Advertisement

Adaptive Capacity and Adaptation in Swedish Multi-Use Boreal Forests: Sites of Interaction Between Different Land Uses

Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Environmental Management book series (SSEM)

Abstract

Governance and conflict resolution in multi-use forests require the integration of stakeholders and decision-makers in multiple sectors: forestry, reindeer husbandry, conservation, tourism and local use. To a large extent, these sectors are characterised by divergent interests and considerable power discrepancies. Drawing upon semi-structured interviews in Gällivare, a municipality in northernmost Sweden, this paper discusses adaptive capacity with regard to interaction between sectors. The chapter examines impacts of the different land uses on each other, identifies adaptation options, and describes existing interaction measures. The chapter concludes that adaptive capacity at the local level is constrained by a number of factors, one example being the institutionalised character of reindeer herding–forestry relations that may limit adaptation at the local level.

Keywords

Adaptive Capacity Forest Owner Forest Stewardship Council Private Forest Owner Reindeer Herding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded by FORMAS, the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning. The author is grateful for comments from two anonymous referees.

References

  1. Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN (2001) Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation to climate change. J Int Dev 13:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Technical Report No. 7, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Allard C (2006) Two sides of the coin – rights and duties: the interface between environmental law and Saami law based on a comparison with Aoteoaroa/New Zealand and Canada. Doctoral thesis, Luleå University of Technology, LuleåGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg A, Östlund L, Moen J, Olofsson J (2008) A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer herding area in northern Sweden. For Ecol Manage 256:1009–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann DM (2006) Learning to adapt: organizational adaptation to climate change impacts. Clim Change 78:135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation. A conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 28, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Danell Ö (2005) Renskötselns robusthet – behov av nytt synsätt för att tydliggöra rennäringens förutsättningar och hållbarhet i dess socioekologiska sammanhang. Rangifer Report No. 10 (2005):39–49Google Scholar
  9. Hazley CJ (2000) Forest-based and related industries of the European Union – industrial districts, clusters and agglomerations. ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Taloustieto OyGoogle Scholar
  10. Kates RW, Ausubel JH, Berberian M (eds) (1985) Climate impact assessment: studies of the impact of climate and society. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Keohane RO, Nye JS Jr (2000) Governance in a globalizing world. In: Nye JS, Donahue JD (eds) Governance in a globalizing world. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Keskitalo ECH (2008a) Climate change and globalization in the Arctic. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Keskitalo ECH (2008) “Konflikter mellan rennäring och skogsbruk i Sverige”. In: Sandström C, Hovik S, Falleth EI (eds) Omstridd natur. Trender & utmaningar i nordisk naturförvaltning. Borea, Umeå, pp 248–268 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  14. Keskitalo ECH, Lundmark L (2010) “The controversy over protected areas and forest-sector employment in Norrbotten, Sweden: forest stakeholder perceptions and statistics”. Soc Nat Resour 23(2):146–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keskitalo ECH, Sandström C, Tysiachniouk M, Johansson J (2009) Local consequences of applying international norms: differences in the application of forest certification in northern Sweden, northern Finland, and northwest Russia. Ecol Soc 14(2):1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art1/
  16. Mijá Ednam (1999) Samebyarnas Laponiaprogram. Gällivare, Miljá EdnamGoogle Scholar
  17. Moen J (2008) Climate change: effects on the ecological basis for reindeer husbandry in Sweden. Ambio 37(4):304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moen J, Keskitalo ECH (in press) Interlocking panarchies in multi-use boreal forests in Sweden. Ecology and Society, 21 pGoogle Scholar
  19. Næss LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J (2005) Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob Environ Change 15:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nilsson Dahlström Å (2003) Negotiating wilderness in a cultural landscape: predators and Saami reindeer herding in the Laponian world heritage area. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala University, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  21. Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hahn T, Schultz L (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive comanagement: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecol Soc 12:28. <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/>Google Scholar
  22. Parikka M (2004) Global biomass fuel resources. Biomass Bioenergy 27(6):613–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rådelius C (2002) Självstyre eller samförvaltning? Problem och möjligheter utifrån en studie av världsarvet Laponia. Licenciate thesis, Institution for Industrial Economy and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, LuleåGoogle Scholar
  24. Raison RJ, Brown AG, Flinn DW (eds) (2001) Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. IUFRO Research Series 7. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Smit B, Pilifosova O (2001) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, published for the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Wandel J (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Clim Change 45:223–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swedish Forest Agency (2000) Forest 2000 county programme (in Swedish). http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=18798&epslanguage=SV Accessed 10 Dec 2008
  29. Swedish Forest Agency (2008) Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry. Swedish Forest Agency, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  30. Swedish Forest Industries Federation (2007) About forest industry (in Swedish). http://www.skogsindustrierna.se/litiuminformation/site/page.asp?Page=10&IncPage=4148&IncPage2=232&Destination2=226&Destination=227 Accessed 10 Dec 2008
  31. van der Brugge R, Rotmans J (2007) Towards transition management of European water resources. J Water Resour Manage 21:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Economic GeographyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations