RAPPORT How Sweden meets the IPF requirements on nfp 5 2004
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
RAPPORT
5 • 2004
How Sweden meets the IPF
requirements on nfp
nfp
SFM
Sven A Svensson© Skogsstyrelsen mars 2004
Författare
Sven A Svensson
Papper
brilliant copy
Tryck
JV, Jönköping
Upplaga
160 ex
ISSN 1100-0295
BEST NR 1731
Skogsstyrelsens förlag
551 83 JönköpingContents Preface__________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction _____________________________________________________ 2 Supporting and impeding factors____________________________________ 4 Land tenure ____________________________________________________ 4 Law and regulations _____________________________________________ 5 Financial incentives______________________________________________ 6 Political culture _________________________________________________ 6 Institutional aspects______________________________________________ 7 Participatory mechanisms__________________________________________ 9 Negotiation and conflict resolution _________________________________ 10 Intersectoral approaches__________________________________________ 12 Long term iterative planning ______________________________________ 13 Other elements of Swedish national forest policy ______________________ 14 Decentralisation _______________________________________________ 14 Delegation ____________________________________________________ 14 Knowledge ___________________________________________________ 15 Forest environment goals ________________________________________ 15 Conclusions_____________________________________________________ 17 Bibliography ____________________________________________________ 18
RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Preface
Over the last decade, nfp has been called for as suitable tool to advance
sustainable forest management. In 1997, the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
adopted a number of requirements on nfp of which some of procedural nature.
During the years 1999-2003 a COST (European Cooperation in the field of
Scientific and Technical Research) Action with the title National Forest
Programmes in a European Context was carried out by researchers from several
European countries among them Sweden. One output from the action is a report
comprising national reports on nfp in the participating countries and a synthesis.
The report is expected to be published in 2004. The Swedish national report was
prepared by the author of this foreword with valuable contributions by Marie
Appelstrand at the University of Lund. Her helpful support and contributions are
greatly acknowledged.
The Swedish national nfp report is here separately published as a report from the
National Board of Forestry. The same report will be included in COST report
except from the title which will be slightly changed. The author is solely
responsible for the report and the views in it. Consequently, it is not an expression
of the views of the National Board of Forestry. The author hopes that the report
will contribute to further discussions on nfp in the Swedish context.
Jönköping in March 2004
Sven A Svensson
1RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Introduction
The King of Sweden rules over nine million people but has no formal political
power. Political power at the national level resides in a single-chamber parliament
and the government. Parliamentary elections take place every four years. One
important task of the parliament is to decide on national policy goals and policy
tools, including legislation, for the different sectors of society and to allocate state
grants for implementing the policies. Policy implementation is carried out by state
authorities that are non-political and comparatively independent from the
ministries. For example, the National Board of Forestry (NBF) under the Ministry
of Industry, Employment and Communications is responsible for the
implementation of the forest policy, while the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency under the Ministry of Environment has overall responsibility for national
environmental policy. However, it is emphasised that environment policy
implementation is as far as possible integrated in the implementation of other
sector policies.
Major changes to national policy goals and tools are normally prepared by
government commissions. Based on the proposals of these commissions, the
government will prepare a bill to the parliament. Stakeholders from outside the
government and the parliament are normally involved in the work of the
commissions.
Other levels of governance in Sweden are the 21 counties and the 290
municipalities. The municipalities have no significant mandate over forestry
issues. The County Administrative Boards have responsibility for most state
activities at the county level. However, there are some specific sectoral
authorities, among them the Regional Forestry Boards (RFB), which have charge
of sub-national state policy implementation in their field of responsibility. The
operative work of the RFBs is carried out by so called Forestry Districts.
Sweden has a forest policy tradition dating back at least 100 years. In contrast the
history of environmental policy dates back just 40 years. The current forest policy
(Skogsstyrelsen 1996) was formulated in 1993. It has been evaluated twice, first
in 1998 (Skogsstyrelsen 1998), and then in 2002 (Skogsstyrelsen 2002). In 1998
parliament made an adjustment to the forest policy tools, although the two overall
goals – one for production and one for environment – were not changed. A new
policy adjustment is scheduled for 2003.
