Advertisement

Dilemmas in Forest Policy Development—The Swedish Forestry Model Under Pressure

  • Camilla Sandström
  • Anna Sténs
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter brings back the discussion to the Swedish situation and describes the forest policy dilemmas related to a transition of forest governance. The expected transition implies a shift in forest policy and practice in developed countries with a reduced “emphasis on timber production relative to the provision of environmental goods and services”. The chapter describes a number of dilemmas and concludes that Swedish forestry policy has not managed to handle the gap between key stakeholders. Now this gap seems too wide to expect any joint contribution to the development of Swedish forest policy. Instead, the disagreements have resulted in putting pressure on the Swedish forestry model.

Keywords

Swedish forestry model Forest Transition Governance 

References

  1. Andersson, T. (2007). En gemensam europeisk skogspolitik? En integrationsteoretisk studie av ett politikområde på tillväxt. Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Umeå Universitet. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  2. Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Beland Lindahl, K., & Westholm, E. (2011). Food, paper, wood, or energy? Global trends and future Swedish forest use. Forests, 2(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beland Lindahl, K., & Westholm, E. (2012). Future forests: Perceptions and strategies of key actors. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(2), 154–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brännlund, R., Lundmark, R., & Söderholm, P. (2010). Kampen om skogen: Koka, såga, bränna eller bevara?. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  6. Bush, T. (2010). Biodiversity and sectoral responsibility in the development of Swedish forestry policy, 1988–1993. Scandinavian Journal of History, 35(4), 471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eliasson, P. (2000). När bruk av skog blev skogsbruk. In P. Eliasson & E. Lisberg Jensen (Eds.), Naturens nytta: från Linné till det moderna samhället. Lund: Historiska media. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  8. Erlandsson, E. (2009, March 27). Tal vid Lantbrukarnas Riksförbunds (LRF) stämma. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/3214/nocache/true/a/125724/dictionary/true. Accessed 30 May 2012. [in Swedish]
  9. Evans, N., Morris, C., & Winter, M. (2002). Conceptualizing agriculture: A critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography, 26(2), 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, D. R., & Freudenberg, W. R. (2001). Ecological modernization and its critics: Assessing the past and looking toward the future. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 701–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirt, P. W. (1995). A conspiracy of optimism: Management of the national forests since World War Two. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kemp, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2007). Assessing the Dutch energy transition policy: How does it deal with dilemmas of managing transitions? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2010). Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsson, S., Lundmark, T., & Ståhl, G. (2009). Möjligheter till intensivodling av skog (Slutrapport från regeringsuppdrag Jo 2008/1885). Umeå: SLU. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  15. Lindkvist, A., Kardell, Ö., & Nordlund, C. (2011). Intensive forestry as progress or decay? An analysis of the debate about forest fertilization in Sweden, 1960–2010. Forests, 2, 112–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lisberg Jensen, E. (2011). Modern clear-felling: From success story to negotiated solution. In H. Antonson & U. Jansson (Eds.), Agriculture and forestry in Sweden since 1900: Geographical and historical studies (pp. 423–442). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.Google Scholar
  17. Mather, A. S. (1992). The forest transition. Area, 24, 367–379.Google Scholar
  18. Mather, A. S. (2001). Forests of consumption: Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 19(2), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mather, A. S., Hill, G. E., & Nijnik, M. (2006). Post-productivism and rural land use: Cul de sac or challenge for theorization? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry for Rural Affairs. (2011). The forest kingdom—With values for the world: Action plan. Stockholm: Ministry for Rural Affairs. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/14107/a/178717
