University of Liege – Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech
Dept. of Biosystem Engineering, Unit of Forest and Nature Management 2 Passage des Déportés, B-5030 GEMBLOUX (BELGIUM)
Public Service of Wallonia
Laboratory of Wood Technology
23 Av. Maréchal Juin, B-5030 GEMBLOUX (BELGIUM) Contact: simon.riguelle@spw.wallonie.be
Building an integrated policy regarding forest risks at the regional level
First insights from a upcoming research project in Wallonia, Belgium
Simon RIGUELLE
Increase forest risk awareness at the policy level
Bridge knowledge gaps through appropriated researches
Develop and/or implement risk analysis tools
Listen to stakeholders' concerns (inclusive governance)
Share good practices among forest community at the European level
Key
Challenges
?
Context
COST action FP 1207- Orchestrating forest-related policy analysis in Europe (ORCHESTRA) Final conference - 5-6 September 2016, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)
European forests are facing manifold biotic and abiotic risks
Multifunctional role of forests implies multiple stakeholders and concerns
Climatic and market uncertainties jeopardize classical approach of risks
Regional or supra-regional risk management policies still at embryonic state
Need for methodology and framework for sound policy-making
Methodology
Target of the project
Building a regional forest risk policy that
conciliate economic, ecosystem and societal concerns, whilst taking in account long-term challenges and uncertainties and interrelations
with other decisional levels
1) Defining objectives at the policy level (i.e. regional scale)
2) Agreeing on a risk analysis framework (fig. 1)
3) Identification and assessment of current risk strategies (fig. 2)
4) Iterative and cross analysis (integrated approach, fig. 2-3)
5) Trade-offs at the policy level
Policy-building process
Figure 1: risk analysis framework (IRGC 2007)
Figure 2: policy building process (RA: risk analysis ; RP: risk policy)
Integrated RP
RA
RA
RA
RA
Multidimensional RA Externa l context Trade-offs RP #1 RP #2 RP #3 RP #4 Risk #3 Risk #1 Risk #2Figure 3: Inclusive governance(Riguelle et al. 2016)
Risk #4