The NBF has been given the mandate of breaking down the two overall forest
policy goals into more detailed sub-goals, or forest sector goals. Forest sector
goals were elaborated in 1994 and revised in 1999. A new revision is scheduled
for 2003. With respect to the forest environment the break down into sub-goals
had to a large degree already taken place in parliament’s general decision (Anon.
2001) in 2001 on environment goals for all sectors of society. Because a decision
by the parliament overrules a decision by a state authority, the parliament’s
decision on sub-goals on the forest environment must be accepted and integrated
as forest sector goals within the forest policy. An evaluation of environmental
policy, including forests, is planned for 2004. The next subsequent evaluation will
2RAPPORT NR 5/2004
take place in 2008, and will probably be integrated with an evaluation of forest
policy.
The four main forest policy tools are:
• extension and information
• legislation
• financial support
• inventory, follow up and evaluation.
So far no formal NFP has been completed in Sweden, nor has a specific formal
NFP process been commenced. It is presently being debated whether or not
Sweden should initiate such a process and produce a NFP document. Rationally
speaking there is no need for a NFP process in the near future. Why is this? The
following reasons can be offered. First, to run an entire formal NFP process would
result in significant duplication of work. The national environment policy has
already been elaborated in a political process that is separate from the forest
policy process, but in which the forest environment is included. Second, the
political and other processes to design and implement the forest policy and the
environment policy have gradually evolved, and to a great extent satisfy all the
procedural requirements of a NFP process. The following sections will show how
Swedish national forest policy meets the substantive IPF requirements of a NFP.
However as there is no formal NFP process in Sweden, it is not possible to
demarcate separate periods, such as a pre-NFP period, a NFP formulation period,
and a NFP implementation period.
3RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Supporting and impeding factors
Land tenure
Approximately 50% of Swedish forests are owned by private persons (family
forestry) and a further 20% are owned by non-public forest industry companies.
The state owns slightly more than 20 %, of which 15 % is owned directly by the
state-owned stock company (Sveaskog) and 2-3 % in nature reserves. The
remaining 10 % are public forests with shifting ownership conditions.
Forest owners in all categories favour a basic minimum of forest legislation,
combined with the acceptance of responsibility on the behalf of owners to
contribute to the fulfilment of sustainable forest management (SFM) through their
own forest management. For example, forest owners have agreed voluntarily to
support SFM by setting aside forest areas for nature conservation and by taking
other kinds of environmental care without compensation from the state. The non-
public forest industry companies and Sveaskog are certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC), whose standard stipulates a set aside percentage of at
least five percent. Almost one-fifth of family forests are certified by the Pan-
European Forest Certificate (PEFC), a proportion that is steadily increasing. PEFC
requires a 3-5 % set aside forest area. However, at present the willingness of
Swedish forest owners to accept further voluntary environmental undertakings
seems to be low.
The right to property is regulated by the Instrument of Government (SFS 1974),
Chapter 2, Article 18, and is strongly defended by landowners associations and by
most political parties. Forest land use conflicts have not been a major problem for
a long time, although there are two exceptions: conflict between forestry and
reindeer husbandry in northern Sweden; and conflict between hunters, above all
moose hunters, and forestry in the whole country.
The indigenous Sami people have the traditional right to herd their animals over
vast areas in northern Sweden, although they have no ownership rights. On the
one hand forestry often negatively affects grazing conditions, while on the other
hand the reindeer may damage young forest stands. The Sami people have also
been involved in conflicts on hunting, fishing, agriculture and erosion of the
sensitive high mountain vegetation, chiefly lichens. These conflicts have been
ongoing for 50-100 years.
The right to hunt and use game belongs to the owner of the land. This right is
often released to a team of hunters as a business deal. If the game populations are
too large relative to the amount of fodder on the land then serious game damage to
trees and vegetation may occur. Despite constant or even declining moose
populations in the 1990s, the damage to young pine stands has increased,
indicating a need for smaller populations. This is mainly due to the reduction of
the annual harvest area and changes of harvesting methods. The hunters are
normally unwilling to accept smaller moose populations. Locally such conflicts
can be serious.
4RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Of course, the traditional right of the Sami people and the right of the hunters
could be seen as an impeding factor for SFM. But considering the broad scope of
the SFM concept it is not: balancing the interests of the different users of the
forests is part of the forest policy process as well as national policy processes on
the Sami people, reindeer and hunting.
Generally, forest ownership conditions in Sweden support SFM. The mixture of
different types of owners creates a good environment for dialogue and
competition.
The distribution of responsibilities between the state and the forest owners is a
key factor for achieving SFM in Sweden.
Law and regulations
The main legislation on Swedish forestry is the Forestry Act (SFS 1979;
Skogsstyrelsen 1994) and the Environmental Code (SFS 1998). The Forestry Act
is a framework legislation. Binding rules are set by the NBF through regulations.
The number of binding rules is relatively few, but those rules that do exist are
fundamental, for example, the obligation on forest regeneration. There is a
minimalistic approach to forest legislation and regulations. This means that the
fulfilment of rules alone is not sufficient for achieving SFM and forest owners
have engaged in additional voluntary commitments. Some rules are process-
oriented. For example, when planned harvesting will affect forest stands that are
valuable for reindeer husbandry, consultations with the Sami people involved
must take place.
Since the 1970s the environmental requirements in the forest legislation have
developed continuously. At present there are minimum rules on how
environmental and cultural heritage considerations should be taken into account in
forest operations. The introduction of new methods and techniques in forest
management must be preceded by an Environmental Impact Analysis.
The Environmental Code regulates forest management in two main ways. First, it
gives the right to the state to establish nature reserves and corresponding set aside
instruments. Normally the landowner is then compensated economically with the
market price. Second, when planned forest operations are expected to
considerably affect the environment, consultations with the responsible authorities
must take place.
Overall Swedish legislation on forestry strongly supports SFM. However, because
the forest legislation is a basic minimum legislation, the achievement of SFM is
dependent on how the forest owners cope with the responsibility to take necessary
actions voluntarily beyond the minimum requirements of the legislation. So far,
this has not been a major problem, although some negative developments have
occurred. There has been no systematic analysis on how other legislation, such as
tax legislation, may impact upon SFM. However, the evidence to date is that tax
legislation is not, at least, an impeding factor for SFM.
5RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Financial incentives
Subsidies are marginal in Swedish forest policy today. Those subsidies that exist
have been established in the 1980s and 1990s and cover solely environment,
recreation and cultural heritage aims. They can be seen as reimbursement for the
non-market services provided by the forest owners to the general public.
Before 1993, when the new forest policy was introduced, wood production
subsidies were relatively common. They were financed by a tax on forest
properties, in other words a tax on forestry itself, and then redistributed among the
forest owners. Since 1993 no subsidies exist for wood production. The simple
reason for this is that in Sweden the view now prevails that wood production is an
economic activity that should bear its own costs and be economically self-
sufficient. Hence Regulation (EEC) 1257/99 on co-financing forest subsidies has
been only marginally utilised in Sweden.
Before 1991 harvesting in family forestry was impeded by a high marginal
income tax. Nowadays tax legislation considers forestry as a normal industrial
activity and marginal income taxes are much lower. This has promoted the wood
production component of forest management. Furthermore, some special tax
regulations for forestry are favourable.
Political culture
The culture of the forest authorities in Sweden has for a long time been
characterised by the drive to solve existing problems and conflicts and to achieve
mutual understanding and consensus that maintains both local support and a
bottom-up approach that emphasises the principles of equality and agreement. The
simple thinking behind this culture is that forest owners will not normally take
efficient and necessary actions with authoritarian attitudes and behaviour; such
actions instead require mutual understanding and consensus. The different
organisations of forest owners have been involved in the preparation of forest
policy decisions, for example regulations and forest legislation, for at least 30
years.
It can be argued that the initiative in the late-1980s to commence a dialogue with
those environmental NGOs that had heavily criticised forestry for employing
techniques and methods that destroyed nature was late. However it was, if not the
first, then certainly one of the first, such dialogues between state forestry
authorities and environmental NGOs in the world. It is mainly through this
dialogue that the environmental NGOs have developed an understanding of wood
production, and the forest authorities have developed an understanding of nature
conservation. The dialogue has created favourable conditions for reaching
consensus and solving forest-related conflicts.
