How interest groups adapt to the
changing forest governance landscape
in the EU: A case study from Germany
NATALY JÜRGES AND JENS NEWIG
Published in Forest Policy and Economics 08/2014; 50. DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.015
Multi-level governance theory states that interest groups play an important role in decision-making
processes. However, the implications of the assumed trend from government to multi-level forest governance for interest groups have not been sufficiently examined. This paper examines the case of
German forest politics and studies the effects of the trend towards multi-level governance for forestrelated interest groups. The empirical analysis implies that interest groups are in an organizational
and/or strategic reconfiguration process in response to changes of the overall governance structure.
Different coping strategies among interest groups organized on multiple levels, and interest groups
organized on a single organizational level are observed. Many interest groups feel overwhelmed in
their attempt to understand and observe every level of action at the same time. Inequalities between the
ability of different interest groups to influence decision-making might be reinforced by the trend towards a multi-level governance structure.
Keywords: environmental groups, lobbying, non-governmental organization, participation
1 Introduction
Ongoing changes in forest governance are a subject of intense scientific debate. The increasing importance of new venues relevant for forest-related decision-making, and the fragmented
character of forest governance are important issues for forest policy analysis (e.g. Hogl 2000;
Weber and Christophersen 2002; Winkel and Sotirov 2011; Bjärstig 2013; Edwards and
Kleinschmit 2013; Giessen 2013)
In this context, the concept of multi-level governance is becoming increasingly important for
explaining forest policy processes in the European Union and its member states. The term
multi-level governance (MLG) implies that political systems are becoming more complex
with increasing numbers of involved actors and decision-making points (Benz 2006). Whereas “multi-level” implies that political processes link different vertical and horizontal political
structures because of interdependencies between different levels, “governance” refers to the
blurring differences between state and society in public policy (Benz 2006).
In this context, scholars of MLG have observed that state sovereignty has been partially transferred to non-state organizations (Bache and Flinders 2005a; Hassel 2010; Kooimann 2003;
Piattoni 2010; Scholte 2010). It is argued that modern society is too complex for state authorities to fully understand and deal with each problem in every political subsystem. As a result of
this complexity, non-state organizations now play a role in defining problems and proposing
policy solutions for them (Hassel 2010; Piattoni 2010). Non-state organizations are believed
to be important for processes of problem framing, agenda setting, and creation of images
about a certain issue (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Kooimann 2003).
1
While non-state organizations span a wide range of actors, this paper limits its scope to interest groups, defined here as organized groups with the aim to influence public policy without
seeking to attain political office themselves (Halpin 2010, p. 32). The increasing importance
of interest groups in decision-making is one of the core elements used to describe the trend
from government towards MLG; however, empirical research considering the implications of
this trend for different policy fields is lacking (Hassel 2010; Piattoni 2010).
In the context of forest politics, knowledge about the implications of the suggested trend towards MLG on forest-related interest groups remains insufficient (Hogl 2000). The increasing
internationalization and Europeanization of forest governance brings up questions about the
reactions of relevant interest groups that require empirical research to be answered (Hogl
2000; Bjärstig 2013). For example, questions about the challenges and opportunities of interest groups lobbying in a changed forest governance landscape (Weber and Christopersen
2002).
German forest politics can be characterized by a broad range of interest groups that differ substantially in their goals, strategies, organizational structure, and available resources. The effects of the apparent trend towards MLG on interest groups have not been sufficiently addressed.
In order to address this research gap, this paper examines how interest groups in Germany
react structurally and strategically to the alleged trend towards MLG. Specifically, two questions are addressed in this paper:
1. Does the trend towards MLG in forest governance influence the organizational structure of relevant interest groups?
2. How does the trend towards MLG in forest governance influence the lobbying strategy
of interest groups active in forest politics?
We begin by illustrating how ongoing changes in forest governance provide an empirical example for the apparent trend towards MLG. We also demonstrate how recent changes in
German forest governance differ from the theoretical assumptions about MLG. Next, two sets
of guiding hypotheses about the relationship between interest group structure and strategy
with governance structure are presented. These hypotheses are empirically tested for the case
of German forest politics. An analysis of 33 interviews with interest groups from Germany
provides evidence that interest groups are in a process of reconfiguration, and are gradually
adapting their organizational structure, and/or their strategy to suit the changing forest governance landscape.
Differences between interest groups organized into several administrative levels, and interest
groups organized in a single administrative level can also be observed. However, the newly
developed governance levels are not often used by interest groups as a strategy for venue
shopping; instead, interest groups feel overwhelmed when observing and considering the
fragmented forest governance landscape.
2 Is there a trend towards MLG in the German forest sector?
Based on the assumption that the policy sectors of less importance for national governments
are more likely to develop into MLG (Bache and Flinders 2005b), forest politics would be an
auspicious candidate for multi-level forest governance. However, ongoing changes in forest
governance only partially fit into the theoretical assumptions of MLG.
2
2.1 Increasing numbers decision‐making points in forest governance
Forest policy at the national level had been relatively weak originally, and a national forest
law was not enacted until 1975. The federal states (Bundesländer) were opposed to shifting
forest policy competences to the national level because forests were mainly seen as a local
issue, based on the high side specifity of forest ecosystems (Köpf 2002). Still, the main competences for forests have remained at the state level.
Since the beginning of the 1980s, a serious change has taken place in forest policy. Forests are
no longer seen as a regional policy field with a clear assignment to institutions, who view forests economically. Instead, the different economic, ecologic, and social functions of forests
have become the subject of an international discourse (Hellström and Welp 1996; Mann 1998;
Weber et al. 2000). This new framing was responsible for substantial changes in the institutional assignment of forests. Environmental ministries at state and federal levels have received
part of the competencies for the legal regulation of forests.
