Forest management after the economic transition—at the crossroads between German and Scandinavian traditions

Abstract

Germany and Scandinavia represent two paradigmatic forest management traditions, based on management for volume and management for profit, respectively. This study examines the prevailing silvicultural regimes and resulting economic outcomes in Germany and Sweden as benchmarks, and then corresponding analyses are performed for post-transition EU countries, represented by Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. The analyses reveal a regional gradient where Poland stands closest to the German tradition, Latvia goes through a "scandinavisation", and Lithuania takes an intermediate position. Poland adheres to longer rotations and follows the principle of self-sufficiency, while economic efficiency has gained increased importance in Latvia. The observed gradient is likely to be sustained in the coming decades as the survey of key forest sector stakeholders reveals ideological patterns that correlate with the pace of reform of State forestry in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

Forest owner is more than her goal: a qualitative typology of Lithuanian owners

“…Viewed in the context of previous studies, an important implication of our findings is that the current regulation of private forestry has a poor fit with the reality. In the regional North European comparison Lithuanian forestry is regulated by rather stiff legislation (Brukas et al 2013) enforced by rigid control (Stanislovaitis et al 2011) aiming to implement the "management for volume" paradigm (Brukas & Weber 2009). In reality, only Forest Businessmen largely follow the paradigm.…”

“…State and private forests somewhat differ in species composition and average stand characteristics (Table 1), but the biggest distinction lies in the profile of their owners or managers. All state forests are managed by professional foresters with the key aim of sustainable timber production (Brukas & Weber 2009) following conventional practices regulated in forest management plans ).…”

Management Goals and Performance: Clustering State Forest Management Organizations in Europe with Multivariate Statistics

“…At the next step, the previous two SFMOs are merged with Polish State Forests National Forest Holding. It manages a bigger area than other SFMOs in C3 and it dominates in the forest sector of its country (only around 16-18% of forest is privately owned) [50]. In the next step, another convergence composed of Estonian RMK and Austrian ÖBF emerges.…”

Linking forest management, policy and biodiversity indicators – A comparison of Lithuania and Southern Sweden

“…Distinct differences exist however in the forest management goals, utilisation histories, ownership structures, and production efficiencies of their respective forest sectors (Balkyte and Peleckis, 2010;Brukas and Weber, 2009;Brukas and Sallnäs, 2012). The Swedish sector is characterised by a stable long-term development of institutions and practices (Enander, 2007), with vertically integrated forest sector, cutting-edge forestry technologies and a silvicultural focus on sustaining discounted profits, the latter driving towards economically optimal rotation ages.…”

“…Lithuanian forests are still to a large extent managed without consideration of interest rates, instead maximising volume production of valuable timber assortments (Brukas and Weber, 2009). However, the introduction of free markets, along with other factors, led to a doubling in utilisation intensity .…”