As noted earlier, new or revised policy decisions by the parliament are normally
prepared in advance by a commission. Sometimes these commissions are
parliamentary (the members of the commission represent the political parties in
the parliament) and sometimes they are non-parliamentary. So far the important
forest policy decisions have been prepared by parliamentary commissions. The
reason for this is that all parties recognise that consensus will lead to a long-term
6RAPPORT NR 5/2004
stability in forest policy. The latest such process took place in the years 1990-
1992. The 2001 environmental policy goal decision of the parliament was also
prepared by a parliamentary commission.
Normally attached to a commission is a group of stakeholders and experts
representing different interests, organisations, authorities and competencies. This
guarantees a broad approach to the issue in question. The experts have the right to
speak during the meetings of the commission and also to attach to the
commission’s report an opinion on the conclusions and proposals. This
arrangement can be seen as a form of “state-organised lobbying” whereby
relatively weak organisations have the opportunity to influence political decisions.
Ordinary lobbying also exists in parallel to this process.
Another important part of the policy decision process is that all relevant state
authorities and interest organisations must have the opportunity to comment on
the conclusions and proposals of the commission. These comments are then
considered when the government prepares its bill for parliament. Normally, the
relevant government authorities also have the opportunity to comment on the draft
bill before it is presented to parliament. This procedure works well in the case of a
majority government, but can be problematic when a minority government has to
negotiate the bill with other parliamentary parties.
It can be concluded that the Swedish political culture, and the decision-making
procedures that are grounded on this culture, constitutes supporting for political
decisions that promote SFM.
Institutional aspects
The NBF and the ten RFBs are responsible for the implementation of Swedish
forest policy, which covers all three dimensions of the sustainability concept;
economy, ecology and social factors. However the NBF and RFBs have no
responsibilities with respect to forest industry and energy industry. The
responsibility for the ecologic dimension is called “the forest sector authority
responsibility”. The Swedish Environment Protection Agency at the national
level, and the County Administrative Boards at the regional level, have mainly
oversight roles with respect to forest environment issues.
The RFBs are geographically subdivided into Forestry Districts. The local
presence of a forest authority in these districts is of the utmost importance for the
implementation of the forest policy, and therefore for the achievement of SFM.
Through the district organisation it is possible to communicate with the individual
forest owner and to use the forest policy “tool kit” in an efficient way. In this
respect it should be emphasised that the reduction of state grants for the forest
administration during the 1990s has decreased the effectiveness of policy
implementation, and a further reduction would seriously hamper the potential for
realising SFM.
There is one Swedish principle of an institutional character that is important for
forest management. Freely translated into English it reads: “The forest owner shall
not need to communicate with more than one government authority concerning
the management of his/her forests” (Anon. 1990). The intention of this principle is
7RAPPORT NR 5/2004
to render policy implementation efficient and to avoid double or multiple policy
signals to the forest owner. The principle requires a rational division of
responsibilities, and good co-operation, between authorities. The principle is
broadly, although not completely, applied. A full application of the principle is
probably not realistic, as no single forest administration can provide all the
different kinds of expertise that are needed. For example, archaeologists have no
responsibility for daily forest management issues, yet they are often involved in
the management of cultural relics in the forests. From time to time it happens that
co-operation between the forest administration and other authorities is
unsatisfactory. When this is the case, it is inevitable that forest owners, single or
collectively, will receive double or multiple forest policy signals.
The institutional conditions for achieving SFM should be judged as favourable,
provided that sufficient state grants are made available. However, conflicts
between state authorities with different mandates do sometimes occur, and this
makes it more difficult to “market” the SFM concept to forest owners.
8RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Participatory mechanisms
The general participatory procedures related to government commissions and bills
have been described in the section on political culture above. Participatory
mechanisms also exist with respect to the implementation of forest policy by
forest authorities. At the national level five permanent advisory groups with
representation from other authorities and organisations, including environmental
NGOs and research and development (R&D) bodies, are attached to the NBF. One
of the groups, the National Advisory Group, is a general policy group that is
presently involved in the preparation of forest sector goals. Another deals with
issues relevant to both forestry and reindeer husbandry.