At the European level, forest policy was virtually absent before 1989, when the Standing Forestry Committee was established to enable information exchange and to provide consulting
for forest-related measures. From 1990 onwards, the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) took place six times as a pan-European political process to
create a shared understanding of sustainable forest use in Europe. In 2011, an intergovernmental Committee was established to negotiate a legally binding agreement for forests in Europe.
Compared to other policy fields, forest policies are still controlled largely by the member
states. Soft instruments with guideline character dominate the institutionalization at the European level (Tab. 1). However, linkages to other policy fields such as biodiversity protection
have made some parts of forest policies profoundly supranational (Edwards and Kleinschmit
2013). Even if forestry in general is not a major European policy field, some aspects of different directives have had substantial impact on forests in Germany. The development of the
Habitats Directive provides an example of how new venues have been used by some interest
groups to bypass national decision-makers and parts of the forest interest group landscape,
with mostly economic interests used to strengthen the conservation function of forests (Weber
and Christophersen 2002).
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio called for a discussion about international forest governance
(Brown 2001; Kunzmann 2008). This was described as an internationalization of forest policies. International forest policy processes with soft law instruments have been occurring for
more than twenty years, but there is no legally binding international agreement for forests
(Brown 2001; Davenport 2005). However, forests are often indirectly (but quite importantly)
addressed in other legally binding global treaties (Tab. 1) (Brown 2001; Rosendal 2001).
Level
Forest-related institutions
International
Legally-binding law
•
GATT/WTO (1947)
•
CITES (e.g. protection of orchids) (1975)
•
Ramsar Convention (protection of alluvial forests) (1975)
•
Convention on Biological Diversity (1993)
•
Climate Change Convention (1994)
•
World Heritage Convention (old growth German beech forests since 2011)
Soft instruments
•
World Charter for Nature (1982)
•
UNCED Forest Principles (1992)
•
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 (1992)
•
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (1993)
3
•
•
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) (1999)
Non-legally binding Instrument on all types of forests (2007)
EU
Legally-binding law
•
Birds Directive (1979)
•
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1985)
•
Habitats Directive/Natura 2000 (1992)
•
Water Framework Directive (2000)
•
Environmental Liability Directive (2004)
Soft instruments
•
Forest Strategy (1998)
•
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (2005)
•
Forest Action Plan (2006)
• The new EU forest strategy (2013)
Pan-European
(Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of
Forests in Europe
(MCPFE)/ Forest
Europe)
Soft instruments
•
General guidelines for sustainable forest management (1993)
•
General guidelines for conservation of biological diversity of forests in Europe (1993)
•
Pan-European Operational Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management (1998)
•
Sustainable Forest Management Criteria (1998 & 2003)
•
Pan-European Approach to National Forest Programs (2003)
•
Pan-European Guidelines for Afforestation and Reforestation (2008)
•
Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe (in negotiation since 2011)
Germany – National
Legally-binding law
•
Federal Nature Conservation Act (1976, replaced Nature Conservation Act of 1935)
•
Federal Hunting Law (1953)
•
Federal Water Act (1957)
•
Town and Country Planning Code (1960)
•
Federal Forest Act (1975)
•
Federal Regional Planning Act (1998)
•
Federal Soil Protection Act (1999)
•
Forest Reproductive Material Act (2002)
Soft instruments
•
National Forest Program (1999-2006)
•
Federal Government's "Wood Charter" (2004)
•
Forest Strategy 2020 (2011)
•
Forest Climate Fund (2012)
• Forest Status Reports (annually since 1984)
Joint task of the
Federal government and the
states
Soft instruments
•
Germany's Joint Task for the Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protection
(German abbreviation: GAK) (1969)
Germany – Federal State
Legally-binding law
•
Federal States Forest Acts
•
Federal States Regional Planning Acts
•
Federal States Hunting Laws
•
Federal States Water Laws
•
Federal States Town and Country Planning Codes
•
Federal States Development Plans
•
Forest Management Guidelines, Directives and Programs
Soft instruments
•
Position Papers and declarations of Forest Summits
•
Federal State Nature Conservation Strategies
•
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
•
Extension of state forest service to private forest owner
Germany – Regional / Local
Legally-binding law
•
Regional Development Plans
•
Regional Planning Programs
•
District/Land Development Plans
Soft instruments
•
Regional/ Local Strategy Paper
Table 1: Soft and legally-binding forest-related policies, guidelines, and instruments, compiled by the authors (Sources: Brown
2001; Krott 2001; Kunzmann 2008; Edwards and Kleinschmit 2013; Giessen 2013; Giessen et al. 2013).
4
Table 1 gives an overview of the fragmented forest governance landscape. Included are soft
and legally binding forest-related policies, guidelines, and instruments that impact forest area
use and management in Germany.
2.2 Blurring differences between state and society in forest governance
Two main trends in the relationship between state and society in forest governance can be
observed:
•
•
A trend towards involvement of interest groups in decision-making processes, although it is controversial.
The development of new modes of governance.
2.2.1 Involvement of non‐state actors in decision‐making
A changed zeitgeist has been reshaping forest policy since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992
(Rametsteiner 2009). Stakeholder involvement and participation were declared to be imperative for successful implementation of sustainable development, and gained enormous importance within forest policy making. The institutionalized inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making processes can be characterized as a shift towards a new mode of forest governance, differing distinctly from former top-down, exclusive governance modes (Appelstrand
2002; Pülzl and Rametsteiner 2002). The Rio Summit prompted the National Forest Programs
in Germany, and led many other countries across the globe to develop strategies for national
forest management with broad inclusion of interest groups (Pülzl and Rametsteiner 2002;
Winkel and Sotirov 2011).
Justifications for including interest groups in decision-making are based on three main arguments: 1) improvement of decision quality, 2) more successful implementation of decisions,
and 3) higher democratic legitimacy of decisions (Halpin 2010; Jordan and Maloney 2007;
Newig and Kvarda 2012; Pappila and Pölönen 2012). However, there is also a lot of skepticism surrounding whether or not interest groups can meet these normative expectations. Critics often complain that involvement of those interest groups without internal democracy does
not improve democratic quality in decision-making. However, it is also argued that internal
democracy is just one of many sources for interest group legitimacy. For example, further
sources of legitimacy might include membership size, victimhood, or expertise, among others
(Halpin 2010). Up to this point, it has not been possible to clearly confirm the empirical validity of these normative expectations because empirical studies examining the complex relationship between MLG and participation are rare (Newig and Fritsch 2009).
Additionally, the legitimacy of these developments has also been questioned because stakeholder organizations involved in participatory processes are usually “neither democratically
authorized nor accountable to the population” (Elsasser 2007, p. 1018). Forest policy has a
reputation for being a conservative policy field, which might explain why participatory processes were hesitantly implemented (Pülzl and Rametsteiner 2002).
Interest groups have gained substantial importance in representing citizens; their membership
tops the membership of political parties. Ongoing professionalization, the need to fundraise,
as well as the inclusion in the political process changed the character of groups engaging in
forest policies. During the last years interest groups have become more professional, but at the
same time the decision-making within organizations has become less democratic because it is
often limited to a small group of professionals, which has made the legitimacy of interest
group involvement more vulnerable to criticism (Markham 2008; Maloney and Jordan 2007).
5
The transfer of state power to non-state actors varied between different vertical and functional
levels of forest governance (Tab. 1). On supranational levels, soft instruments dominated forest governance, which were often crafted in participatory processes. On national and subnational levels, interest groups were less important for the creation of rules, but still important
for the framing of discourses, and the creation of images among the general public (Kooiman
2003).
2.2.2 Development of new modes of governance
With the establishment of the “Forest Stewardship Council” (FSC) in 1993, a new mode of
governance was introduced in forest policy. Environmental groups established their own regulatory institution to govern forest management by introducing a voluntary certification scheme
which promised higher timber prices and a sustainable image for the commitment to the criteria of the FSC (Pattberg 2005; Roberge et al. 2011). As a response to FSC, European representatives of forestry and timber industries launched the “Programme for the Endorsement of
Forest Certification Schemes” (PEFC) in 1999. Subsequently, there was considerable conflict
between environmental interest groups and forest and timber industry interest groups over
which scheme would be the most appropriate way to certify forests during the first decade of
the 21st century (Gulbrandsen 2004).
2.3 Particularities of the trend towards MLG in forest governance
Ongoing changes in forest governance can be conceptualized as a trend towards MLG, but
forest governance is not an empirical exemplar for the assumed trend towards MLG. Although there is some evidence that confirms the theoretical assumptions about MLG, there are
also some important empirical differences among the changes in the forest governance landscape.
The observed changes in forest governance have had a different starting point. Meanwhile,
MLG is described as process that starts at the national level of the sovereign state. Forest policies in Germany emerged at the federal state level and were moved during the last decades
partly to the national and supranational levels. However, the subnational level is still important for the regulation of forests because the most detailed regulations with binding characteristics are still located at the federal state level, while new venues have a mostly additive
function.
Furthermore, the causes of increasing MLG are described as the result of internationalization,
Europeanization, and the return of society (Piattoni 2010), but MLG in in forest governance is
much more a result of re-framing and new actor constellations. Although some up-scaling
processes towards European and international levels are observable, these processes are not at
the core of the increasing fragmentation in forest governance. Shifts in competence and interplay between competing functional levels (especially with regard to environmental and nature
conservation policies) are more important sources of fragmentation than up-scaling processes.
3 Hypotheses about forest interest groups in a changing governance
landscape
Based on a literature review of interest groups and multi-level governance, this section identifies two main assumptions about the relationship between interest groups and the trend towards MLG in the forest sector. These will be identified and elaborated upon, followed by an
explanation of the methodology, and finally, the results of the empirical examination will be
explained.
6
3.1 Interdependency of interest group organization and governance struc‐
ture
It has been argued that changing governance structures to a multi-layered system are then
mirrored by the structures of interest group organizations (Hassel 2010; Lehmbruch 2003;
Mahoney and Baumgartner 2008; Scholte 2010). Interest groups acknowledge the necessity to
form, or to join groups at the European level (Jordan 2002). Therefore, it is expected that forest-related interest groups adapt to the increasing importance of supranational levels by expanding their organizational structure to fit them.
H1a. Interest groups mirror the structure of the political system, and reconfigure when there
are changes in state structure and supranational levels.
The opposite assumption of H 1a would be:
H1b. Interest groups stick to their organizational structure, and do not change their structure
when there are changes in state structure and supranational levels.
3.2 Interdependency of interest group strategy and governance structure
In multilayered states interest groups need different strategies than in single layer decisionmaking systems (Wilson 1990). The concept of venue shopping assumes that interest groups
choose strategically between different political venues to maximize the chances of their interest realization (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). If an interest group considers it advantageous,
the topic of interest is often transferred to the EU-level agenda, rather than letting the topic
remain at the domestic level (Baumgartner 2007; Princen 2007).
