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 multi-faceted 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.

森林生态系统服务（FES）概念具有巨大的价值，不仅因为它是生态系统服务的主要提供者，而且因为使这些服务成为跨部门政策关注的问题。但是，研究欧盟如何在其政策中解决其森林和生态系统服务至关重要，因为协调一致的欧盟森林政策可以使不同政策领域设定的众多目标保持一致，从而产生协同效益。但是，目前许多人认为欧盟的森林政策支离破碎，制度化程度很弱。现有研究已经为欧盟森林政策的脱节性质提供了一些有用的见解，但仍缺乏对基本框架的清晰理解。这些框架具有多方面的重要性，包括以下事实：他们指导演员如何理解森林存在的可能性范围。因此，我们认为重要的是要了解森林框架的形式和功能，以便能够相互链接不同的，甚至不一致的政策目标。

鉴于上述情况，本文提出以下问题：欧盟的森林相关政策中如何界定森林。为了解决这个问题，我们使用Atlas.ti进行了定性框架分析，其中从各个政策领域中精心选择了总共36份政策文件作为研究样本。分析结果表明，欧盟政策文件中提到了9个主要框架，其中以森林为主导的“木材和非木材林产品的提供者”为代表。那些将森林描述为“气候变化解决方案”和“生物经济贡献者”的框架有助于增加更多森林使用的合法性。另外，建议“森林是多功能的”和“在数据样本中几乎没有提到作为CO2来源和缺水原因的森林，这使它们成为最不被重视的两个框架。针对本文进行的分析还显示，某些策略域会推广自己的独特框架，而这些框架不太可能包含其他策略领域框架的各个方面，这种做法进一步促进了策略分散化。一个明显的对策是在所有这些政策领域中提高决策者的框架意识，以改善政策协调并减少分散性。