Forest use concepts and their evaluation under forest policy aspects | Waldnutzungskonzepte und ihre forstpolitische Bewertung

In German forestry the development of and recommendations for altered or new forest use concepts was linked, until a few years ago, to expert discussions concerning the most advisable silvicultural, yield-related and/or economic type of forest management. This was always a predominantly internal negotiation process. Self-definition by foresters was never a problem nor was the socio-political position of forestry as a special branch ever questioned.This situation has undergone a fundamental change ever since environment protection and nature conservation associations have claimed a role on the forest policy stage. External advisors develop and recommend forest use concepts with no regard for the rules that have governed forest management discussions in the past, nor for the traditional forester’s self-image. Reactions of those concerned reveal insecurity and vary greatly. It is above all becoming clear that discussions of external forest use concepts are an issue calling for analysis and evaluation from a forest policy point of view, too. This requires suitable standards and useful evaluation criteria. The present study concentrates on the criteria ”legitimacy” and ”strategy”.Since environment protection and nature conservation agencies have no institutional legitimation some form of political legitimation is required and is usually derived from the contents of their concepts. The present paper analyses, in particular, the global ecological and resource-economic reasoning that serves this purpose and focuses on the importance of wood as a renewable resource. The strategies used to effect an implementation of external forest use concepts tend to stress the ”credibility difference” between individual actors. This credibility difference is vital to environment protection and nature conservation agencies and is being explained by means of the ”halo-effect of credibility”. Any attempt by forest management at reducing this credibility difference through rapprochement provokes a continuous raising of ecological standards in external forest use concepts. From a certain point in the choice of criteria onwards forest management will be well advised, therefore, to put trust in its own expertise and make the latter the focus of a new ”credibility management”. Specifically in the context of current discussions about the certification of nature-oriented forest management this demand is becoming increasingly important.