H2a. Interest groups use the multilayered structure of the political system strategically for
level shopping.
However, it is also argued that interest groups should focus their work on the governance level in which they feel most likely to influence decision-making, which is not necessarily the
level that would be most effective for realizing their interests (Piattoni 2010). Since interest
groups do not possess complete information about every governance level, the choice of an
action level is also thought of as experimental and uncertain (Pralle 2003). The spontaneous
and experimental character of venue selection has been previously observed in the Canadian
forest sector, where a learning process of the involved interest groups, which lasted many
years, led to the development of a venue shopping strategy in a conflict over the priorities of
forest management (Pralle 2003). Interest groups do not focus exclusively on the attainment
of their political goals. Furthermore, they have to consider the emotions of their members and
donors, and need to sustain their reputation in the public (Roose 2003).
H2b. Interest groups do not focus on the decision-making level with the highest chances of
interest realization, but instead, on levels with which they are familiar with, or for which they
have inter-organizational reasons; for example interest group image or fundraising strategies.
4 Methods
The following findings are based on 33 expert interviews with 35 interviewees.1 Interest
groups were identified based on a web search, participant lists of forest-related events, and
1
The data used for this paper were partly collected in the research project CC-LandStraD, funded by the Federal
Ministry for Education and Research (Grant no.01LL0909A; Duration: 11/2010-10/2015). In total, 8 interviews
were conducted in the context of CC-LandStraD; 25 interviews were conducted and financed by the Lüneburg
Innovation Incubator project, sub measure 1.4.
7
previous studies related to the German forest sector (Mann 1998; Memmler and Schraml
2008).
4.1 The case of the forest interest group landscape in Germany
Current forest politics are characterized by a strong opposition between forest-related interest
groups with ecological interests, and groups with economic interests (Winkel and Sotirov
2011). Historically, in Germany, the clear priority of forest management has been wood production (Hellström and Welp 1996). Ecological and social benefits were regarded as a byproduct of forestry (Rupf 1961). This framing of forest functions was supported by the forestry and timber industry interest groups, which dominated forest politics until the 1980s. New
topics, such as dieback, led to increased involvement of environmental groups in the policy
field. Furthermore, new interest groups were established, which put the ecological forest concerns at the center of their work. Consequently, environmental groups increasingly took part
in discussions regarding forest management (Hellström and Welp 1996; Humphreys 2004;
Mann 1998; Weber et al. 2000). However, groups with ecological interests specific to forests
are not necessarily homogenous. There are often fundamental differences in their goals, belief
systems, strategies, and in the social structure of their membership. Whereas some environmental interest groups try to influence forest policy in a confrontational matter by organizing
citizen protests or taking the state to court, other established environmental groups have chosen a more cooperative role in the dialogue with interest groups from forestry and timber industries, as well as state officials (Markham 2008). Interest groups that represent social aspects of forest area use are poorly integrated in existing networks (Hofmann et al. 2000).
Many recreationists are not even organized in official interest groups; they exist only as a
loose network, sometimes organized by a shared website.
4.2 Data collection and analysis
The interviewee selection considered the previously described, highly diverse interest group
landscape. The identified interest groups were categorized into eight thematic groups, based
on their main interest in forests. Within these thematic groups, interest groups (sections) were
categorized according to the governance level on which they are organized (Tab. 2).
Actor categories
Number of interviewees
Forestry (National level)
4
Forestry (Federal state level)
2
Timber industries (National level)
2
Environment and Nature Conservation (National level)
4
Environment and Nature Conservation (Federal state level)
5
Environment and Nature Conservation (Local level)
2
Forestry employees (National level)
1
Certification (National level)
2
Hunting (National level)
2
Recreational landscape User (National level)
3
Recreational landscape User (Federal state level)
3
Recreational landscape User (Local level)
2
Renewable energies (National level)
3
Total number of interviewees
35
Table 2: Interviewee selection
Interviewee sampling began by choosing an interviewee from each thematic category and
continued with choosing further interest groups by considering their goals, strategies, organi8
zational structure, thematic scope, member structure, and their normative values until data
saturation was reached.
21 interviewees were selected from the national level. In two federal states, Lower Saxony
and Rhineland-Palatinate, interviewees were selected from subnational level. 10 interviewees
were selected from the state level and four interviewees from the local level.
The interviews on the national level were conducted from the end of 2011 through 2012, and
the interviews at federal state and local level were conducted in 2013.
Interviews were relatively open, but followed a common interview guide. Interviewees were
asked, amongst others things, how they experience ongoing forest governance processes, how
they see their opportunities to influence forest-related decision-making, and to what extent
European or international processes are important for their work.
Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. All interviewees agreed to the taping of the
interviews, which were later transcribed. All interviewees were ensured that their responses
would remain anonymous in order to allow an open dialogue. The material was analyzed via a
computer-supported content analysis. The coding manual was based on the presented assumptions regarding the relationship of state structure, and interest groups structure and strategy.
Additional case study evidence such as interest group websites, statues, and/or brochures were
also used to complement the understanding about the structures and strategies of the selected
interest (sub) groups.
5 Results and Discussion
Following the initially presented hypotheses about the relationship of a changing forest governance structure, and the organizational structure and strategy of interest groups, the data has
illustrated that interest groups are in an organizational and strategic reconfiguration process in
response to the changing forest governance landscape.
