the participation of stakeholders, citizens and experts in European forest policy-making processes. ☆ This article is part of a special issue entitled “Orchestrating forest policy making: Involvement of scientists and stakeholders in political processes” published at the journal Forest Policy and Economics 89C. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.003 1389-9341/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Guest Editorial 2. Objectives of the special issue The special issue is based on the results from the COST Action FP 1207 in forest policy named ORCHESTRA and the working group (WG) 3, dedicated to researching different pathways to better orchestrate forest-related policies in Europe. Researchers in WG 3 have been concerned with the different means for organizing a participatory policy process involving scientists and stakeholders. The special issue disseminates results from one literature review and ten case studies focusing on the following questions related to participatory forest-related governance: What are the most effective means for participatory forest-related policy processes involving scientists and stakeholders? What are efficient methodologies for developing, implementing and monitoring multi- stakeholder-based forest-related policies? Which factors hinder or support the establishment and implementation of effective participatory forest-related processes involving scientists and stakeholders? 3. Overview of the articles Orchestrating and participating – why, how and who? Kleinschmit, et al. (2018) provides insights from the European forest sector and orchestration in forest policy-making. Their literature review reveals the central role of orchestration through intermediaries and governance by participatory professionals in forest-related decision-making processes. They find that citizens are rarely involved to any substantial degree in these processes. Challenges and opportunities to involving experts, citizens, and participatory professionals Balest, et al. (this issue) analyses the participatory process adopted in the formulation of the second Czech National Forest Program. The different level of skills and knowledge among participants and the inadequate involvement of citizens proved to be the main weaknesses of the process. Brescancin, et al. (this issue) evaluate the level of participation in the implementation of Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. They find high levels of participation on national level and among public actors. However, the urgency of the implementation precluded more thoughtful participatory strategies especially on the local level. Kozová, et al. (this issue) assess the role of various stakeholders in the processes of participatory and network governance in urban forests in Slovakia. The authors find that the more stakeholders involved in a participatory process, the more difficult it is to reach consensual agreement regarding the success of the process. Positive effects on national level decision-making arriving from local level participation are found. Schulz, Lieberherr, & Zabel (this issue) in their study of Swiss forest-related network governance confirm that the forest policy network is well embedded in the already existing democratic process, but that the core of the network includes only a handful of actors, resulting in rather corporatist structures. Surprisingly, the actors from forest and wood economy interests, being well-connected on canton forest administration level, express having the least influence on the process. Stakeholders representing environmental interests are well networked on a national level and do not seem to need connections with other actors in the core network. Teder, & Kaimre (this issue) investigates stakeholders' interactions and satisfaction with their participation in the forest policy processes in Estonia, with special attention to the role of scientists. They find several shortcomings in the process such as poor facilitation by forestry officials and lack of analysis of arguments. Forestry scientists fail to integrate themselves as “honest brokers” in the policy process, resulting in their expertise being overlooked by policymakers. Analyzing forest policy-making processes Dragoi (this issue) evaluates a strategic decision for the state forest service in Romania by analyzing the decision-making process as an Analytic Network Process (ANP). Through surveys among landowners and villagers, the author gathers information about benefits, opportunities, costs and risks of an alternative forest management plan and finally constructs and evaluates two management scenarios for non-industrial private forests. Riedl, et al. (this issue) use media content analysis and the CIMO (Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome) logic as a framework to find out whether the media and the way of reporting the recent bark beetle calamity in Šumava National Park in Slovakia had an impact on the perception of the general public and forest policy decision-makers. They conclude that the media had a large influence and that foresters lost the conflict according to the public, as they were not able to successfully communicate their plans, design and solutions in the media. Development of participatory processes over time and future prospects Lindstad (this issue) analyses how participation changes over-time in relation to evolving policies. Based on two cases of forest-related policy processes in Norway, Lindstad concludes that participation in establishing new policy schemes attracts broader participation than modifications in existing systems, for example the regular revision of sustainable forest management standards. Tikkanen (this issue) finds a ”strategic turn” replacing the “participatory turn” in the evolution of regional forest programs in Finland. The turn could result in successful strategic decisions in the short-term, but the author warns of an increasing contradiction between the underlying rhetoric and practical policy actions. This can potentially cause frustration among participants of program processes that can come to question the existence of regional forest programs. Weber (this issue) identifies a decline of deliberative participatory processes on all levels in German forestry and a domination of participation through representation. This evolution of participatory approaches includes the involvement of a smaller number of interest groups as a kind of consultative participation instead of broad public participation. References Appelstrand, M., 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners. Forest Policy Econ. 4 (4), 281–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S13899341(02)00070-9. Balest, J., Hrib, M., Dobsinská, Z., Paletto, A., 2017. 