How are forests framed? An analysis of EU forest policy

The Forest Ecosystem Services (FES) concept is of immense value not simply because it is a principal provider of ecosystem services but because it makes these services a cross-sectoral policy concern. However, it is crucial to study how the European Union addresses its forests and ecosystem services in its policies because a well coordinated and coherent EU forest policy could align numerous goals set by different policy domains to produce synergistic benefits. However, forest policy in the EU is currently considered by many to be fragmented and weakly institutionalized. Existing research has already provided some useful insight into the disjointed nature of EU forest policy but a clear understanding of the underlying frames is still lacking. These frames are of multifaceted importance, including the fact that they guide actors in how to make sense of the range of possibilities that forests present. Therefore, we argue that it is important to understand the forms and functions of forest frames in order to be able to interlink different, and even inconsistent, policy goals. Given the above, this paper asks: how are forests framed in EU forest-related policies. To address this question, we conducted a qualitative frame analysis using Atlas.ti in which a total of 36 policy documents were carefully selected from various policy areas as the research sample. The results of this analysis show that there are nine main frames referred to in the EU policy documents with the frame that presents a forest as a 'provider of wood and non-wood forest products' being the most dominant. Those frames that portray forests as a 'climate change solution' and 'contributors to bioeconomy' serve to increase the legitimacy of more forest use. Alternatively, the frames suggesting 'forests are multifunctional' and 'forests as CO2 source and causes of water deficit' were barely referred to in the data sample, making them two of the most downplayed frames. The analysis conducted for this article also shows that some policy domains promote their own unique frames that are less likely to include aspects of other policy area frames, a practice which further facilitates policy fragmentation. One obvious counter to this is to raise frame awareness among policymakers throughout these various policy domains to improve policy coordination and decrease fragmentation.