At the regional level there are permanent Regional Advisory Groups attached to
the RFBs which aim to represent the main authorities and interests concerned,
although in a few cases environmental NGOs have been excluded. Regional
Advisory Groups play an important role in breaking down the quantitative
environment and forest sector goals from the national level to regional level.
Besides the permanent advisory groups, temporary groups are often established
when important activities (e.g. inventories, outlook studies, environment impact
analysis, information campaigns) are planned and carried out.
The widespread use of advisory groups at both the national and regional levels has
evolved gradually during the latest 30 years. The main contributions they have
made to Swedish forest policy are to:
• broaden the discussion and analysis so that all relevant facts and values are
properly considered
• build confidence between different stakeholders on the various forest
policy activities
• consider new and innovative currents in forest management (e.g.
profitability, management methods, and attitudes of forest owners) and in
society
• reduce the risk of double or multiple policy signals to forest owners
• increase the engagement of actors towards policy goals
• facilitate the establishment of efficient policy implementation activities
amongst all the main actors involved, or at least with the active support of
these actors
• reduce the risk of counter-productive regulations being introduced by the
NBF
• promote consistency and “transparency” without hidden agendas.
Generally speaking, the knowledge of those who represent authorities and NGOs
is sufficient for them to make a constructive contribution. However, an increasing
problem for both authorities and NGOs is the limited resources available for
participating in the multitude of advisory groups.
9RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Negotiation and conflict resolution
One consequence of Sweden’s democratic system is a long tradition of involving
various major interest groups and organisations in decision-making process. These
groups and organisations play an important role both in the process of policy
development and in policy implementation. The well-established Swedish
consensus-oriented strategy of policy making is the result of a continuous process
in which discussions and mutual experiences result in, at best, shared values and
attitudes. There are a number of possibilities for such discussions in the forestry
sector: private forest owners are organised in Forest Owners’ Associations while
forest workers are organised in trade unions. People interested in nature
conservation, hunting, recreation, out-door activities and so on can join various
organisations, while the Sami people have their own organisation for reindeer
husbandry.
A “glimpse in the rear view-mirror” tells us that the public criticism of Swedish
forestry was low until the mid-1960s when the use of chemical herbicides and
large-scale clearcuts drew public attention. After years of debate, the use of
herbicides was forbidden in 1971. In 1970 (the Global Environmental Year) there
grew a more organised and intense criticism of forestry, resulting in a continuous
and heated discussion throughout the 1970s. The northern parts of Sweden
(especially Norrland and Värmland) came under scrutiny because of the large-
scale forestry methods used by the forest companies and in state owned forestry
areas. The public criticism of forestry was at first rejected and received with
confusion by the forest professionals. However as some of the criticisms proved
to have foundation, attitudes among the professionals slowly began to change, and
various attempts such as policy-declarations and information campaigns were
launched to change and improve the situation. During the 1980s, several new
environmental groups were formed that aimed to bring attention to multiple-use
forestry and nature conservation issues. A specific movement for the protection of
montane forests (FURA) was also founded during this period. Local groups were
established (one of the better known was called “One step ahead”) to carry out
inventories of threatened species, and their results were sometimes used in
negotiations with forest owners and forest authorities. Today there has been a
change in the attitudes and strategies both of the environmental groups and the
professional forest sector, and this has resulted in an improved knowledge; both
parties are now better informed of the actual environmental situation, and
accordingly the discussions are becoming increasingly constructive.
One important basis for conflict resolution is an objective description of reality
that the conflicting interests can accept. Once such a description is accepted
meetings between the various interests can focus on the evaluation of facts, rather
than on meaningless discussions on how the current reality should be defined.
Swedish forest policy recognises inventory, follow-up and evaluation as vital
policy tools. The results of inventories such as the National Forest Inventory and
forest statistics are an essential basis for negotiations and conflict resolution in the
Swedish forest policy process; this data is comprehensive and easily accessible for
all parties. The general Swedish principle of public access to official records is
10RAPPORT NR 5/2004
also supportive. For example, harvest notifications are public and may be used by
local NGOs when scrutinising planned forest operations.