5.1 Interdependency of interest group organization and governance struc‐
ture
The selected interest groups can be categorized into those groups with a single administrative
level, and interest groups with a federal, multi-level, administrative structure. These two
groups differed in their organizational reactions to the changes in forest governance structure.
Interest groups only organized on one administrative level (at national level or at subnational
level) stuck to the single-level structure, and did not adapt organizationally to the increasing
importance of supranational venues.
However, most forest-related interest groups are organized on at least two (and sometimes
multiple) levels. Within Germany at the national and at the state level, larger interest groups
are also often organized at the district and the community level. Typically, the exchange between different levels within an organization was only loose, given the high independence of
the state sections from the national offices of organizations.
The reasons for the organizational multi-level structure of interest groups differed; transaction
costs of coordination and communication between different levels are an important factor, but
democratic motivations to empower grassroots units within the organizational structure are
also important. Additionally, interest group tradition or the recognition of the importance of
local, site-specific conditions should be dealt with at the local level.
Interest groups with a division of labor spread between several levels mostly extended this
organizational structure to supranational levels. Federally organized interest groups often be9
came members of a European network or umbrella organization. Thereby, they mirror the
different levels of decision-making in their organizational structure, and only added another,
mostly independent, working unit to their organizational structure.
A slight shift of activities towards the European level was observable, but for the daily work
of most interviewed interest group members, the European level was of low priority. Some
interest groups believed it was unnecessary to become involved in EU politics because forestry is the responsibility of the member states. Some other groups have recently started to form
European offices to become more involved in European policy processes, however, due to
financial restrictions, not every organization was able to do so. For some smaller interest
groups, run mostly by volunteers, the English working language and the complex decisionmaking structures were described as barriers to becoming involved in European policy processes. An interviewee stated that it was impossible for her interest group to focus on European forest politics because all of their activities were based on honorary work, and the group
did not even have a staffed office in Germany.
Thus, the transition to MLG has not only changed the state, but also the power structure of
interest groups and the overall interest group landscape as well. Some interest groups became
more influential during the MLG transition, while others lost influence or became almost
completely excluded from new, relevant venues. The phenomenon of changing actor choreographies is related to the literature on rescaling and the effects of jumping scales, which states
that re-scaling processes are not neutral in regard to actor constellations (Swyngedouw 2005).
The increasing importance of structural adaptations in the pan-European and EU processes for
forest policies is still ongoing. Interviewees indicated that it might be possible that the increasing necessity to negotiate at the European level will result in many interest groups joining forces in order to deal with a lack of financial resources. Therefore, further changes in the
forest interest group landscape can be expected in response to ongoing fragmentation of forest
governance.
5.2 Interdependency of interest group strategy and governance structure
The fragmented governance landscape offers different strategic opportunities for forestrelated interest groups:
•
•
•
Venue shopping between competing functional levels (e.g. between environmental and
forestry decision-making points),
Vertical venue shopping within Germany (e.g. between district, state, and national
levels),
Vertical venue shopping including EU and pan-European levels.
The extent to which these strategies are used by interest groups in forest governance differs.
Whereas functional venue shopping was part of the strategy of all interviewed interest groups;
vertical venue shopping was less well established. Important differences were identified between interest groups organized in a multi-level structure, and interest groups organized in a
single-level administrative structure. Interest groups organized in a multi-level structure often
extended their structure to an additional level, but other organizational units scarcely utilized
the newly available venues. In contrast, interest groups organized in a single-level administrative structure were more open to venue shopping at different vertical venues. However, some
single-level interest groups also limited their activities to their specific level of organization
because they believed their reason for existing was based on an issue that was limited to a
specific venue.
The development of an interest group relies on a process of niche creation. During this process, the interest group must develop their image and their own unique features in order to
10
successfully recruit new members and solicit donations. Thus, activities at new venues and
on new levels are not always compatible with the strategies used by each interest group. Even
if the achievement of political goals might be more likely on other levels, some groups stick
to the venues with which they are most familiar with because of intra-organizational reasons.
5.2.1 Venue shopping between competing functional levels
Competing functional levels were perceived, by most interest groups, as an opportunity to
choose the most promising venue for lobbying activities. Additionally, many saw it as an
opportunity to shape discourses regarding the general priorities of forests.
Interest groups initiated discussions about the priorities of sustainable forest management by
using certain expressions, which often included an indirect judgment about the priorities of
forest use, and the opinions of interest groups about which competing functional unit forests
should be assigned to. Forestry organizations preferred the term “forestry policies” (Forstpolitik) to describe the human influence on forests, while environmental organizations typically
used the expression, “forest policies” (Waldpolitik) to emphasize forests as part of ecosystems.
Interest groups strategically utilized the overlapping forest-related responsibilities of the ministries of agriculture for the environment at the state and national levels, and their subordinate
agencies, such as the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, in order to improve their
chances of having their interests heard. Interest groups demanded increased competencies
from the Ministry with whose goals they were most in line, in order to improve their chances
to promote their own ideas about sustainable forest use.
“What I think would be really important to consider, is how competences about forests
could be changed. It is unacceptable that the Ministry of Agriculture is in charge of
implementing Natura-2000 in forests […] therefore, we would be in favor of forest issues becoming the complete responsibility of the Ministry for Environment. Forests
are an issue related to the general wellbeing of a society, and are less about the economic interests of single companies.”
[Employee of an Environmental Organization at the national level]
The arguments in favor of a specific functional level were not only limited to national and
subnational levels, but also included supranational processes:
“We are against an international convention on forests because with the CBD and the
UNFCCC we have sufficient international regulation of forests. The problem is that
forestry and timber industries try everything to prevent the implementation of these
conventions. We have to implement existing conventions instead of creating new
ones.”
[Employee of an Environmental Organization at the national level]
Environmental policies were most often mentioned as an important competing functional level on which interest groups lobby in order to influence decision-making regarding forest areas. However, climate and energy policies were also seen as increasingly important venues.
5.2.2 Vertical venue shopping within Germany
In comparison to the strategic options of functional MLG at one governance level, the vertical
MLG dimension was less often mentioned as an option for venue shopping. Additionally, the
important differences between different organizational types of interest groups were identified.
11
When interest group chapters were part of larger groups that are organized on several, mostly
independent vertical levels, they tended to work on the governance level in which they were
organized. Lobbying activities on other levels were often seen as being outside the competence of interest groups chapters. This finding is also related to the level of professionalization
of interest groups. When an interest group employee is hired for a certain subsection of the
overall groups, they are then contractually bound to acting on that particular level, which prevents them from utilizing venue shopping strategies, even within Germany.
However, the interview findings indicate that the less formally and less professionally organized interest groups were more likely to try out other vertical venues because they don’t have
to worry about interfering with other, higher level, chapters of their group. Interest groups
with shorter organizational histories that are run mainly on voluntary work were more flexible
in their venue choice, and more willing to experiment with new venues if they could not
achieve their goals at another venue.
5.2.3 Venue shopping on EU and pan‐European levels
Interest groups that had forest interests that were mainly economic, ecological and/or recreational in nature had different opinions about the increasing importance of the EU. Environmental and recreational interest groups acknowledged that EU legislation resulted in improved forest and landscape protection at the national and subnational levels, mainly because
of Natura-2000. Therefore, most representatives of these groups saw the changing forest governance landscape as a positive development.
“EU-regulations are a great thing; you can achieve much more with them if you want
to stop something!”
[Speaker of a local environmental organization]
“Take for example, the protection of forests in Natura-2000. Forests might not get
this special protection without Europe, I could imagine. […]. On a state level you
have to consider the economic interests of forestry much more.”
[Employee of an environmental organization at the state level]
Most interviewees of forestry and timber industries agreed on the importance of considering
local forest conditions in decision-making. Thus, shifts to higher governance levels were often
perceived as infeasible. Nonetheless, interviewees agreed that EU legislation has caused serious conflicts regarding forest area use. Some interviewees from forestry mentioned also mentioned the Habitats Directive as an example of how the EU has impacted forest management.
“The Habitats Directive was implemented at the European level, and in the member
states nobody noticed, and after it finally reached us, the political outcry was huge.”
[Employee of a forestry interest group at the national level]
Interest groups with economic interest in forests felt that the changing forest governance landscape was mostly disadvantageous when it came to protection of their interests. However,
they also felt that they were powerless to stop the increasing importance of new functional
and vertical venues, which would affect forest management in Germany:
“Europe plays a big role because we cannot escape from it, at the national level as at
the state level we have to obey to the Habitats Directive […] we cannot get out of it.”
[Forest owner representative at the state level]
12
Surprisingly, these different opinions about the changing governance landscape did not result
in different levels of involvement at the pan-European and the EU-level. Although they
acknowledged the positive developments in forest protection based on EU-legislation, some
environmental groups and most recreational groups chose to stick to the national or subnational levels. Most interviewees felt that European policy processes should be monitored at
the European level, but only a few interest groups extensively exchanged information with
their European network organizations regarding recent developments.
“We do not have the manpower to work in ongoing processes at the European and international level. Even if the EU is planning a forest strategy and the Habitats Directive will be on the agenda again, we have very few capacities. Therefore, we also
have this collaboration with different organizations in our umbrella organization at
the EU-level, so we exchange with them about these processes.”
[Employee of a nature conservation interest group on national level]
Meanwhile, some interest groups from forestry are increasingly transferring resources and
attention to the EU-level, even though they have been critical of the increasing importance of
the EU in matters involving forestry. One forest owner representative argues that even if they
do not like recent developments of forest governance they can no longer ignore them. Therefore, his interest group has decided to behave more proactively in their involvement at the
EU-level in order to prevent worst-case scenarios for their interests.
Although most interviewees agreed that the European level is becoming increasingly important for forest policy, and that they are trying to become involved in European umbrella
organizations in order to find out information about recent developments, the European level
was not mentioned as an opportunity to bypass national or subnational decision-makers. Decision-making processes at the EU-level were typically seen as being too complex for active
involvement.
In cases of close collaboration with the respective European network or umbrella organization, personal linkage to the staff in the Brussels offices was an important factor for the success of coordination. If staff members of European organizations had an additional function
on the national level, the cooperation was much closer than in cases without such a personal
overlap.
The activities of forest-related interest groups on multiple levels can be essentially described
as fumbling through different levels, instead of strategically choosing venues. The low involvement of less organized forest-related interest groups was further reinforced at the European level due to lack of financial resources, and lower levels of professionalization, which
hampered their participation in European forest networks. However, knowledge and personal
contacts partly compensated for these lacking financial resources.
Interest groups that were organized on several administrative levels were especially trapped
inside their organizational structure. In these situations, they were not able to spontaneously
adapt to the sometimes-intersecting character of a multi-level system. An example is the implementation of the Habitats Directive, which includes interaction between European, national, and federal state levels. In terms of lobbying success, it might be more effective to utilize a
task-specific unit to work on the Habitats directive, rather than dividing the task among various territorial levels within the interest group organization.
