scieee Science in your language
[In] (orig)

Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners associations in Europe

Abstract

This research reports a comparative analysis of the communication strategy that forest owners' associations across Europe use to influence society on one side and the decision-makers on the other, in order to fulfill forest owners' interests. 60% of Europe's forests are privately owned by an estimated number of 16 million forest owners, who are represented by forest owners' associations. One of its main functions is to influence the public perceptions on forests and forestry. In this article it is analyzed how a specific forestry stakeholder fixes its strategies to communicate with and lobby society in order to get acceptability for their proposals/demands. Open-end surveys have been used as a source of information in 2006 and repeated in 2012. Besides of the comparison among countries, a comparison along the time has been also performed. The whole communication frame is analyzed, considering the objectives, the structure, the messages, the channels, and the evaluation. The main conclusions that arise are: first, the temporary comparison (2006 2012) results into an improvement in several issues; second, there is room for improvement of professionalization of communication in forest owners' associations in Europe; third, social research into public perception of forestry might help to define communication strategies.

Read accessible full text

Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners associations in Europe

Author: Fabra Crespo, Miguel,Rojas Briales, Eduardo
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.06.004
Source: https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/10251/79127/2/Rojas_Comparative%20analysis%20on%20the%20communication%20strategies%20of%20the%20forest%20owners.pdf
Documen downloaded om:
This pape mus be ci ed as:
The inal publica ion is a ailable a
Copy igh
Addi ional In o ma ion
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j. o pol.2014.06.004
h p://hdl.handle.ne /10251/79127
Else ie
Fab a C espo, M.; Rojas B iales, E. (2015). Compa a i e analysis on he communica ion
s a egies o he o es owne s associa ions in Eu ope. Fo es Policy and Economics. 50:20-
30. doi:10.1016/j. o pol.2014.06.004.
1
Compa a i e analysis on he communica ion s a egies o he o es
owne s’ associa ions in Eu ope
M. Fab a-C espo
1
and E. Rojas-B iales
2
1 Miguel Fab a-C espo (Co esponding au ho )
Uni e si y o Eas e n Finland
School o Fo es Sciences
Joensuu FI-80100
Phone: +358 50 599 7101
m ab ac [email protected]
2 Edua do Rojas -B iales *
Food and Ag icul u e O ganiza ion o he Uni ed Na ions
Viale delle e me di Ca acalla
00153 Rome, I aly
Phone: +39 06 57051
edua do. o[email p o ec ed]
* The p esen publica ion co esponds o p e ious esea ch conduc ed as p o esso o he
Uni e si a Poli ècnica de València and no unde FAO. The e o , he conclusions
included in his pape should no be unde s ood as any o icial posi ion o FAO.
2
ABSTRACT
This esea ch epo s a compa a i e analysis o he communica ion s a egy ha o es owne s’ associa ions
ac oss Eu ope use o in luence socie y on one side and he decision-make s on he o he , in o de o ul ill
o es owne s’ in e es s. 60% o Eu ope’s o es s a e p i a ely owned by an es ima ed numbe o 16 million
o es owne s, who a e ep esen ed by o es owne s associa ions. One o i s main unc ions is o in luence
he public pe cep ions on o es s and o es y. In his a icle i is analyzed how a speci ic o es y s akeholde
ixes i s s a egies o communica e wi h and lobby socie y in o de o ge accep abili y o hei
p oposals/demands. Open-end su eys ha e been used as a sou ce o in o ma ion in 2006 and epea ed in
2012. Besides o he compa ison among coun ies, a compa ison along he ime has been also pe o med. The
whole communica ion ame is analyzed, conside ing he objec i es, he s uc u e, he messages, he
channels, and he e alua ion. The main conclusions ha a ise a e: i s , he empo a y compa ison (2006-
2012) esul s in o an imp o emen in se e al issues; second, he e is oom o imp o emen o
p o essionaliza ion o communica ion in o es owne s’ associa ions in Eu ope; hi d, social esea ch in o
public pe cep ion o o es y migh help o de ine communica ion s a egies.
Keywo ds: ad ocacy; social in luence; g ass oo s; ee ops; en i onmen al communica ion, o es owne s
HIGHLIGHTS
 Fo es owne s’ communica ion and lobbying s a egies a e compa ed in Eu ope.
 15 o es owne s associa ions con ibu ed o he analysis in 2006 and 2012.
 Bo h, ee ops and g ass oo s app oaches, a e exe cised by he associa ions.
 New messages on biomass, clima e change, g een economy, e c a e ising.
3
1.- In oduc ion
Fo es sec o is no p o i able di ec ly in mos a eas o he Wo ld. When o es s p oduce mo e
en i onmen al se ices han di ec p oduc s, he co esponding go e nance mechanisms a e key,
especially in non-s a e owne ship. In u ban socie ies o es s a e key o ec ea ion and hei
managemen is o e lapping wi h ha use. Con lic ing iews on o es managemen a ise as o es s
become he backya d o he people. The e o e in o de o o e pass ma ke ailu es, social suppo is
needed o inance he expenses which keep he sus ainable o es managemen ongoing; e y
especially in cases o high isks (e.g. o es i es in Medi e anean egion, and in moun ainous
egions) and on econs uc ion needs.
Communica ion is a pa icula ly impo an ask, because o es y is a mino i y issue in mos
coun ies, mainly due o i s weak economic ele ance o socie y in he con ex o a s ongly
u banized socie y. This means ha in he ma ke -o ien ed poli ical sys ems, he a icula ion o
o es y in he media becomes a challenge, which consequen ly has o be pu a lo o e o in o
communica ion o be hea d by he socie y and i s poli icians (Mosco ici, 1994).
Eu opean s udies o public pe cep ion (Eu opean Commission, 2009) e eal ha o es y issues a e
no well unde s ood ou side he small o es y communi y and sugges ha he e is a signi ican gap
be ween public unde s anding and eali y. Public pa icipa ion conce ning o es y issues hasn’
been as success ul as expec ed (Aase e, J. 2006; Saa ikoski, H. e al. 2010). The ecen p oposal o
an EU Fo es Communica ion S a egy (Eu opean Commission, 2011) ein o ces he idea on he
need o u he knowledge on his subjec , as i has been ma e ialized unde he concep o he
In e na ional Yea o Fo es s 2011, and he in e na ional day o he o es s (Ma ch 21) om 2013
onwa ds.
Fo es s a e widely in p i a e owne ship in mos Eu opean coun ies (mo e han 70% in Wes e n
Eu ope and less han 50% in Eas e n Eu ope, bu inc easing), consequen ly hei managemen is
dependen on i s owne s’ decisions (FAO, 2011). The e o e p i a e o es owne s a e in mos
coun ies an impo an link wi hin he o es sec o chain, and hey ge a oice, wi h hei claims
conside ed, as a as hey a e o ganized a ound an associa ion. Those claims di e , as p i a e o es
owne s p esen di e en managemen mo i es a ound Eu ope (Pollumae e al. 2014; No ais, A and
Canadas MJ. 2010). E en some basic da a on o es owne s, a e no well known in Eu ope (FAO,
2010), as o example could be: o al numbe o o es owne s, p o ile o o es owne s, sizes o
owne ships, pe sonal in es men in o es s, e enues o in es men s, e c
Wi hin his ame o communica ion in he o es sec o , his pape analyzes he s a egies
conce ning how FOAs (Fo es Owne s Associa ions) communica e o decision-make s and o
socie y in gene al. This a icle is no aiming a heo e ical discussion on he subjec , bu analyses
ac s and discusses on how FOA’s a egies on communica ion and lobbying could be imp o ed in a
p ac ical way. The e o e he o e all goal o he pape is o help o be e unde s and he lobbying
4
and communica ion s a egies o o es owne s associa ions, and i s e olu ion du ing las yea s,
because hey can be e y success ul in in luencing o he imp o emen o o es y and o es sec o .
Timbe p ices o example, can be nego ia ed mo e e icien ly o ganized a ound FOAs (S o dal,
2004) as well as supply lows can be channeled mo e e icien ly. In addi ion, one o he main
challenges is ha he s uc u e o amily o es owne ship is changing due o he age s uc u e o he
u al popula ion, u baniza ion and inhe i ance.
Con en analysis has been pe o med based on da a collec ed by wo su eys on na ional o es
owne s associa ions a ound Eu ope (11 coun ies in 2006 and 13 coun ies in 2012).
The a icle s a s ocusing on he di e en s a egies o communica ion and he elemen s ha
compose i . Then i poin s on o es sec o and o es owne s. The esul s o he su ey a e p esen ed
acco ding o he di e en elemen s ha compose a communica ion ame p ocess, o inally discuss
on how o imp o e FOAs pe o mance.
2.- Objec i es
The objec i e o his a icle is o analyze h ough a case s udy he s a egies used by o es owne s
associa ions in Eu ope o communica e and lobbying wi h socie y as well as wi h he decision-
make s. I combines wo compa a i e analyses, be ween coun ies and be ween yea s. This analysis
would con ibu e o he o es owne s associa ions in o de o b ing u he knowledge and he e o e
imp o e he FOAs ac ions o lobbying owa ds a mo e success ul esul .
3 S a egies o communica ion and lobbying
Lobbying is a communica ion ac i i y (Tusinski, 2009), and as such ollows a ypical
communica ion model wi h i s ou main componen s as sou ce-message-channel- ecei e (Be lo,
1960). O he wise om a heo e ical amewo k, in ou iew o lobbying as a social in e ac ion, ou
in e p e a ion is close o he mo e de eloped social cons uc ionis (C aig, 1999) who conside s
communica ion o be he p oduc o he in e ac an s sha ing and c ea ing meaning.
The concep o lobbying appea s in heo ies o social in luence as he p ocess whe eby people
( h ough in e es g oups) di ec ly o indi ec ly in luence he hough s, eelings and ac ions o o he s.
I is linked o he exp ession and opinion igh s o he o ganiza ions in hose ma e s o public deba e
which could a ec hem di ec ly (Bach and Un uh, 2005). Ano he de ini ion is o analyze and
unde s and a p oblem, in o de o explain i s ele ance and consequences o hose who hold he
powe o decide.

5
Howe e econciling he demands o sel -in e es ed p i a e in e es s wi h he in e es o wide ci il
socie y ep esen s he cen al p oblem o democ a ic li e (G eenwood and Thomas, 1998). I
lobbying is hen seen as mu ual bene icial exchange o in o ma ion, he e o e in e es g oups a e
ep esen a i es o o ganized ci il socie y wi h capaci y o con ibu e o democ a ic legi imacy.
The in e es g oups (o s akeholde s) a e indi idual g oupings a ound pa icula common in e es s,
which ha e as hei subs an ial a ge he de ense o hese in e es s. Acco ding o he na u e o hese
g oups, hey can be classi ied in o he g oups ha de end ma e ial in e es s and hose g oups ha
de end he in e es s o mo als and ideas (Ok, 2005). In he case p esen ed a his a icle, o es owne s
ha e a mixed p o ile, because pa ly hey de end economic in e es s as p o i abili y, asse p o ec ion
and eedom o manage hei o es s, bu hey also de end philosophical ideas conce ning Na u e
i sel , he i age o cul u al landscape. Fu he mo e hei pe sonal a achmen o hei es a es o en has
much mo e weigh o adi ional easons (a o es ha belongs o he same amily o many
gene a ions) o alues (en i onmen al awa eness).
S akeholde s show hei in e es s o bo h decision-make s and o he socie y, as hey need public
suppo o add ess hei in e es s o decision make s. S akeholde s use di e en communica ion ools
o add ess o hese wo a ge g oups o communica ion ecei e s (Janse, 2007). Public’ pe cep ions
as well as s akeholde s’ in e es s should be analyzed (Fab a-C espo, M e al. 2012), o ma ching
hem and make hem compa ible, in o de o p oduce p ope communica ion s a egies, which will
each he decision-make s whils ha ing he adequa e social suppo (Cox, 2006). Full unde s anding
on how communica ion lows in bo h senses, decision-make s o socie y and o he way a ound, is a
key ac o in any policy analysis. Communica ion om s akeholde s can be aimed s aigh a he
poli icians and decision-make s o indi ec ly h ough socie y as a whole o a g oup o ep esen a i es
such as a g oup o en i onmen al ac i is s (Fazio and Gilbe , 2000).
An example o in luence on o es policy a he Eu opean le el was du ing he c ea ion o he Na u a
2000, we e bo h ENGOs and o es owne s associa ions pu sued lobbying s a egies o in luence he
new legisla ion (Webe and Ch is ophe sen, 2002).
