2.2 European Forest Restoration Policy History

In the last decades, changes in public policies and regulatory frameworks have played a central role in shaping forest restoration efforts across Europe. Over the years, policy initiatives from forestry, biodiversity conservation, agriculture and rural development, water management, climate, and bioenergy have all shifted. These changes have influenced how forest restoration is understood, framed, and put into practice. Related policies operate across multiple levels of governance, including international, EU, national and regional scales. 

The evolution of sectoral policies and their sometimes competing objectives have often paralleled changing societal expectations and restoration goals. Initially focused on forest related disaster risk mitigation (e.g., recovery of deforestation and degraded forests causing floods, landslides, fires, and timber shortage after excessive timber logging and grazing), policy priorities later shifted toward intensive timber production. Then they prioritized multifunctional forest management and more recently, climate change adaptation and ecosystem resilience (Sotirov and Storch 2018; Erdozain et al., 2024). Historical examples illustrate this progression. In the 19th and early 20th century, several policies emphasized forests’ soil and water protective functions, such as the French Law for Protection Against Natural Risks (1860), Spain’s Reforestation of Hydrological Basins Law (1877), Slovenia’s Karst Afforestation Law (1881) and Austria’s Torrent and Avalanche Control Act (1884). Productive functions gained policy traction in the early 20th century, through instruments like Sweden’s first Forestry Act (1903), the UK Forestry Acts (1919, 1951), Finland’s Private Forest Act (1928) and Germany’s Forest Decree (1952). By the late 20th century, policies promoting biodiversity conservation and multifunctional forestry had become more prominent. Notable examples include the Flemish Forest Decree (1990), the Swiss Forest Law (1991), Poland’s Forest Act (1991) and the Netherlands’ Nature Protection Act (1998). Yet, early examples of conservation-oriented policy also exist, such as Denmark’s 1919 Nature Conservation Act, which financially rewarded landowners who prioritized scenic and ecological values. 

Forest restoration has been supported by different types of policy instruments over time. Regulatory command-and-control tools, particularly prohibitions, were common, including restrictions on forest grazing, litter raking or clear-cutting. France’s Forest Code of 1827, for instance, limited grazing and firewood collection on common lands. Mandatory measures, such as legal obligations to reforest after harvests or disturbances, or to prepare forest management plans, have also been established and remained influential. Austria’s Imperial Forest Act of 1852, for example, required reforestation within five years of logging. Organizational reforms within the forest sector have greatly shaped restoration strategies. Notable examples include the nationalization of forests in the post-WWII period and subsequent waves of privatization later in the 20th century. Other important structural changes involved the establishment of dedicated institutions, such as Spain’s Reforestation Commissions (1888) and Slovenia’s Karst Afforestation Commissions (1881), and the redistribution of forest management responsibilities across government sectors. Finally, persuasive instruments, such as education, advisory services and awareness campaigns, also played a key role. For example, in the 1950s, Hungary promoted afforestation of the Great Plains through public information campaigns. In Switzerland, the professionalization of forestry began already in 1855 with centralized training at ETH Zurich and regional schools, fostering a strong professional identity and coordinated management practices.