Intensive forestry in Sweden: stakeholders' evaluation of benefits and risk

Abstract

There is growing consensus about the need to develop sustainable use of forest resources, but no consensus about how to interpret and implement this goal. Political institutions, governmental agencies, forest companies, and environmental organizations have partly different views on what sustainable forestry means and what strategies to use to achieve it. Not least, the climate change issue has put higher and partly new demands on forests, both as providers of biomass and as carbon sinks, which may be in conflict with other services of the forest's ecosystem. This paper analyses how different Swedish stakeholders evaluate the possibilities for intensive forestry, that is, to increase the production of woody biomass through increased use of fertilizers, improved genetic material, the introduction of exotic tree species, and the use of fastgrowing deciduous tree species. The analysis shows that the pros and cons are evaluated differently, with some stakeholders assessing intensive forestry as a radical break from the current goal of sustainable forestry and others viewing it as according with it. It is concluded that this conflict should be understood as concerning not competing knowledge claims, but competing frames-schemes of interpretation through which the complexity of reality is reduced. This means that the solution is not to be found in improved knowledge but in increased awareness that the involved frames are the source of the conflict.

Extreme events and climate change: the post-disaster dynamics of forest fires and forest storms in Sweden

“…In Sweden, approximately 50% of productive forestry land is owned by individuals, mainly in the form of small parcels, such that about 3% (327,000 persons) of the Swedish population own forestland (Lidskog et al 2013). Individual forest owners have considerable latitude in how to manage their forests (Appelstrand 2012).…”

The opinions of some stakeholders on the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR): an analysis of secondary sources

“…These were identified in different publications found online after running an extensive desk-based search. We use frames in order to simplify certain features and relations of a complex issue, such as the EUTR, and translate them into more relevant terms (Schön & Rein 1994, Lidskog et al 2013). This paper analyses how different stakeholders perceive, or frame, the regulatory objectives of the EUTR, on which aspects of the regulation they focus, and the perceived problems and resulting conflicts.…”

“…Requirements imposed by a new regulation can be perceived as complex, ambiguous or indeterminate (Lidskog et al 2013). Consequently, actors may associate complex phenomena, such as the EUTR, with certain characteristics such as safe or risky; predictable or indeterminate; important or unimportant.…”

“…Through frames, certain features and relations of a complex issue (such as the EUTR) can be selected and translated into simpler, more relevant terms (Schön & Rein 1994, Lidskog et al 2013). This aims to make a problematic situation more intelligible.…”

Effects on sustainable development from large environmental programmes: a review of 16 evaluations

“…Policy-makers and environmental researchers have different belief systems and objectives that affect how effects of environmental interventions are understood (Primm and Clark 1996;Lidskog et al 2013). Such a many-sided concept and phenomenon makes it difficult to comprehend and evaluate steps taken towards SD and what constitutes an effective environmental programme.…”