Swedish forest commons — A matter of governance?

Holmgren, Eva; Keskitalo, E. Carina H.; Lidestav, Gun

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.001

“…The latter two points may reflect a more state-regulated situation in the county of Västerbotten where TSA is located (cf. Holmgren et al 2010), compared to Norrbotten and Dalarna. Nevertheless, these negative perceptions among the shareholders are likely to have a significant impact in their level of participation within the FC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish forest commons

Lidestav

¹

,

Poudyal

²

,

Holmgren³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the period 1861-1918, thirty-three commons were established in Northern Sweden. This was linked to the finalisation of the Great Redistribution of Forest Holdings in Dalarna and the delimitation process in Västerbotten and Norrbotten. They were intended to serve as an instrument for improved and sustained forest production, the viability of farmers and the liveability of the rural communities in the areas where they were established. The aim of this paper is to describe the results of a study examining how three of these forest commons, one from each region, have benefitted the local shareholders and their community. The perceptions among forest common shareholders were assessed using a questionnaire. The study also assessed economic impact on shareholders in terms of extent and use of the dividend from each of the commons for the period 1958-2007, highlighting the extent of the economic support to individual shareholders and to the local community. Results reveal large differences between the three cases; there was a positive correlation between the extent of the economic support and contentment among the shareholders. Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish 165Keywords: Community-based resource management, forest policy, resource governance Acknowledgement: We gratefully acknowledge the Brattås Foundation for their financial support for this study.

show abstract

“…The selection was based on their relative similarities (in size and geographical position as foothill forest with relatively low site productivity of about 2.5-3.8 m 3 /ha/year within their regions) as well as their relative differences (time of establishment, the principles for distribution of the dividend, and the differing share of NIPF-ownership). The government regulates the FCs more strictly than the individually owned and managed NIPFs (Holmgren et al 2010), although there are regional differences in the level of government involvement. For example, Västerbotten has been considered the most restrictive and Dalarna (previously Kopparberg) the least (ibid).…”

Section: Study Areas and Research Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, previous studies on the Swedish forest commons have not only pointed out the diminishing role of the shareholders in terms of governance/management (i.e. decision-making rights) of their commons (Stenman 2009;Holmgren et al 2010), but they have also pointed to the fact that the shareholders in Swedish forest commons do not bear costs proportional to the benefits they obtain (Carlsson 1997). In this context, it is therefore relevant to evaluate the outcomes that members perceive, as well as the extent to which commons may contribute to not just their own welfare but that of the people who are not part of the commons, for example, by supporting public goods (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish forest commons

Lidestav

¹

,

Poudyal

²

,

Holmgren³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the period 1861-1918, thirty-three commons were established in Northern Sweden. This was linked to the finalisation of the Great Redistribution of Forest Holdings in Dalarna and the delimitation process in Västerbotten and Norrbotten. They were intended to serve as an instrument for improved and sustained forest production, the viability of farmers and the liveability of the rural communities in the areas where they were established. The aim of this paper is to describe the results of a study examining how three of these forest commons, one from each region, have benefitted the local shareholders and their community. The perceptions among forest common shareholders were assessed using a questionnaire. The study also assessed economic impact on shareholders in terms of extent and use of the dividend from each of the commons for the period 1958-2007, highlighting the extent of the economic support to individual shareholders and to the local community. Results reveal large differences between the three cases; there was a positive correlation between the extent of the economic support and contentment among the shareholders. Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish 165Keywords: Community-based resource management, forest policy, resource governance Acknowledgement: We gratefully acknowledge the Brattås Foundation for their financial support for this study.

show abstract

“…However, these reviews have not broached the question of how multiple actors-in very diverse states and forestry systems-are to organize adaptation or adopt what may be broadly seen as a governance perspective on forestry. Such a point of view would take into account the role of the state and industry as well as of organizational and private forest owners [10] and consider how to organize the linkages between different forestry holdings with due regard for the landscape.…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can Forest Management Adapt to Climate Change? Possibilities in Different Forestry Systems

Keskitalo

¹

2011

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:It is only relatively recently that national adaptation strategies have begun to develop measures by which forestry can adapt to climate change; often those measures opt to use a relatively general strategy for coping under conditions of disturbance. Particularly in states using intensive forest management, such as Sweden, this approach marks a departure from current strategies for achieving maximum yield. In other countries, however, where the economic output from forestry is less significant and interests such as biodiversity, local use and tourism, may figure more prominently, the conditions for developing risk-based forest management may be more manifest. This study reviews literature on adaptations in forest management, and analyzes country reports submitted as part of an EU27 project. The study concludes that the diverse prerequisites and policies of states have seldom been reflected in the design of adaptation management actions to date.

show abstract

Swedish forest commons — A matter of governance?

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish forest commons

Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish forest commons

Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish forest commons

How Can Forest Management Adapt to Climate Change? Possibilities in Different Forestry Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About