Aversion, Polarization and Decision-Making Deadlock in Forestry Policy - Assessing the Tentative (In)desirability of State Forests Holding in Poland from National Press Review and Micro-Identities Framework.

Currently observed climate threats highlight the urgent need to mitigate their causes and adapt to their consequences. Forestry is one sector deeply involved in this effort. On the one hand, it contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; on the other hand, it must also adapt to the future effects of climate change. As a result, forestry has become a subject of intense discussion and disagreement. In this paper, we examine how the activities of the State Forest Holding in Poland are assessed. This case is particularly unique because approximately 80% of forests in Poland are state-owned and managed by a single centralized organization: the State Forest Holding. However, the organization's actions have increasingly come under public scrutiny. By analyzing six national press titles (dailies and weeklies) published between 2000 and 2022, we reconstruct the image of the State Forest Holding as portrayed in articles written by authors from various political orientations (right-wing, centrist, left-wing). These articles reflect differing perspectives in the context of historical conflicts over forest management with deepening polarization and greater involvement of emotional discourse in subsequent years. Our analysis reveals a polarized range of views on the State Forest Holding, from its defense as a strategic asset for the state to critiques calling for its reform or privatization. We argue that these starkly contrasting assessments stem from differing viewpoints (internal or external to the institution), value systems, and belief structures. Together, they form distinct micro-identities, characterized by unique epistemic realities, strong internal support for ideological positions, and in-group self-determination, often at the expense of broader societal interests. The dynamics of inter-group relations are increasingly disconnected from state structures, contributing to declining trust in institutions like the State Forest Holding. These institutions are often perceived as ineffective or serving partisan rather than public interests. Diverging evaluations of such institutions intensify the emotional tone of discourse and hinder dialogue between individuals with opposing beliefs. This polarization results in mutually exclusive solutions proposed by different groups regarding the State Forest Holding's role and activities. In the context of forestry’s significance in addressing climate change, such conflicts transform public policy-making into “wicked problems” that are impracticable to solve.