Forests, trees, and forested lands are claimed for many purposes. They provide for materials such as timber, pulp and non-timber products; and also for carbon, for biodiversity, for soil and water protection; as well as for energy and rural development. They provide space for recreation, eco-tourism and socio-cultural and spiritual values in the global North and South alike. Many of these interests are interconnected, and they entail critical cross-sectoral and transboundary interdependencies. In these highly contested and connected spaces with a myriad of powerful (and less powerful) interests at play, policies related to forests and forest lands shape and are shaped by the outcomes of actors’ negotiations and impositions of their interests. These interests reflect underlying institutional histories, discourses, and information at various levels, domestically, regionally (e.g., the EU), and internationally. Science and research, and especially social sciences, is required to unpack and critically examine forest policy, decision making and implementation processes and practice, and assess its implications for people (including historically underrepresented groups, women, and youth) and planet. Why, then, do we have to ask the question of how to decolonise forest policy research – and why does it matter? Participants in the International Forest Policy Meeting 5 (IFPM5) discussed these and other issues during the event in April 2024 in Helsinki, Finland.
The conference opened by encouraging the forest policy research community to reflect on why decolonising forest policy research matters, for us as individual scholars and young researchers, as members of organisations related to the forest sector and to research, and last but not least, as citizens in the Nordics and elsewhere. The keynote, delivered by Prof. Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni from the University of Bayreuth in Germany, reminded all of us that research always risks to reproduce colonial thinking and the power relations within, even if the colonial history seems far away and irrelevant for someone from a Nordic country or from other parts of the world. In his opening words, he called for “Rethinking our thinking, and unthinking thinking” (see more here). During the following panel discussion, participants from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe reflected on why the topic is so relevant in a forest policy and research context that is heavily characterized by global trade and investment patterns, and by local benefits and burdens. Science and research is playing a critical role in forest policy and practice, when it informs and shapes beliefs over what is valuable, why and for whom in and beyond the forest sector. The different panels and presentations reflected many of the contestations related to these issues, the histories, the choices made in the domestic and international forest policy arenas, and the outcomes: We heard about the EU forest policy making and member state policies, the EUDR, gender relations within and beyond European forests, and implications of colonial legacies in the Congo Basin, in Indonesia and Brazil. We also heard about the African Union (AU), their forest-reliant communities, and efforts to overcome inequalities in the forest policy arena.
Over the 3 days of the conference in Helsinki, participants from all over the world shared their experiences, exchanged knowledge, and reflected over three main aspects we identify and discuss below and that help us to understand why we need to unthink and rethink forest policy research.
1. Whose knowledge counts?
Panelists and the closing plenary participants examined critically what is considered acceptable knowledge, who and what is left out, or silenced by history, geography, or by measurement. The question of whose knowledge counts was raised in particular during sessions concerned with gender equality in the Nordic countries, and in relation to Sámi and other indigenous populations. Examples from the panel “Forest Anthropology in Europe” showed how, from the North to the South, there is a long history of legitimizing particular knowledge while marginalizing others. In Finland, this has translated into conflicts between Sámi reindeer herders and large scale forestry projects, where ontological clashes still persist today. In the Congo Basin, despite their crucial role in early tropical botanical studies, in locating valuable tree species and navigating the forest, local and indigenous knowledge has often been dismissed as anecdotal or superstitious. Examples from the panel “Knowledge and science in a political forest”, demonstrated how the hierarchy of knowledge still prevails in modern European forestry and policy practices. Another common example being the persistent disagreements among scientists over what methodological approaches are considered "hard" science" - and which not.
2. Who defines what is counted, and who counts?
Another issue that came up during the conference, particularly in sessions concerned with reporting requirements or forest carbon monitoring, is the question of power that comes with decisions over what is counted by whom, what is considered valuable, and what is countable. Historically, foresters were tasked with diameter and density testing, to optimize rational forest management for timber yields. Today, in the case of carbon finance, measurements of carbon stocks and forest growth dynamics are crucial for countries looking to offset their emissions or sell their carbon credits. Decolonising forest policy research would require a critical examination of dominant narratives and narrators—and the power relations within: “counting promotes the counter and demotes the counted”, as Robert Chambers famously pointed out some 40 years ago. Talks from the panel “Identifying challenges and ways forwards for the EU Deforestation Regulation” also pointed to how some power dynamics may underlie and shape definitions of what data is useful and how it should be collected. Definitions of what is deforestation, what is traceability, and who should disclose what data to whom are at the core of some of the policies that aim to halt illegal or environmentally harming actions overseas. .
3. How do we count?
During the opening panel, as well as in subsequent panels, methodologies in forest policy research were critically examined, with a focus on the biases and cognitive injustices that might arise from our methodological choices. Science tends to count what is countable, e.g., the number of trees, birds, and people, rainfall or timber yields. The technology to collect, process and store this data is ever growing, transforming the way we do science. However, much gets lost in the translation into data. Examples from a panel which examined through an anthropological lens forests (and forestry) in Europe illustrated how definitions of what is an old growth forest is shaped by available technology, “turning data sets into UNESCO world heritage”, as one panelist framed it.
With these examples, we highlighted only a few of the more than 30 panels and sessions that took place during the meeting, which all together indicate how the relatively young field of International Forest Policy is constantly evolving - and is in need to unthink and rethink its underlying assumptions, theories, methods and practices. The IFPM5 conference provided a space for expertise from Europe and other parts of the globe to network, exchange and learn from each other. Bringing international experts to Helsinki, the conference also provided the opportunity for participants to engage in critical discussions and learning for risk-mitigating future avenues for policy-making in Nordic forests, while at the same time providing lessons from Nordic forests and forest policy.
Finally, a way forward in our attempts to decolonise forest policy research is moving towards subject-to-subject relationships, as opposed to “subject-object” approaches—including relationships between humans and non-humans. The participants in the opening panel as well as the concluding plenary discussion of the conference pointed to the many challenges we still face in our attempts to decolonize forest policy research, and the many barriers that exist within us individually, the organizations we are part of, and the broader society. Yet, while there is no blueprint, awareness was raised and discussions of how we as a community, in the Nordics and elsewhere can change our practices continued beyond the time of the conference. A follow up session during the IFPM6 in 2026 can tell us more about the longer lasting changes achieved by the initial reflections here.
A short version of this post can be found on the Nordic Forest Research (SNS) website.