Acco ding o he new model o e ec i e lobbying s a egies (Jaa inen, 1998) he e a e h ee main
ac o s ha cons i u e he con ingency ac o s ha a e he ollowing in o de o impo ance: he
opinion o he a ge o lobbying on ce ain issue, he di ec ion and in ensi y o compe i ion, and he
suppo o mass media and ci izens. The combina ion o s a es o hese con ingency ac o s leads o
a di e en s a egies o ollow (Jaa inen, 1999).
In o de o achie e a s a egy, wo main ac ics can be adop ed, ee ops and g ass oo s ac ics.
T ee ops ac ics (di ec lobbying) in ol e ac i a ing smalle ( han in g ass oo s) numbe s o mo e
in luen ial ci izens o con ac hei local go e nmen ep esen a i es (Xi a, 1998). These a e people
wi h con ac s and poli ical sa y who can iden i y many business people o espec ed ci izens able
6
o clea ly p esen he clien ’s iewpoin on an issue. This is di ec lobbying, which means nego ia ion
ia a gumen a ion. This nego ia ion can be o icial o o icious, public o sec e .
Nowadays in he shi om ep esen a i e o pa icipa o y democ acy, decision-making shall be
sha ed among hose who ha e he esponsibili y o implemen he measu es (Bu oud and Samyn,
1999; P imme and Kyllönen, 2006). In ac , many o es laws ha e been e o med in ecen yea s
a ound Eu ope and globally, and in some way o o he hey include he compulso y equi emen o
include he main o es s akeholde s in policy decision-making p ocesses. This o en includes he
cons i u ion o o icial ad iso y bodies as well (Zimme mann and Schmi hüsen, 2002).
Consequen ly new pa icipa o y decision-making bodies ha e been cons i u ed in many coun ies
o many sec o s (Cos e19, 2004), which is ound an app op ia e a ena o ee ops lobbying.
A di e en app oach is he g ass oo s ac ics (indi ec lobbying) means aking ac ion on public
opinion, in o de o indi ec ly in luence decision-make s’ iewpoin s (Co le and Howa d, 2012).
The main goal is o change hei awa eness abou o es y, h ough g ass oo s ac ions i s i is
c ea ed he public in e es s o an issue (Ghai and Vi ian, 1992). G ass oo s campaigns including
mass media play wi h he eelings, mobilizing amily, iends and neighbo s. The a ionale o his
(in luence o he mass media) is ha poli icians ha e o wo y abou being eelec ed, so hey ca e
wha o e s hink.
Figu e 1.- G ass oo s e sus ee ops ac ics and mass media ole. Sou ce: Own
In gene al some o he main ac o s o a iables cha ac e izing he analy ical ame o ee ops e sus
g ass oo s lobbying s a egies o any o ganiza ion could be summa ized as ollows:
- In ee ops ocusing in o s a able o mobilize public opinion and i s suppo (such mass
media p o essionals); whils in g ass oo s ocusing s a able o easily each op decision-
make s (such mo e poli ical o ien ed s a ).
- In ee ops alloca ing p io i y in hei s a egy o ac i i ies wi h he goal o each decision
make s and e lec ing ha in o hei budge ; whils in g ass oo s alloca ing clea p io i y o
ac i i ies o shape opinion and suppo o he gene al public.
Decision-make s
Mass media
T ee ops ac ics
G ass oo s ac ics
Socie y
7
- In ee ops decla ing as communica ion a ge s he high-posi ion ci il se an s, poli icians…;
whils in g ass oo s he a ge would become gene al public as child en o amilies, o he
mass media p o essionals as he jou nalis s.
- In ee ops using channels ha each he wide public as websi es o newsle e s; whils in
g ass oo s will use such as ace o ace mee ings, o ums…
4 Eu opean o es owne ship and he p o ile o o es owne s
The Eu opean con inen , excluding he Russia, has nea ly 210 million ha o o es and o he wooded
land. In he Eu opean Union (27) he a ea is 157 million ha, which ep esen s 42% o i s land (Fo es
Eu ope, 2011). O e all, o es land owne ship is app oxima ely equally dis ibu ed be ween public
and p i a e owne s. In he EU, some 60% o o es a eas p i a ely owned (Eu opean Commission,
2007). Howe e , in Wes e n Eu ope wo- hi ds o o es land is p i a ely owned, whe eas in Eas e n
Eu ope o es s a e mainly in he public domain, hough his is changing wi h es i u ion and
p i a iza ion aking place in o me socialis coun ies (CEPF, 2009).
The signi icance o o es esou ces o owne s, as well as o he public, a ies emendously wi hin
he Eu opean coun ies (Hy inen, 2001). One indica o o ela i e impo ance o o es s is he o es
a ea pe capi a, which anges om 0.2 ha in he Ne he lands o 4.0 ha in Finland. I is clea ha he
owne ’s expec a ions as well as public alues ela ed o o es s canno be he same in hese wo
coun ies.
In he membe coun ies o he Eu opean Union, he e a e app oxima ely 16 million p i a e
indi iduals ha can be classi ied as o es owne s. They cons i u e an impo an pa o socie y,
accoun ing o up o 10% o he o al Eu opean amilies. This means ha i is almos ce ain ha
e e y pe son has a ela i e o a iend who owns o es despi e an impo an sha e o hem migh no
be conscious abou i (sca e ed owne ship). P i a e o es holdings ha e an a e age size o 6 ha bu
he e is a huge ange, wi h conside able a ia ion among he coun ies in he a e age size o holdings
(CEPF, 2009).
The e a e no many comp ehensi e s udies on he p o ile o o es owne s in Eu ope. Mo i a ion,
alues and pe cep ions o o es owne s classi ied in o di e en ca ego ies, would en ich he
knowledge abou his social g oup and i s in luence on o es managemen . One empi ical s udy ha
was based on six mo i a ions and supplemen ed wi h nine a i udes esul ed in ou well-de ined
owne g oups: ma e ialis ic, sa is ied ec ea ional, dissa is ied ec ea ional and p o i -seeking
owne s (Se b uyns and Luyssae , 2006), as well as o he s udies classi y hem acco ding o
p oduc ion and consump ion objec i es (Ní Dhubháin, 2007). Hence u baniza ion is b eaking he
links be ween humans and o es s (Dominguez, 2008; Ziegenspeck e al., 2004)). O he p o ile o
non- inancial-o ien ed owne s (U quha and Cou ney, 2011).
8
Fo es owne s ha e he esponsibili y o a double ask in communica ion: o p omo e he use o
p oduc s and se ices coming om he o es s, bu also a he same ime he mos di icul : o
p omo e o he bene i s ha he o es s a e gene a ing o he whole socie y, ha a e p o ided by
o es s wi hou signi ican make e enue, and all ha managed by p i a e o es owne s in a big
sha e o he e i o y.
In gene al, o es owne s a e well o ganized in Eu ope, in e ms o g oup membe ship. O he wise,
his is no always e iden , as he ac ha he e is an associa ion does no p ejudge i s
ep esen a i eness o capaci y. In mos coun ies o es owne s’ associa ions (FOA) ha e been
es ablished o p omo e sus ainable o es managemen bu s ill some o he don’ ha e FOAs, and
his migh be because he o es sec o economy ep esen s a small sha e, o because he p i a e
owne ship is jus in i s beginning as in CIS coun ies (Glück, 2010).
The associa ions se e as a link be ween o es owne s, ep esen hem in o es policy making, and
also p o ide suppo in imbe sales and sil icul u al ope a ions in some o he coun ies. Fo ms o
coope a ion and esul ing ac i i ies a y, anging om low le els o commi men o pu poses o
in o ma ion/educa ion, o mo e s uc u ed pa icipa ion o inancial and imbe ma ke ing pu poses.
Likewise, he o igins o coope a ion di e om coun y o coun y, hough common elemen s
eme ge (e.g. he ole o go e nmen , eac ion o a s imulus o h ea ) (Ki edge, 2005) wi h
simila i y o coope a i es and a me s unions.
Among all possible o es s akeholde s o his esea ch ha could ha e been chosen, o es owne s
ha e been ound o be he mos in e es ing ones. Fo es owne s a e ep esen ed by FOAs, which
come aiming a some e iciency gains and pu posi e de ense o common in e es s (Mendes, 2006),
among o he s: gaining p i a e o es y’s pa icipa ion in he o es policy p ocesses. As o es
owne s a e sca e ed a ound a huge e i o y and hey ep esen a small sha e o he whole
popula ion, hei weaknesses ha e o be o e come by c ea ing e ical s uc u e in associa ions, o
gain powe o lobby owa ds hei common in e es s. Thus i is impo an link be ween o es y and
socie y hanks o FOAs.
The Con ede a ion o Eu opean Fo es Owne s (CEPF) is he mos ep esen a i e umb ella
o ganiza ion o na ional o es owne o ganiza ions in Eu ope. A in e na ional le el, he IFFA -
In e na ional Family Fo es Alliance was es ablished in 2005 as a o mal o ganiza ion in o de o
become a mo e powe ul oice o amily o es y in ela ion o in e na ional o ganiza ions, such as
he UN o ganiza ions and he Wo ld Bank. Bu s ill mos o he coun ies ou side Eu ope ha e weak
FOAs s uc u es. A a global scale, Eu ope (and USA, Japan, Sou h Ko ea) a e he excep ion as
80% o he o al o es a ea is s a ed owned.
15
To suppo he poli ical wo k by in o ming ele an decision-make s
2012
To c ea e new wo k places in he o es
To in o m/in luence/ aise awa eness o media, pa ne s, minis y, poli icians abou ou
ac i i ies and p oblems so, ha o es policy will enable sus ainable and p o i able o es y
To sp ead in o ma ion abou imbe ma ke o o es owne s o help hei decision making
To be conside ed ep esen ing in e es o amily o es owne s in he coun y
To de end (a be e ) o es ax sys em
To p omo e a posi i e and app op ia e image o Family Fo es y sus ainable managemen
To communica e owa ds membe o ganiza ions abou a ious policy de elopmen s and e en s
To gi e he poli icians enough in o ma ion, so hey can ake good decisions o o es y
To in o m he public, and secu e a b oad suppo o an ac i e o es y sec o
To push o an op imal added alue o he na u al esou ce wood
I is con enien no o mix up bo h, goals and messages, because goals emain a he s a egic le el,
as he inal goal o wha is he pe cep ion ha i is wished people o bea in mind o he long e m.
6.3 Ta ge
Conce ning he a ge g oups o he lobbying ac ions, he di ec public ela ions ac i i ies ake place
mainly owa ds he Minis ies whe e o es esponsibili ies a e loca ed (Ag icul u e o he
En i onmen (o bo h) depending on he coun y). They also ake ac ion owa ds poli icians (bo h
pa liamen a ians and decision-make s). Only one coun y had no p io i ies wi h espec o poli icians
in 2006, and only couple o coun ies had child en/you h among hei op a ge s ( o become
g ass oo s app oach). Howe e in 2012 all coun ies poin he impo ance o add ess poli icians. And
al eady many o hem gi e impo ance o o he a ge s as child en/you h, wood and pape indus y,
e c. As no el y, se e al coun ies ocus on he ele ance o add ess jou nalis s and mass media,
because o hei powe in communica ion. This is he basic ool o a shi and/o ein o cemen o
he g ass oo s s a egy, by eaching he gene al public h ough mass media.
When asked ‘wi h which o he would you like o imp o e you communica ion’, o some FOA he
answe in 2006 was sha ed be ween ENGOs, he wood indus y and schools, use s o o es s, and
companies. In 2012 all same g oups ha e emained he mos quo ed, o he wise ENGOs ha e
diminished, and o example o he g oups ha e appea ed, as hun e s, mass media, o Eu opean
ins i u ions.
When asked abou hei alliances wi h o he g oups, in gene al he answe is posi i e, FOA ha e
di e en alliances depending on he subjec hey a e lobbying (jobs wi h ade unions, sus ainable
iews wi h ENGOs, e c).
Due o hei ele ance, i was asked also abou speci ic alliances wi h scien is s, and he main
pa ne s we e ound o be o es esea ch ins i u es and uni e si ies. Only Finland unded i s own
esea ch in 2006. In 2012 mo e coun ies es ablished now s ong ies wi h esea ch (Fi, F , Uk, Se,
Ee, De, No) as he es seems ha hey ha e weake pa ne ship.

