ArticleAmbio2025
Politics of delay hinder the implementation of EU Forest Strategy in Finland.
Article in Ambio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyses potential barriers to the implementation of the New EU Forest Strategy 2030 (EUFS) in Finland. When the EUFS was published in 2021, emphasising environmental outcomes and forests as carbon sinks, the timber-oriented countries were cautious of the strategy. While the EUFS is not a legally binding document, it comes with legally binding forest-related regulation. To shed light on a Member State's response to these policy developments, policy documents and interview data was analysed through a critical institutional policy analysis lens, using policy transfer and policy delay frameworks. "All talk, little action" was the most prominent strategy in delaying implementation of the EUFS, partly legitimized by concerns that Nordic forestry expertise and needs are sidelined in the EU, and by emphasising private property rights and national sovereignty. This research demonstrates that national priorities can override international climate and biodiversity commitments, highlighting a critical gap between formal commitments and real-world practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.