Some interviewed interest groups were more experienced than others when it came to functioning in the newly available venues at the European level, especially large nature and environmental groups. This is likely because they were also engaging in other policy fields,
whose competences have also shifted to the European level. Whereas some interest groups
13
recognized and tried to capitalize upon new political opportunities available because of the
shift to MLG, others seemed overwhelmed by the complexity of the MLG system they have
become a part of, and have not yet developed successful strategies to be successful players in
this multi-level system. This strategic learning and reconfiguration process is still ongoing,
and may result in changing power structures in the interest group landscape of forest governance.
7 Conclusions
This paper has examined interest groups in MLG by examining the interest groups engaging
in German forest politics. How interest groups have reacted organizationally and strategically to the
trend towards MLG in forest politics has been illustrated.
The reactions of interest groups towards MLG are independent from their main interest in
forests. That is, no systematic differences in adaption patterns between ecologic, recreational,
or economic oriented interest groups were observable. Forest governance as a policy field is
often characterized by a strong dichotomy between actors with ecological and economic interests. Interestingly, this dichotomy turned out to be less important when it comes to reconfiguration processes in response to changes of the overall forest governance landscape; even
though this dichotomy often led to valuable insights (e.g. Winkel and Sotirow 2011; Weber
and Christophersen 2002; Hogl 2000). Previously, a study from the Swedish forest sector
showed that economically oriented interest groups in particular, have finally started to react to
the ongoing changes of the overall forest governance landscape (Bjärstig 2013). This examination of the German forest sector has confirmed this finding, and also shows that environmentally oriented groups are no longer at the forefront when it comes to using newly available
decision-making points of forest governance, as was described a decade ago (Weber and
Christophersen 2002).
Although most interest groups are reconfiguring in response to the trend towards multi-level
forest governance to some extent, interest groups engaging in forest governance are far from
achieving complex multi-level strategies. While some interest groups link successful forest
policies with related policy fields, such as climate protection or biodiversity policies, and then
frame their interests in forests in the context of other functional and vertical venues, other
interest groups still focus mostly on forestry policies at their habitual national or subnational
level. Interest groups have experienced an increase in functional and vertical levels on which
forest-related decision-making takes place. There is some evidence that the German interest
groups examined here are experiencing a learning process in order to be successful in a
changed, multi-level forest governance landscape. The different tools and strategies utilized
by interest groups in order to influence forest policies may sometimes work differently depending on the specific level, and many interest groups still need to develop their strategies
for effective participation in European policy making (Hassel 2010).
The explanation for the different reactions of interest groups towards the increasing importance of new functional (e.g. climate policies) and vertical levels (pan-European and EU
processes) seems to be a combination of different factors. An identified factor that appears to
be important in determining the strategic reactions to the changing governance landscape was
the organizational structure of the interest group. However, the causal relations between interest group characteristics and interest group reconfiguration in response to the trend towards
MLG are not yet clear, and require further research. Furthermore, for forest-related interest
groups, the process of adapting strategically and organizationally to the ongoing changes in
forest governance is still underway. Future studies should continue to examine the implications of increasing MLG in forest governance, and should also observe the opportunities that
14
interest groups have to influence forest related decision-making as a consequence of increasing MLG.
References
Appelstrand, M., 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and
policy practitioners. Forest Policy and Economics 4, 281–290.
Bache, I., Flinders, M. 2005a. Themes and Issues in Multi-level Governance. In: Bache, I.,
Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-level Governance. Oxford University Press. Oxford, pp. 1-11.
Bache, I., Flinders, M. 2005b. Conclusions and Implications. In: Bache, I., Flinders, M.
(Eds.), Multi-level Governance. Oxford University Press. Oxford, pp. 195- 206.
Baumgartner, F., Jones, B., 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of
Chicago Press. Chicago.
Baumgartner, F., 2007. EU LOBBYING: A VIEW FROM THE US. Journal of European
Public Policy 14(3), 482-488.
Benz, A., 2006. Governance im Mehrebenensystem. In: Folke Schuppert, G. (Ed.), Governance-Forschung : Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. Nomos. BadenBaden.
Beyers, J., Kerremans, B., 2007. Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of
domestic interest groups. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (3), 460-481.
Beyers, J., Kerremans, B. 2012. Domestic Embeddedness and the Dynamics of Multilevel
Venue Shopping in Four EU Member States. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration, and Institutions 25 (2), 263–290.
Bjärstig, T., 2013. The Swedish forest sector’s approach to a formalized forest policy within
the EU. Forest Policy and Economics 26, 131-137.
Brown, K., 2001. Cut and run? Evolving institutions for global forest governance. Journal of
International Development 13, 893-905.
Davenport, D.S., 2005. An Alternative Explanation for the Failure of the UNCED Forests
Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 5 (1), 105-130.
Edwards, P., Kleinschmit, D., 2013. Towards a European forest policy - Conflicting courses.
Forest Policy and Economics 33, 87-93.
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 and
Economics 9, 1018–1030.
Giessen, L., 2013. „Fragmentierung" als Schlüsselfaktor des internationalen Waldregimes:
von einem mono- zu einem multi-disziplinären methodischen Rahmen für eine vertiefte
Forstpolitikforschung. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 184 (3-4), 47-57.
Giessen, L., Hubo, C., Krott M., Kaufer, R., 2013. Steuerungspotenziale von Zielen und Instrumenten des Politiksektors Forstwirtschaft und deren möglicher Beitrag zu einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung ländlicher Regionen. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 36 (3),
261-291.
Gulbrandsen, L., 2004. Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification
Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime? Global Environmental Politics 4 (2), 75-99.