16
6.4 Messages
Abou he messages om he o es owne s associa ions owa ds he socie y s ill mos coun ies
ocus on explaining how wood use is en i onmen ally iendly, and hus o es s need o be ha es ed
and managed ac i ely. The e is a wide ange o messages di ec ed by he o ganiza ions in he
di e en coun ies (Table 3) which shows ha he cu en needs in di e en coun ies a e no he
same. Besides o communica e ha mos o o es s in Eu ope a e p i a e owned and also ha hose
p o ide ex e nali ies and bene i s o he whole socie y. Bu also in mos coun ies he message is
no on p oduc in e es s bu on de ending he in e es s o mo als and ideas. These bases ha e
emained he same in 2006 and 2012, howe e new messages ha e popped up in 2012 conce ning
clima e change, biomass o g een economy.
Table 3. Messages om he o es owne s associa ions o socie y in 2006 and in 2012 (Q17)
2006
&
2012
The o es is no only na u e, i is main ained by o es owne s.
P i a e o es owne ship can be as e icien and well managed as o es y in he public sec o .
Being sus ainable, amily o es y mus be p o i able. Thus, he social and en i onmen al ole o o es e s
and o es y needs o be compensa ed o each he necessa y balance be ween cos s and p o i s.
P i a e owne ship is he bigges g oup o o es owne s (62%), held by people like you and me.
Family o es owne s a e he key ac o s and he bes pa ne s o de elop o es y and en i onmen al policies.
The o es s don’ belong o he isi o s (hun e s, mush oom-picke s, bike s, NGOs, e c ), each o es has an
owne , who is obliged o ca e abou i .
The long- e m p i a e owne ship o o es s is a gua an ee o sus ainable o es managemen .
A o es owne wo ks o him bu also o he u u e gene a ions and he socie y. The e o e, gene al public
and decision-make s should suppo ac i e managemen o p i a e o es s.
I he e a e es ic ions on o es managemen o he bene i o gene al public and en i onmen , hen i
should be p ope ly compensa ed o o es owne .
Fo es owne ship is o en linked o amily adi ions and i is a way o li ing. Fo es owne s a e one o he
impo an ac o s in sus aining ou u al a eas.
Fo es owne ship is abou social, economic and en i onmen al alues ha he o es owne s hold.
Sus ainable o es managemen in p i a e o es s in an in e -gene a ional con ac based on long e m
planning and esponsible esou ce managemen .
Wood is g owing each yea mo e han i is ha es ed. Wood p oduc s a e e y di e se and enewable, and
o es owne s a e able o p oduce hem.
Mul i unc ional o es y p o ides a wide ange o goods and se ices o socie y.
New
in
2012
The o es managemen by p omo ing he use o wood p oduc s, con ibu es o mi iga e clima e change.
Use wood wisely – don’ bu n i in la ge-scale gene a o s.
An ac i e o es owne secu es heal hy o es s, biodi e si y and c ea es a lo o biomass, which can be used
o he good o he socie y.
Timbe /biomass can be “ he new oil”. E e y hing you make o oil, you can also make o biomass. Biomass
is a e y en i onmen al iendly ma e ial, and should be used o a la ge ex en .
C ea ing a a o able en i onmen - h ough poli ics- o achie e an op imal alue in o es y.
The o es sec o is a cen al componen o u u e G een Economy.
6.5 Channel
17
On he subjec o channel, s ill ace o ace is he mos p e e ed way o communica e, same in 2006
han in 2012 (Table 4), bu i can be no iced a ele an place, o channels which eaches lo o
people a he same ime (e.g. websi es, newsle e s) a e seen as he mos powe ul and cos -e ec i e
ools. E en so, he channels which in ol e educa ion and high a commi men wi h in e es ed people
a e becoming s a egically e y impo an , because hey can be he seed which sp eads he new ideas
o change (e.g. publica ions, exhibi ions).
Table 4. Mos p e e ed channel by FOA o communica e and lobby
2006
2012
In i s place
In second place
In i s place
In second place
Ad e ising
F
Face o ace
De, Lu, Es, Fi, F
Fi, Si, F , Uk,
Ee, No, De, Es
L ,
Websi e
Lu, Fi
L , Sw, Hu
No, De
Newsle e s
Si, Se
Es, Fi
Cz,
Hu, Es
Publica ions
De, Se
L
Exhibi ions
Uk
Cz, Uk
P esen a ions/Fo ums
Uk
Se
Fi, F , Sw, L , Ee,
Educa ional ac i i ies
L
Fi
Si, Se
In 2012 almos all coun ies keep pe manen ies wi h mass media, whe eas in 2006 s ill ew
coun ies a i med ha hey con ac he mass media only in he case o a c isis, lacking pe manen
communica ion channels mos o hem. This again e lec s he need and he wish o a s onge
g ass oo s suppo in o de o jus i y hei ee ops ac ions.
6.6 Coali ions wi h o he s akeholde s
When asked o he FOAs wi h which g oups do you keep in ouch egula ly, all o hem answe ed
ha wi h ag icul u al o ganiza ions as well as wi h he wood and pape associa ions. Howe e he
disc epancy is on ENGOs whe e no all coun ies keep in ouch egula ly, e lec ing he deg ee o
con lic i i y wi h such associa ions, and p obably he lack o sha ed alues in some coun ies.
6.7 Campaign echniques
Campaign echniques (g ass oo s) , such as he massi e sending o pos ca ds o emails, which a e
widely applied by ENGOs (Co be e, 2006), we e no common in FOA in 2006, and only hal o
hem used such echniques, bu in 2012 hanks o he acili ies o he email, inc easing numbe o
coun ies use massi e emailing o newsle e s on speci ic campaigns. In some excep ional occasions
some coun ies ha e used also mo e simila o “campaign echniques” as he case o demons a ions
(De in 2006), p omo ion o he wood ce i ica ion sys ems (Lu in 2006) deli e ing ees o poli icians
wi h a message (F in 2012), e c.
6.8 E alua ion
18
In 2006 as s ill in 2012, mos o he FOAs don’ ha e a p ope in e nal sys em o e alua ing he
esul s o hei communica ion esul s; jus ollow up o mass media co e age, bu no in sys ema ic
way. E en some coun ies which had some kind o e alua ion sys em in 2006, don’ implemen i
anymo e a 2012 (such as Si, Uk, F ). Th ee coun ies which nowadays e alua e hei
communica ion ac i i ies p oceed in qui e di e en ways: media-co e moni o ing daily, image-
su eys e e y second yea , case analysis in c isis si ua ions (Finland); checking public a i udes by
ques ionnai es (Sweden); quan i a i e me hods o e alua ing communica ion ac i i ies as well as
quali a i e e alua ion as o ho opics on he poli ical agenda and he ele an decisions aken
(La ia).