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. Brescancin, F., Dobšinská, Z., De Meo, I., Šálka, J., Paletto, A., 2017. Analysis of stakeholders’ involvement in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.010. Buchy, M., Hoverman, S., 2000. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy Econ. 1 (1), 15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(00)00006-X. 2 Forest Policy and Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Guest Editorial Buttoud, G., Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud, I., Slee, B., Weiss, G., 2011. Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: Markets, policies and stakeholders. Forest Policy Econ. 13 (2), 124–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.006. Cheng, A.S., Danks, C., Allred, S.R., 2011. The role of social and policy learning in changing forest governance: An examination of community-based forestry initiatives in the U.S. Forest Policy Econ. 13 (2), 89–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.005. Dragoi, M., 2016. Joining or not joining non-industrial private forests into a single management unit: A case-study shaped as an Analytic Network Process. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.001. Fischer, F., 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lund, J.F., 2015. Paradoxes of participation: The logic of professionalization in participatory forestry. Forest Policy Econ. 60, 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.009. Green, K.E., Lund, J.F., 2015. The politics of expertise in participatory forestry: A case from Tanzania. Forest Policy Econ. 60, 27–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.012. Grundmann, R., 2009. The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5–6), 398–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.09.005. Hujala, T., Khadka, C., Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., 2013. Review. Supporting problem structuring with computer-based tools in participatory forest planning. For. Syst. 22 (2), 270–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2013222-03006. Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., Secco, L., Sergent, A., Wallin, I., 2018. Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.011. Kozová, M., Dobsinská, Z., Pauditsová, E., Tomcíková, I., Rakytová, I., 2016. Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016. Lawrence, A., 2009. Forestry in transition: Imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romania and Poland. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5–6), 429–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol. 2009.02.003. Lindstad, B.H., 2017. “What”s in it for me?’ - Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2017.01.003. Lund, D.H., Boon, T.E., Nathan, I., 2009. Accountability of experts in the Danish national park process. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5–6), 437–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008. 08.004. Mustalahti, I., 2017. The responsive bioeconomy: The need for inclusion of citizens and environmental capability in the forest based bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.132. Nagasaka, K., Böcher, M., Krott, M., 2016. Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes. Forest Policy Econ. 70, 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.006. Pierre, J., Peters, B.G., 2000. Governance, politics and the state. Macmillan, London. Pülzl, H., Giurca, A., Kleinschmit, D., Arts, B., Mustalahti, I., Sergent, A., Secco, L., Pettenella, D., Brukas, V., 2017. The role of forests in bioeconomy strategies at the domestic and EU level. In: Winkel, G. (Ed.), Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy – assessment and the way forward. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, 978-952-5980-42-4, pp. 36–51. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141 (10), 2417–2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: Governing without Government. Pol. Stud. 44 (4), 652–667. Rhodes, R.A.W., 2007. Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organ. Stud. 28, 1243–1264. Riedl, M., Hrib, M., Jarský, V., Jarkovská, M., 2016. Media analysis in a case study of Šumava National Park: A permanent dispute among interest groups. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.009. 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/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. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.forpol.2010.04.002. Teder, M., Kaimre, P., 2017. The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.007. Tikkanen, J., 2017. Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland’s regional forest programme process. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.009. Weber, N., 2017. Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany. Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol. 2017.04.002. 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. Ida Wallina,e,⁎, Helga Pülzlb, Laura Seccod, Arnaud Sergentc, Daniela Kleinschmita Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacherstr. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany b European Forest Institute – Central Eastern European Regional Office EFICEEC c/o Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria c National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, Bordeaux - UR ETBX 50, Avenue de Verdun, Gazinet, 33612 Cestas Cedex, France d Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, Viale Dell'Universita' 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy e Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden E-mail address: ida.wallin@ifp.uni-freiburg.de a ⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Freiburg, Forest and Environmental Policy, Germany. 3