Differences and similarities in the adoption of the forest functions concept across 14 EU countries

Forest functions (FFs) are widely used to practice multifunctional forestry, yet their conceptualization remains fragmented across the European Union (EU). We conducted a qualitative content analysis of government-produced documents from EU countries to determine whether and how FFs are formalized. 14 countries recognize FFs: five conceptualize FFs as a policy principle guiding forestry towards delivering ecosystem services (ESs); nine use FFs as a spatially-explicit tool to identify areas where specific ESs take priority and to pursue management objectives. The latter approach evaluates FFs within the framework of forest plans at landscape or regional scale with planning horizons of 10–20 years, and includes, at best, consultative participation. FFs may be prioritized to determine the prevailing function in a given area. Member States identify four FF types, which are further divided into subtypes. Based on the number of FF subtypes and indicators, application points and categories of indicators, the social function receives lawmakers' greatest attention. The results indicate that divergent conceptualizations among and within countries lead to unequal distribution of FF outcomes under decentralized forestry governance. Since understanding FFs as a spatially-explicit tool better operationalizes multifunctionality, we recommend adopting this conceptualization by: (i) limiting FFs to four types with measurable, non-redundant subtypes, and a balanced and unbiased indicator set; (ii) evaluating and prioritizing FFs within forest plans at landscape or regional scales, updated every 15 years; (iii) elevating participation to the involvement level; (iv) initiating EU-level harmonization of the FF concept to reduce inequities and enhance sustainable forest management.