7.- Discussion and conclusions
S a egy. A w i en communica ion s a egy should appea as he i s p io i y o be se o e e y
coun y, in o de o design a ailo -made ame o goals-messages-channels o e e y di e en
ecei e o he communica ion. I is no scien i ic e idence ha a w i en s a egy wo ks be e , bu
a leas a w i en documen migh ha e passed a consensus phase among hei c ea o s. I may be
help ul o ollow a s able di ec ion, o de elop all aspec s and wi h all he needed alliances wi h
o he s akeholde s. In 2006 ew coun ies had a communica ion s a egy whe eas in 2012 mos
coun ies (excep h ee) say o ha e one which ep esen s a g ea p og ess; howe e ew coun ies
ha e i w i en. Among he h ee coun ies ha don’ ha e a s a egy, i seems speci ically se ious
o Ge many, because hey spend a la ge budge on communica ion. O e all, o ha e a s a egy
seems o be e icien as i has shi ed in his pe iod owa ds mo e ac i e communica ion and owa ds
mo e balanced sho - e m and long- e m goals in hei s a egies. Somewha s ange howe e is ha
he endency goes owa ds sho e m s a egies. CEPF pe o ms an impo an ole in on coo dina ion
and join e o o s eng h communica ions s a egies in e e y coun y; howe e i seems ha he e
is s ill much oom o imp o emen .
One o he mos comp ehensi e communica ions s a egy guidelines in Eu ope, is he one d a ed
by he Fo es Communica ions Ne wo k (UNECE, 2013), which should become he amewo k o
he FOA communica ions s a egies. I encou ages w i ing a s a egy o o es o ganiza ions.
O ganiza ion. Rega ding he p o ile o he pe son in cha ge o communica ion/lobbying, i can be
s a ed ha he deg ee o p o essionalism migh be enough, bu i would be ad isable o ha e he
suppo o a jou nalis , which in ac has been he case in 2012 in 5 coun ies al eady. An economic
cons ain may be he case o no ha ing mo e, as he sha e o he o al budge assigned o
communica ion looks in gene al o be qui e modes (lowe han 10 %), in an a e age o abou 10 000
€/yea . These da a on he o al budge , has o be conside ed in acco dance o ela i e a ea o p i a e
o es s and/o i s impo ance (i can ha e been a ec ed o he in e na ional economic c isis).
19
In he hi ing o a mass media p o essional can be no iced a ela ionship on he iches /mos
de eloped coun ies. On high expendi u e o budge , he wo big Eu opean coun ies (Ge many and
F ance) ha e he lead. Howe e in o he issues as he h ee coun ies which ha e no communica ion
s a egy (Ge many, Spain and Es onia) no g ouping ac o is iden i ied. The e o e o he hypo hesis
on po en ial ac o s in he g ouping o coun ies like he size o he coun y, owne ship dis ibu ion,
o es co e sha e, de elopmen s adium, cul u al backg ound, e c ha e no been iden i ied o be
in luencing in any g ouping o esponses. I hasn’ been no iced any geog aphical g ouping in
coun ies conce ning any o he answe s, as e e y coun y has i s own way.
The e is a wide a ie y o FOAs in Eu ope, which in spi e o ha ing mo e o less capaci y due o he
di e en impo ance o he o es sec o in each coun y, a e able o pe o m communica ion ac ions
wi h di e en deg ee o success. O he wise in gene al, om 2006 o 2012 i has been ound posi i e
imp o emen in mos o he esea ched issues.
O ganiza ion e ol es along he ime o e e y FOA, and whene e he s a has good skills o
communica ion and a clea s a egy on how o do i , migh be mo e impo an he pe sonal links o
each and in luence a ge people, han he echniques hemsel es, when alking on ee ops.
In a p elimina y websi e e iew i has been no iced ha many o es -based indus y o ganiza ions
on a na ional o Eu opean le el ha e expe s ully dedica ed o communica ion ma e s. All he big
o es companies in Eu ope (S o aEnso, UPM, SCA…) ha e Depa men s o co po a e
communica ions. This is no he case among he es o he o es y s akeholde s. O he wise you
ha e o conside he di e en size. I we compa e wi h he main ENGOs in Eu ope, hose ha e
be ween 2 (G eenpeace, 2013) and 5 (WWF, 2013) who a e specialized p o essionals dedica ed o
he communica ions, besides o he nume ous olun ee s. In G eenpeace’ inancial s a emen s o
2012, communica ion accoun ed 14 % o hei budge (G eenpeace, 2012).
Despi e ha each coun y and e en egion inside a coun y will keep hei own objec i es, as o es s
and o es y is e y di e se o he di e en coun ies; he EU o es y communica ion s a egy
(Eu opean Commission, 2011) ixes ou gene al common goals sha ed among all o es sec o ha
migh be common baseline o all s akeholde s. These goals e e o he need o sus ainable
managemen , how o es s p o ide p oduc s and se ices, he h ea s and challenges o o es s, and
o inc ease he use o wood as clima e iendly ma e ials and enewable ene gy sou ces.
Ta ge s. Poli icians almos always ind suppo o hei decisions om he high le el ci il se an s
o make hei decisions based on echnical e idence. High le el ci il se an s wo k a he hea o
he “co e execu i e”, which de elop and make go e nmen policy; his is whe e powe lies
(Heywood, A. 2011). The e o e i could be assu ed ha i is much mo e e ec i e o lobby he
bu eauc a s han he poli icians. In o es y his would mean lobbying he highly ep esen a i e
o ice s (which some imes hey a e e y ideological and long las ing wi h decades in se ice) in he
Minis ies. E en hough, p essu e is mo e e icien wi h poli icians.
20
Ne e heless, hose poli icians and decision-make s use o weigh he lobbing s eng h by he
numbe o people ( ega ded as o e s) ha hey ep esen . Consequen ly, a main a ge o a FOA
has o be pe manen ly o ga he mo e and mo e o es owne s as membe s, un il each ideally he
100 %. And a he same ime, ac i a e as much as possible he 16 million Eu opean o es owne s
as ac i e ones in he public deba e. As compa ison, G eenpeace has a ound 3 million inancial
suppo e s (membe s) Wo ldwide om whe e a ound 2 million a e loca ed in Eu ope.
On he o he hand, in o de o change he long e m pe cep ions o he socie y owa ds o es s and
o es y, i migh be needed o a ge socie y in gene al and child en/young in pa icula , which is
no being he p io i y among FOAs’ g ass oo s s a egies.
Messages. Fo es s mean di e en hings o di e en people and his can c ea e con lic s o in e es
esul ing in mixed and con using messages (K o , M. 2000). Messages e ol e wi h he de elopmen
o he o es sec o and he new eali ies (e.g. biomass, clima e change). In gene al he messages o
he FOAs a e in line wi h he ou gene al messages sugges ed by he Fo es Communica ions
Ne wo k (UNECE, 2013). Besides, none o hese messages a e opposed by any campaign om he
main ENGOs in Eu ope.
O e he las yea s, communica ion channels a e changing as , and in e ne abo e o all is ha ing a
g ea in luence on c ea ing and mobilizing public opinion. Social ne wo ks, as well as online sho
ideos, a e nowadays an easy ool o sp eading messages. Howe e whils main ENGOs a e p esen
in he social ne wo ks, o es owne s a e no ye he e. In ol ing he decision-make s in o ums o
discussion has been p o en o be a e y e ec i e way o in luence hem. Unde he bes
ci cums ances, he b oades ange o communica ion channels mus be used, as each channel migh
be i s bes o eaching each di e en a ge g oup.
Campaign echniques ha e plen y o oom o imp o emen , and such echniques employed by
ENGOs ha e been p o ed o be e icien ways o ge mass media a en ion and he e o e public
opinion in he ocus.
Bo h app oaches, ee ops and g ass oo s a e exe cised by he FOAs, as a combined s a egy,
poin ing di ec ac ions owa ds decision-make s a he same ime ha hey a ge he public
awa eness on o es y bene i s o a long e m suppo om he socie y. Howe e he po en ial powe
o he millions o o es owne s o pe o m g ass oo s ac ions migh s ill be unde u ilized.
Common o ums and speci ic ini ia i es as o example he UNECE-FAO Fo es Communica o s
Ne wo k (UNECE, 2013), which aims exchange expe ience in o de o iden i y he bes p ac ices,
migh help in gi ing homogenei y on s a egies and messages, as well as imp o ing he
p o essionaliza ion o o es s akeholde s wishing o communica e and lobbying. These p o essional
o ums cons i u e he poli ical lea ning which d i es o he policy ad ance and change.

21
E alua ion on social change is always a di icul long- e m p ocesses, and he only way is by
pe iodical public opinion polls. O he wise in luence in na ional o Eu opean p ocesses as o
example in any e iew o he Common Ag icul u al Policy, can be easy o moni o ize when speci ic
measu es ha e been p oposed o be included. Ne e heless, some coun ies migh se e as a
benchma king o he es o he FOAs o imp o e hei sys ems.
Communica ion is a social science and he e o e i does no ha e same esul s e en unde same
condi ion, because people always di e . The e o e he p ocess o e alua ion and ollow-up should
be he mos impo an pa in a communica ions s a egy e en i o measu e i u ns o be so di icul .
Coali ions and compe i ion wi h o he s akeholde s. The Ad ocacy Coali ion F amewo k (ACF)
(So i o and Memmle , 2012) is applied o policy deba es, whe e o en con lic s appea due o
di e en s akeholde s wi h di e en and opposi e alues ha hey wan o lobby in o de o mee
hei goals.
F om he pe spec i e o he Ad ocacy Coali ion F amewo k (ACF) (So i o and Memmle , 2012)
i can be said ha he di e en FOAs migh sha e he co e belie s and he e o e he e is an ideological
link. The e o e om he pe spec i e o he new model o e ec i e lobbying s a egies in he case o
he FOAs, i hasn’ been ound as an impo an ac o he compe i ion wi h o he sec o s, which will
come in his case as a hi d ac o in impo ance ins ead han as a second ac o as de ined in he
model. Howe e i has been no iced ha he na ional in e es s owa ds mo e o less p oduc i e
o es y s a es he di e en alliances in hei coali ions, especially wi h ENGOs.
22
8.- Recommenda ions
Only o es owne s a e he main and i s esponsible o he managemen o hei lands. And
consequen ly poli icians ha dly implemen any hing in o es y wi hou hei in ol emen . They a e
a ele an o es s akeholde , who can be ace- o- ace wi h wood and pape companies, because hey
o m he bases o he o es alue chain, by ha ing he con ol o he aw ma e ial supply. The e o e,
ac ually i hey a e well o ganized and communica e adequa ely, hey migh each conside able
ba gain powe .
The e a e some o he lessons lea ned om his esea ch: communica ions s a egies a FOAs could
and should be imp o ed, and he bes way is p obably o ollow a s a egy, wi h all i s elemen s
p ope ly de eloped (objec i es, messages, a ge s, channels, e alua ion…). The join e o wi h
communica ion/mass media p o essionals would always u n in o a mo e success ul esul . Goals
ha e o be iden i ied a sho as well as long e m, wide a ie y o channels should be used, messages
ha e o be simple and clea , and collabo a ion wi h o he s o ganiza ions (ag icul u e, wood
cons uc ion, e c) has o be enhanced. Examples om mo e expe ienced o ganiza ions and sec o s
in communica ion shall be benchma ked, and knowledge and expe iences shall be ans e ed om
one coun y o ano he .
Fu he esea ch is needed in o public pe cep ion o o es s and o es y, which migh help o de ine
communica ion s a egies. Finland al eady has a long adi ion o hese s udies (SMY, 2012) and i
is expec ed ha mo e coun ies will ollow. Ano he esea ch subjec shall be o s udy he echniques
o he g ass oo s s a egies ha ENGOs apply success ully, o lea n om hei b oade expe ience
in mobilizing people and hus ake ad an age o he c i ical mass o 16 million o es owne s sp ead
a ound Eu ope.
9.- Acknowledgemen s
The au ho s a e g a e ul o all he Fo es Owne s Associa ions ha ha e pa icipa ed in his esea ch
s udy by answe ing he ques ionnai es bo h in 2006 and again in 2012.