15
Halpin, D., 2010. Groups, Representation and Democracy. Manchester University Press.
Manchester/New York.
Hassel, A., 2010. Multi-level governance and organized interests. In: Enderlein, H. (Ed.)
Handbook on multi-level Governance. Elgar. Cheltenham, pp. 153-167.
Hellström, E., Welp, M., 1996. Environmental Forest Conflicts in Germany. From National to
International Concern. European Forest Institute, Working Paper 11.
Hofmann, F. et al., 2000. Waldnutzung in Deutschland: Bestandsaufnahme, Handlungsbedarf
und Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung des Leitbildes einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung. MetzlerPoeschel. Stuttgart.
Hogl, K., 2000. The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the
globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 3-13.
Humphreys, D., 2004. Redefining the Issues: NGO Influence on International Forest Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 4 (2), 51-74.
Jordan, G., Maloney, W., 2007. Democracy and interest groups. Enhancing participation?
Palgrave Macmillan. Houndmills.
Jordan, A., 2002. Environmental Policy in the European Union: actors, institutions and processes. Earthscan. London.
Köpf, E., 2002. Forstpolitik. Ulmer. Stuttgart.
Kooimann, J., 2003. Governing as Governance. Sage. London/Thousand Oaks /New Delhi.
Krott, M., 2001. Politikfeldanalyse Forstwirtschaft - Eine Einführung für Studium und Praxis.
Parey. Berlin.
Kunzmann, K., 2008. The Non-legally Binding Instrument on Sustainable Management of All
Types of Forests – Towards a Legal Regime for Sustainable Forest Management? German
Law Journal 9, 981-1006.
Lehmbruch, G., 2003. Das deutsche Verbändesystem zwischen Unitarismus und Föderalismus. In: Mayntz, R., Streek, W. (Eds.), Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie. Innovationen
und Blockaden. Campus. Frankfurt/New York, pp. 259 - 288.
Mahoney, C., Baumgartner, F., 2008. Converging Perspectives on Interest Group Research in
Europe and America, West European Politics, 31 (6), 1253-1273.
Mann, S.-H., 1998. Konflikte in der deutschen Forstwirtschaft – Konflikttheoretische Analyse
der forstpolitischen Diskussion über die Krise der Forstwirtschaft. Shaker. Aachen
Markham, W., 2008. Environmental Organizations in Modern Germany. Hardy Survivors in
the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Monographs in German History. Volume 21. Berghahn
Books. Oxford/New York.
Memmler, M., Schraml, U., 2008. Bericht über die Analyse relevanter Akteure der Waldpolitik in Deutschland im Rahmen des Projekts Zukünfte und Visionen Wald 2100. Online:
www.ioew.net/downloads/downloaddateien/Waldzukuenfte_Akteurslandkarte.pdf, accessed
20.05.2014.
Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-Level – and
Effective? Environmental Policy and Governance 19, 197-214.
Newig, J., Kvarda, E., 2012. Participation in environmental governance: legitimate and effective? In: Hogl, K. et al., Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham/Northampton, pp. 29-45.
16
Pappila, M., Pölönen, I., 2012. Reconsidering the role of public participation in the Finnish
forest planning system. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27 (2), 177-185.
Pattberg, P., 2005. The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and Potential of Private Forest Governance. The Journal of Environment and Development 14 (3), 36-374.
Piattoni, S., 2010. The theory of multi-level governance: conceptual, empirical, and normative
challenges. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Pralle, S., 2003. Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy. Journal of Public Policy 23, 233-260.
Princen, S., 2007. Agenda-setting in the European Union: a theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy 14(1), 21-38.
Princen, S., Kerremans, B., 2008. Opportunity Structures in the EU Multi-Level System. West
European Politics 31 (6), 1129-1146.
Pülzl, H., Rametsteiner, E., 2002. Grounding international modes of governance into National
Forest Programmes. Forest Policy and Economics 4, 259-268.
Rametsteiner, E., 2009. Governance Concepts and their Application in forest Policy Initiatives
from Global to Local Levels. Small-scale Forestry 8, 143-158.
Roberge, A. et al., 2011. The Gap Between Theory and Reality of Governance: The Case of
Forest Certification in Quebec (Canada). Society and Natural Resources, 24, 656–671.
Roose, J., 2003. Die Europäisierung von Umweltorganisationen. Die Umweltbewegung auf
dem langen Weg nach Brüssel. Westdeutscher Verlag. Wiesbaden.
Rosendal, K., 2001. Overlapping International Regimes. The Case of the Intergovernmental
Forum on Forests (IFF) between Climate Change and Biodiversity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1, 447-468.
Rupf, H., 1961. Wald und Mensch im Geschehen der Gegenwart. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift
– Der Wald 16, 545–546.
Scholte, J.A., 2010. Civil society in multi-level governance. In: Enderlein, H. et al., Handbook
on multi-level Governance. Elgar. Cheltenham, pp. 383-296.
Swyngedouw, E., 2005. Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies 42 (11), 1991-2006.
Weber, N., Härdter, U., Rother, A., Weisshaupt, M., 2000. Forstpolitische Aktivitäten von
Umweltverbänden in Deutschland- eine vorläufige Bestandsaufnahme. Allgemeine Forst- und
Jagdzeitung, 171 (8), 144-153.
Weber, N., Christophersen, T., 2002. The influence of non-governmental organizations on the
creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy Process. Forest Policies and Economics
4, 1-12.
Wilson, G., 1990. Interest groups. Blackwell. Oxford.
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 and Economics 13, 143–154.
17