Although there are no established instruments for conflict resolution in
contemporary Swedish forestry, there are several formal and informal fora for
reaching a reasonable balance between conflicting interests. To avoid clashes of
interests when forestry activities are to be carried out near urban recreational
areas, public meetings and hearings are often set up to provide a fair chance for
the forest authorities, other authorities concerned, landowners, interest
organisations and citizens to express their views, give information and influence
plans. A recent example of a successful model for involving local urban citizens is
the Uppsala municipal forest, where the municipality initiates meetings on a
regular basis and provides information based on inventories and management
plans. In more rural areas, such as Linderödsåsen in the southernmost part of
Sweden, the RFB has recently launched an informational and educational
campaign on the basis of landscape analysis in cooperation with local actors.
During the monthly meetings various topics are discussed: family forest
management, nature reserves, tourism and recreational needs, summer cottage
areas, hunting areas and infrastructure.
11RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Intersectoral approaches
The forest policy process of Sweden aims to integrate the three central dimensions
of the sustainability concept; economy, ecology and social factors. However the
policy process is almost completely restricted to forest management. Hence there
are some important forestry issues that are not considered in the policy process at
all, or if considered are done so only marginally. The most important ones are
infrastructure, forest industry, forest sector product markets, R&D and, finally,
education. These issues are normally dealt with in other policy processes.
Sometimes the forestry interests are invited to these processes, and sometimes not.
Let us take infrastructure and R&D as examples. What is needed is, first, that
realistic objectives and requirements from the forestry point of view on
infrastructure and R&D are discussed and formulated within the framework of the
forest policy process. Clearly this can only be done effectively with the active
participation of representatives of infrastructure and R&D in the forest policy
process. Next, the agreed objectives and requirements should form an essential
input to the infrastructure and R&D policy processes respectively. These policy
processes are collectively supported by all interested parties in forestry, hence
forestry should have considerable influence in these processes. In this way
genuine intersectoral coordination can be achieved. However a coherent and
integrated intersectoral approach such as this has yet to be realised in Sweden.
12RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Long term iterative planning
The formulation of forest and environment policy goals has gradually developed
towards more quantitative goals, or targets. As a consequence, follow-up planning
has been more straightforward and more systematic. Indicators are now being
introduced to make the follow-up process more transparent and easily
comprehensible for politicians, the forest sector, the general public and others.
As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, both forest policy and the forest
dimension of environment policy have had a strong impact on Swedish forestry.
Both are evaluated every four years. The evaluations have a heavy element of
self-evaluation as the policy implementation authority, the NBF, is responsible for
them. To avoid, or at least to reduce to a minimum, the risks associated with self-
evaluation, external parties such as the Environment Protection Agency, forest
owners associations and environmental NGOs, are invited to participate in the
evaluation processes. Some issues are considered only by external, neutral
evaluators. In future the evaluations will be coordinated; the two processes will
take place simultaneously and will thus be integrated as far as possible.
Principally on basis of the conclusions of the evaluations, the NBF makes
proposals to the government. These proposals can refer to policy goals, policy
tools and the state grants for implementation of the policy. External parties are
also involved in the NBF’s proposal-making process.
In between evaluations, various long-term impact analyses (Skogsstyrelsen 2001)
are normally carried out in the form of scenario studies. The impact analyses
examine the consequences for potential future harvest levels, forest biodiversity
and other forest impacts using different assumptions and restrictions on the use of
the forests and forest management,. The results of the impact analyses are then
input into the proposal-making process mentioned above.
Continuous follow-up, evaluations and proposal-making carried out by the NBF
and the subsequent political decisions on amendments of the forest and
environment policies constitute a four-year cycle for long-term iterative planning.
However more radical policy changes will probably need a stronger political
contribution than the present iterative process, and could occur perhaps once
every 10-15 years.
13RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Other elements of Swedish national
forest policy
Decentralisation
The forest administration in Sweden has gradually been decentralised over the
past 20 years. To a great extent the NBF manages the objectives of the RFBs. The
same applies for the RFBs’ management of the local Forestry Districts. The RFBs
and the districts today have an extensive decision-making mandate when applying
forest policy tools. At the same time, there is perhaps an opposite trend; to have
more internal policies, follow-up systems and administrative systems in common
for the whole forest administration. This promotes a uniform conduct towards
forest owners for example in the supervision of the Forestry Act and generally a
more efficient implementation of the forest policy.
The development of new internal policies and common systems normally takes
place with the active participation of established networks made up of experts
from the NBF and all RFBs. The management committee of the forest
administration, comprising the Director General and the Deputy Director General
of the NBF and all the heads of the RFBs, is always involved in important
decisions on, for example, target formulation, internal policies, priorities and
development investments.
The national forest environment targets approved by Parliament have recently
been broken down to regional targets in participatory regional processes. The
same will happen for the production part of the forest sector targets when the
national targets have been decided. This breaking down of quantitative targets is a
challenging exercise in which the regional conditions must be taken into account.
The process must to some degree be iterative in order to guarantee that the sum of
the regional targets is equal, or approximately equal, to the national targets. So far
the process has worked surprisingly well with no major interventions from the
national level. The targets will only be achieved if the forest owners take the
necessary actions. Through the participatory process the forest owners
associations, the forest industry companies and other categories of forest owners
have committed themselves to take the necessary actions at the regional level.
Delegation
No major authority or direct management responsibilities for forestry have been
transferred from the public to the private sector during the latest 20 years.
However, there have been some changes inside the public sector. Previously most
state forests were managed by a government authority. Now a state-owned stock
company is responsible for the management. Another state-owned company has
taken over the state’s responsibility for seed and seedling production from the
NBF. These state companies operate on the same conditions as private stock
companies and have a board that is appointed by the government.
14RAPPORT NR 5/2004
The forest policy revision of the 1993 resulted in a delegation of management
responsibilities from the state to forest owners. It was clearly expressed that the
forest owners should have more of “freedom under responsibility”. In return for
acceptance of this responsibility, parliament and the government offered
deregulation and minimalist legal regulations. As mentioned in the section on
“Supporting and impeding factors”, the forest owners have also voluntarily agreed
to invest in nature conservation without any compensation from the state, such as
setting aside forests.
Knowledge
COST Action E19 has identified four core elements of a NFP. Knowledge is not
one of them, although it is mentioned under some other elements. Under the
Swedish principle of “freedom under responsibility” it is recognised that sound
knowledge on behalf of all actors in the planning and executing of forest
operations is a prerequisite for achieving forest policy goals, and thus for
achieving SFM. Hence extension and information is today considered the most
important forest policy tool. The Swedish experience suggests it would have been
appropriate to include knowledge as one of the core elements of an NFP.
Forest environment goals
The process of goal-setting for the ecological dimension of SFM is currently more
advanced in Sweden than that for the economic dimension. This is why the forest
policy goals and targets outlined below are restricted to ecology and must be seen
as examples. Note that these goals and targets have been prepared in an
environmental policy process. It is expected that the on-going goal-setting process
for the economic and social dimensions will render goals and targets of a similar
type to those shown below.
There are 15 so called environmental quality objectives (Naturvårdsverket 2003).
The objective for forests is named Sustainable Forests. This objective states that:
The forest and forest soil's value for biological production must be
protected at the same time as biological diversity and cultural and social
values are protected.
For the Sustainable Forests objective there are 13 goals which, it is planned,
should be achieved within a generation:
1. The natural production capacity of forestland is preserved.
2. The natural functions and processes of forest ecosystems are maintained.
3. Natural regeneration is practised wherever the land is suitable for this
method.
4. The forests' natural hydrology is protected.
5. The effects of forest fires on the forests are maintained.
6. Care-demanding forests with valuable natural and cultural assets are
managed in such a way as to preserve and enhance these assets.
15RAPPORT NR 5/2004
7. Forests where there is great variation in the age of the trees and the
composition of tree species are protected.
8. Cultural monuments and environments are protected.
9. Importance is attached to forests as sources of nature experience and
recreation.
10. Endangered species and natural ecosystems are protected.
11. There are viable populations of domestic plant and animal species living in
natural conditions.
12. