How socio-economic conditions influence forest policy development in Central and South-east Europe

In this article, several findings on socio-economic conditions derived from national reports and a web-based questionnaire are discussed and related to the changing role of forestry and the future forest policy development. A number of Central and South-eastern European countries taking part in a SEE-ERA-NET project ReForMan project (www.reforman.de) participated in data acquisition: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, Serbia and Slovenia. The aim of the research was to illustrate the present structure of forestry sector, as well as investigate newly emerging topics in forestry of Central and South-eastern Europe. The results indicated certain patterns in attitudes and perceptions among stakeholders that can be related to socio-economic conditions defined for each country. Clear differences between member and non-member countries exist only in level of implementation of EU legislation. Results showed consensus on main threats to the forests among all countries, but also some country specifics in perceptions of factors influencing forestry, their importance and professional competencies. These results could be additionally explained by influence of historical conditions which shaped development of forest sector in SEE region especially in its organizational dimension as well as in perceived role of forestry expressed through recognition of main forest functions. The influence of European forest policy processes in the region is evident through adaptation of EU legislation and perceived implications of international processes on national levels. Based on this observation, two possible options for future development of the forestry sector can be foreseen: (i) focusing on the productive function of forests and fostering its' sustainable use; or (ii) putting an emphasis on environmental and social issues. In both cases supporting public participation in decision-making processes is recommendable. Another conclusion based on perceived medium to low professional competencies to cope with new topics, that there is lack of confidence and need for professional support in decisionmaking processes.