  21. Ministry of Agriculture. (1993). Sammanställning av remissyttrandena över 1990 års Skogspolitiska kommittés betänkanden (SOU 1992:76) Skogspolitiken inför 2000-talet och (SOU 1992:111) Den framtida skogsvårdsorganisationen. Jordbruksdepartementet Huvudarkivet 1975–1996. E 1. Regeringsakter. Arninge: Riksarkivet. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  22. Nylund, J.-E. (2009). Forestry legislation in Sweden. Uppsala: SLU.Google Scholar
  23. Nylund, J.-E. (2010). Swedish forest policy since 1990: Technical report. Uppsala: Fakulteten för skogsvetenskap > Institutionen för skogens produkter, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. Rapport (SLU, Institutionen för skogens produkter); 16 [Rapport]. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  24. Öckerman, A. (1996). Kalhygge eller blädning?: Svensk skogshistoria som miljöhistoria. In B. O. Linnér & J. Svidén (Eds.), Miljöhistoria på väg: artiklar presenterade vid Miljöhistoriskt möte 1995. Linköping: Tema vatten I miljö och samhälle. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  25. Östlund, L. (1998). Landscape change and biodiversity crisis. In A. L. Sandberg & S. Sörlin (Eds.), Sustainability the challenge, people, power and the environment. Montreal: Black Rose Books.Google Scholar
  26. Östlund, L., Zackrisson, O., & Axelsson, A. L. (1997). The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27, 1198–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ranius, T., & Roberge, J.-M. (2011). Effects of intensified forestry on the landscape-scale extinction risk of dead wood dependent species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(13), 2867–2882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rudel, T. K., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., & Laurance, W. L. (2009). Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1396–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlyter, P., & Stjernquist, I. (2010). Regulatory challenges and forest governance in Sweden. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Kahn, A. Kronsell & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Environmental politics and deliberative democracy. Examining the promise of new modes of governance (1st ed., pp. 180–196). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. SFIF. (2007, January 15). Remiss angående Mervärdesskog (SOU 2006:81) – slutbetänkande från Skogsutredningen (N2004:12). http://www.skogsindustrierna.org/vi_tycker/remissvar_arkiv/remissvar_skog/aldre_remissvar_skog. Accessed 30 May 2012. [in Swedish]
  32. SFIF. (2011). Skogsindustrierna välkomnar regeringens handlingsplan för Skogsriket. Press release 2011-08-09. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  33. SFS. (1964). Swedish Nature Conservation Act (Naturvårdslagen), p. 822.Google Scholar
  34. SFS. (1979). Swedish Forestry Act (Skogsvårdslagen), p. 429.Google Scholar
  35. SOU. (1992). Skogspolitiken inför 2000-talet: huvudbetänkande (p. 76). Stockholm: Allmänna förl.Google Scholar
  36. SOU. (2006). Mervärdesskog: Slutbetänkande (p. 81). Stockholm: Fritze.Google Scholar
  37. SSNC. (2007, January 19). Remissvar på skogsutredningens betänkande “Mervärdesskog” (SOU: 2006:81). (http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/om-oss/remissvar/skog/. Accessed 30 May 2012.
  38. SSNC. (2012, March 06). Naturskyddsföreningens besked om fortsatt deltagande i olika arbetsgrupper inom den s.k. dialogen. Letter to the Director-General of the Swedish Forest Agency, Monica Stridsman. (http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/upload/Foreningsdokument/Ovrigt/Brev_till%2520Skogsstyrelsen.pdf). Accessed 3 Sept 2012. [in Swedish]
  39. Swedish Government. (2010). Committee Directive. Parliamentary Commission on the basis of how environmental quality objectives can be achieved (Dir. 2010: 74). The decision of the Cabinet meeting July 1, 2010.Google Scholar
  40. WWF. (2012a). Missade mål. Tio forskare om utmaningar i skogen. (http://www.wwf.se/vrt-arbete/skog/1255442-vad-sger-forskarna). [in Swedish]
  41. WWF. (2012b, May 28). Satsa på en ny skogspolitik inom naturens gränser. (http://www.wwf.se/press/pressrum/pressmeddelanden/1478729-satsa-p-en-ny-skogspolitik-inom-naturens-grnser). Accessed 30 May 2012. [in Swedish]

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious studiesUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations