ABSTRACT

The term ‘bioeconomy’ stands for an economy that primarily relies on renewable biotic resources and thus supports the vision of a low carbon society. The respective ‘bioeconomy strategies’ bear high conflict potential as they, sometimes unintentionally, rely on forest-land or wood as a resource, which are already appropriated also in other policies. We first outline the resulting governance challenges in terms of coherence of policy goals, consistency of instruments and the congruence between the two and identify trade-offs between forest ecosystem services that exhibit a high conflict potential regarding the bioeconomy. We then provide a comparative analysis of the extent to which bioeconomy strategies tackle the related governance challenges for two pairs of countries from the temperate (Germany and Switzerland) and the boreal (Sweden and Norway) forest zone. We find that the strategies do not mention conflicts related to wood mobilization. Coherence and consistency tend to be addressed for non-extractive forest utilizations that are perceived as a market opportunity rather than solely a restriction on wood mobilization. The latter seems more common in countries with a multi-functional forestry paradigm. Consequences for the prevailing forest management paradigm, however, are not explored in the strategies and thus policy congruence is neglected.

摘要

“生物经济”一词代表一种主要依赖可再生生物资源的经济，因此支持低碳社会的愿景。各自的“生物经济战略”具有很高的冲突潜力，因为它们有时是无意地依赖林地或木材作为资源，这些资源也已被其他政策占用。我们首先在政策目标的一致性、工具的一致性和两者之间的一致性方面概述了由此产生的治理挑战，并确定了在生物经济方面表现出高度冲突潜力的森林生态系统服务之间的权衡。然后，我们对来自温带（德国和瑞士）和北方（瑞典和挪威）森林区的两对国家的生物经济战略解决相关治理挑战的程度进行了比较分析。我们发现这些策略没有提到与木材动员相关的冲突。连贯性和一致性往往是针对被视为市场机会的非采掘性森林利用来解决的，而不仅仅是对木材动员的限制。后者在具有多功能林业范式的国家似乎更为常见。然而，战略中并未探讨现行森林管理范式的后果，因此忽略了政策一致性。连贯性和一致性往往是针对被视为市场机会的非采掘性森林利用来解决的，而不仅仅是对木材动员的限制。后者在具有多功能林业范式的国家似乎更为常见。然而，战略中并未探讨现行森林管理范式的后果，因此忽略了政策一致性。连贯性和一致性往往是针对被视为市场机会的非采掘性森林利用来解决的，而不仅仅是对木材动员的限制。后者在具有多功能林业范式的国家似乎更为常见。然而，战略中并未探讨现行森林管理范式的后果，因此忽略了政策一致性。