Filip Aggestam

Dr. Filip Aggestam

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2020 in Journal of Environmental Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FAFilip Aggestam
Filip Aggestam
AKA. Konczal
A. Konczal
MSM. Sotirov
M. Sotirov
IWI. Wallin
I. Wallin
YPY. Paillet
Y. Paillet
GWG. Winkel
G. Winkel

6 March 2018 in Forests
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FAFilip Aggestam
Filip Aggestam
HPHelga Pülzl
Helga Pülzl
The second European Union (EU) Forest Strategy responds to new challenges facing both forests and the forest-based sector which highlights the EU’s need for a policy framework ensuring coordination and coherence of forest-related policies. The objective of the present article is to analyse whether the new Strategy contributes towards horizontal policy coherence of EU forest-related policies, given its shared and exclusive competences. This is achieved by comparing European Commission and forest industry policy priorities as articulated in the Strategy and through research carried out for the recent Cumulative Cost Assessment (CCA) of forest-based industries. Results from the comparative analysis demonstrate that the Strategy does not address many EU policies and policy instruments that affect the whole forest value chain and that it clearly omits existing EU policy instrument objectives that entail significant costs for the forest-based industry. It is therefore argued that without coordinating collective EU goals and gathering strong political support, it is at best extremely difficult or at worst impossible, to achieve coherence for EU forest-related policies across the whole forest value chain. Improving coherence of Union forest-related policies will require the Strategy to address more policy areas and instruments, including clearly defined parameters of what constitutes an EU forest-related policy. These pressing needs reach beyond what the Strategy presently sets out to achieve.

22 December 2015 in AMBIO
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RSRupert Seidl
Rupert Seidl
FAFilip Aggestam
Filip Aggestam
WRWerner Rammer
Werner Rammer
Kristina BlennowKristina Blennow
Kristina Blennow
BWBernhard Wolfslehner
Bernhard Wolfslehner

15 July 2025
Verified
Report
Closed access
CWConvention On Wetlands
Convention On Wetlands
HRH. Robertson
H. Robertson
SFS Fennessy
S Fennessy
GHG. Hilton
G. Hilton
NJN. Job
N. Job
VHV. van 'T Hoff
V. van 'T Hoff
The Global Wetland Outlook 2025 is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the state of wetlands worldwide, their value, and their future. Produced by the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) of the Convention on Wetlands, the report presents the latest data on the extent of wetlands, trends in their degradation, the value of their ecosystem services, and the scale of action and investment required to meet global restoration and conservation targets.

29 October 2011 in European Journal of Forest Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HPHelga Pülzl
Helga Pülzl
IPIrina Prokofieva
Irina Prokofieva
SBStaffan Berg
Staffan Berg
EREwald Rametsteiner
Ewald Rametsteiner
FAFilip Aggestam
Filip Aggestam
BWBernhard Wolfslehner
Bernhard Wolfslehner

13 May 2020 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FAFilip Aggestam
Filip Aggestam
HPHelga Pülzl
Helga Pülzl
The first EU Forest Strategy was adopted in 1998 to provide general guidelines for an EU forest policy designed to coordinate other EU forest-relevant policies. The implementation of the first strategy was done under the auspices of the EU Forest Action Plan, covering the period from 2007 to 2011. The Forest Action Plan was a tool that facilitated voluntary cooperation between EU Member States (no enforcement capabilities), with some coordinating actions being implemented by the European Commission. The reason for returning to the Forest Action Plan in this article is to provide further insight into how it was employed by EU Member States—in contrast to the majority of similar articles on the topic, which are primarily concerned with an examination of EU forest-relevant policies by either analyzing the impact of EU decision-making on forestry at the national level or studying EU Member States’ influence on the EU rather than how EU Member States actually react to EU strategies. This paper addresses this empirical gap and highlights the significant variations of the Europeanization effects on EU Member States when deciding upon and implementing a non-legally binding policy instrument when compared to legally binding policy instruments. Individual Member States exhibit varied strategies when implementing a soft policy instrument, as their respective decision spaces are substantially different, particularly when the costs and benefits of complying are not comparable to those of a legally binding instrument. These results highlight the need for a more nuanced and varied approach to the implementation of soft policy instruments by the EU, with the additional implementation strategies suggested in this article being presented to assist in meeting this need for variation.