Europe

Forest Policy in Austria:
Policy Making by the Sector for the Sector
by Michael Pregernig and Gerhard Weiss

Forests gradually spread to cover almost the whole of the mountainous country of Austria with the withdrawal of ice from 13,000 years ago. Neolithic farmers began clearance of forests in lowland arable areas from about 6000 BP but it was not until the Middle Ages that uplands began to be cleared and alpine pastures established which lowered the tree line. Today, 47% (3.9 m. ha.) of the country is covered with trees. Of this about 3% is old growth forest, 22% semi-natural, 40% 'moderately altered', 27% 'altered' and 8% artificial (plantations). Conifers, the naturally dominant species in the mountainous areas, have also replaced broadleaved species in lowland areas and constitute 70% of the tree cover.

In prehistoric times, forests were used by the communities but in the Middle Ages forests were arrogated to the Crown with the assertion of the feudal political order and enfeoffed to aristocrats. Accessible forests were heavily exploited to service emerging mining industries and saltworks. With the revolution of 1848, however, forest property rights were clearly defined, giving ownership partly to the State, partly to aristocrats, farmers, local co-operatives and villages/towns. The law of 1852 enforced the preservation of all forest land and sustainable timber production. The present pattern of forest ownership strongly influences forest policy. Only 1% of the 214,000 forest owners hold areas of more than 200 ha. and 65% of owners hold lots of less than 5 ha., with 80% of forests being in private hands and 20% owned by the State.

Forestry is not a major sector of the national economy, contributing only about 3.8% of GDP. In terms of exports the sector is more significant with forest products comprising 10% by value, second only to tourism as a source of foreign exchange.

A unique aspect of Austria is its corporatist political order, which strives for consensus-based decision-making among statutory interest organizations established by public law and with obligatory membership. Based on notions of social partnership, shared values and mutually compatible goals, the interest groups, represented through their 'Chambers', strive to find compromise political arrangements acceptable to all and often review and amend draft legislation before it reaches parliament. Within this structure, the interests of forest-owners are represented by the Agriculture Chamber, which is lobbied by large well-established voluntary associations of forest-owners. Environmentalists' concerns have no such formal representation among the policy-making elite.

Forest clearance is not a serious problem in Austria and is rarely allowed, except in peri-urban areas. Forest degradation, on the other hand, is a matter of considerable public concern. Although fears in the 1980s of widespread forest die-back from industrial pollution proved to be exaggerated, foliage and tree-crown damage from pollutants, notably sulphur and nitrogen oxides, is widespread. The enactment of quite strict anti-pollution legislation has reduced national sulphur emissions by some 75% but overall levels have not been reduced much. Today 93% of sulphur pollutants come across Austria's borders especially from Eastern Europe and even with financial aid it will be some time before abatement measures can be introduced in these areas. Increasing vehicle use still causes high levels of nitrogen oxides pollution. In the context of a strong national policy that promotes economic growth and an economy that is presently struggling to meet these objectives, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has vetoed stronger national legislation on air pollution.

Overbrowsing and bark-peeling by deer populations, kept artificially high with imported feed, is another major cause of forest degradation. Proposals to reduce deer populations have been strongly resisted by sport hunters, who are organised into a powerful lobby and many of whom are also forest owners. Hunting is a very popular, prestige sport in Austria and general public sympathy for deer, with their 'Bambi' image, also translates into a strong sentiment against measures to reduce deer numbers. Environmentalists have been nervous of challenging these public perceptions.

Forest management objectives prioritise timber production and favour extensive even-age stands of monocultures, especially conifers. Conservationists argue that the results are increased pest damage, biodiversity loss and a reduction in soil quality. The same emphasis on forest production and the cosy relations between the forest authority and forest owners also explain why protection forests, essential to stabilise hillsides from landslides and avalanches, are poorly maintained despite government subsidies. Forestry officials are reluctant to upset their social partners, the forest owners.

In addition to the way the political economy of forest management militates against policies that prioritise forest protection, ecological functions and biodiversity values, the authors single out several other factors as underlying causes of forest degradation, including the way new research findings are not translated into revised forestry practice because of institutional rivalry between the forest administration and forest research institutes. Finally the authors discuss a number of conceivable measures to promote better forest management. They assess the expected impacts and the chances of implementation of possible actions including stricter regulations, enhanced social awareness of the importance of forests, closer engagement by environmentalists in the corporatist decision-making process, eco-taxes, forest certification, financial incentives and a more participatory style of politics to erode present-day clientelism.

back to UC Process