“When it comes to managing our forests, we need a bottom-up strategy,” Ulrike Müller, rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, emphasized. © R. Spannlang
Before the plenary session of the European Parliament, the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, its spokeswoman Ulrike Müller, emphasized that the expertise of foresters in the member states is crucial since the balanced management and conservation of their forests promotes the ability of the latter to adapt to climate change. In order to do so, foresters need the support of the Commission, not constraints. “The EU forest strategy is only successful if the forest owners are successful as a result of it,” Müller declared and summed up emphatically: “When it comes to managing our forests in the face of climate change, we should choose a bottom-up strategy!”
In the following debate among members of the EU Parliament, committed supporters of the EU strategy in its current form spoke up (“Vast areas fell victim to wildfires in Europe this summer. We mustn’t cut down trees now!”). Surprisingly, however, an even bigger number of members of the Parliament warned against imposing additional restrictions on the forest sector with this forest strategy. “The EU doesn’t need to explain to the Finnish people how to best manage their forests in the face of climate change,” exclaimed a representative of Finland.
The vote on the EU forest strategy in its current form is to take place tomorrow. The Holzkurier will continue to cover developments.
Top-down versus bottom-up
The top-down or bottom-up approaches both break down overarching goals, challenges or problems into individual, detailed sub-units. The bottom-up approach starts with concrete and specific details or aspects and goes on to a more general level. The top-down approach is the opposite, i.e. general aspects represent the starting point from which one goes on to the specifics or details.