10.- Re e ences
Aase e, J., 2006. Pe cep ions o communica ion in No wegian o es managemen . Fo es Policy
and Economics. Volume 8, issue 1.
Bach, D. and Un uh, G., 2005. Lobbying. Ins i u o de Emp esa. Mad id, Spain.
Be lo, D. K. 1960. The p ocess o communica ion. New Yo k, New Yo k: Hol , Rineha , &
Wins on.
23
Bu oud, G. and Samyn, JM., 1999. Poli ique e plani ica ion o es iè e. Guide pou la o mula ion
e l’élabo a ion. In e coope a ion. Be ne. 87 p. (in F ench). F ance.
B yman, A., 2004. Social esea ch me hods. Ed. Ox od Uni e si y p ess. New Yo k, USA.
CEPF, 2009 Con ede a ion o Eu opean Fo es Owne s. A ailable om h p://www.cep -eu.o g/
[Accessed June 2014].
Co be , J., 2006. Communica ing Na u e. How we c ea e and unde s and en i onmen al messages.
Island P ess, London, UK.
COST Ac ion E-19., 2004. Fo es s o he u u e. Na ional o es p og ammes in Eu ope. UK.
Co le, M. Howa d, T. 2012. Con lic managemen and communi y suppo o conse a ion in he
No he n Fo es : Case s udies om Maine. Jou nal o Fo es Policy and Economics.
Volume 20, July 2012, Pages 66-71.
Cox, R., 2006. En i onmen al Communica ion and he public sphe e. Sage Publica ions. Cali o nia,
USA.
C aig, R. 1999. Communica ion Theo y as a Field. Blackwell Publishing L d.; In e na ional
Communica ion Associa ion.
Dominguez, G., 2008. Unde s anding Fo es Owne s in a Medi e anean Con ex . Cons uc ing
heo y h ough desc ip i e and in e p e a ional analysis. Disse a ion. Albe -Ludwigs
Uni e si y. F eibu g, Ge many.
Eu opean Commission., 2011. EU Fo es Communica ion S a egy. DG Ag icul u e and Ru al
De elopmen . A ailable om h p://ec.eu opa.eu/ag icul u e/ o e/publi/communica ion-
s a egy_en.pd [Accessed June 2014].
Eu opean Commission., 2009. Shaping o es communica ion in he Eu opean Union: public
pe cep ions o o es s and o es y. DG Ag icul u e and Ru al De elopmen .
Eu opean Commission., 2007. Fo es y s a is ics. B ussels, Belgium.
Fab a-C espo, M e al. 2012. Public pe cep ion on o es y issues in he Region o Valencia (Eas e n
Spain): di e ging om policy make s?. Jou nal o Fo es Sys ems 2012 21(1): 99-110
FAO, 2011. S a e o Eu ope’s o es s 2011. S a us & ends in Sus ainable Fo es Managemen in
Eu ope. UNECE, Gene a, Swi ze land.
FAO, 2010. P i a e o es owne ship in Eu ope. Gene a Timbe and o es s udy pape n 26. Uni ed
Na ions.
Fazio, J. and Gilbe , D., 2000. Public Rela ions and Communica ions o Na u al Resou ce
Manage s 420 pages; so co e . Kendall/Hun Publishing Company. Dubuque, Iowa,
USA.
Fo es Eu ope, 2011. S a e o Eu ope’s Fo es s 2011. S a us and ends in sus ainable o es
managemen in Eu ope. Ed. Uni ed Na ions.
24
h p://www. o es eu ope.o g/documen os/S a e_o _Eu opes_Fo es s_2011_Repo _Re is
ed_No embe _2011.pd [Accessed June 2014].
F ank o -Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D., 1999. Resea ch me hods in he social sciences. Ed.
Wo h publishe s.
Ghai, D. and Vi ian, J.M., 1992. G ass oo s en i onmen al ac ion: people's pa icipa ion in
sus ainable de elopmen . Ed. Rou ledge.
Glück, P. e al., 2010. The p econdi ions o he o ma ion o p i a e o es owne s’ in e es
associa ions in he Wes e n Balkan Region. Jou nal o o es policy and economics.
Volume 12, issue 4, pp. 250 – 263.
G eenpeace, 2013. A ailable om h p://www.g eenpeace.o g/eu-uni /en/abou /s a / [Accessed
June 2014].
G eenpeace, 2012. Annual epo 2012. G eenpeace In e na ional. A ailable om:
h p://www.g eenpeace.o g/in e na ional/Global/in e na ional/publica ions/g eenpeace/20
13/GPI-AnnualRepo 2012.pd [Accessed June 2014]
G eenwood J. and ThomasC. 1998. Regula ing Lobbying in he Wes e n Wo ld, 51
PARLIAMENTARY AFF. 487, 487.
Han ais, L., 1995. Compa a i e esea ch me hods. In: Social esea ch upda e. Issue 13, summe
1995. Depa men o Sociology, Uni e si y o Su ey, Su ey, UK.
Heywood, A., 2011. Essen ials o UK poli ics. Ed. Palg a e Macmillan.
Hy inen, P., 2001. P ospec s o small-scale o es y in Eu ope. In Niskanen, A & Väy ynen, J (eds)
Economic sus ainabili y o small-scale o es y. EFI P oceedings N 36, Joensuu, Finland.
IFFA - In e na ional Family Fo es Alliance. A ailable om h p://www. amily o es y.ne /
[Accessed Sep embe 2013].
Jaa inen, M. 1998. Lobbying o con lic accommoda ion – a con ingency model. Co po a e
communica ions – An in e na ional jou nal, Vol. 3, Nº 1, Ma ch/Ap il, 23-42.
Jaa inen M. 1999. Lobbying poli ical issues. A con ingency model o e ec i e lobbying s a egies.
In o ies in ä. Helsingin yliopis o e kkojulkaisu , Helsinki.
Janse, G., 2007. Communica ion in o es policy decision-making in Eu ope: a s udy on
communica ion p ocesses be ween policy, science and he public. Disse a iones Fo es ales
48. Facul y o Fo es Sciences. Uni e si y o Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland.
Ju in, R. e al., 2010. En i onmen al communica ion. Skills and p inciples o na u al esou ce
manage s, scien is s and enginee s. Second edi ion. Sp inge .