Rippling into a forest or wood sink approach to climate change mitigation: Actor Preferences for Policy Strategies and Instruments

Different policy instruments can serve the same policy goal, such as climate change mitigation, while serving very different individual interests. The question whether carbon should be stored primarily as a standing stock (forest sink) or in harvested wood for material use (wood sink) is a prime example of such a goal that can be pursued with different strategies. As more countries commit to achieving a net zero carbon emissions goal within the next decades, this question becomes ever more relevant. Using the case study of Swiss constituent state of Lucerne, we evaluate stakeholders’ preferences of a variety of policy instruments, promoting either forest or timber sinks. We differentiate between instruments according to the degree of government intervention: informational, cooperative, economic, and regulatory instruments. Using data from an online survey conducted in 2020 to evaluate existing instruments (e.g. information campaigns) and potential novel instruments currently used in other policy fields (e.g. direct payments to forest owners, similar to those used in agricultural policy), we provide an overview of preferred policy instruments in relation to forest and timber sinks. In the Swiss corporatist system, the stakeholders – and their preferences - can significantly influence (future) decisions on the distribution of funding and resources. Hence, we explore the discrepancy between the evaluation of individual policy instruments and support for a specific strategy (wood sink versus forest sink) in the context of a first-mover advantage and its ripple effect on subsequent policy choices.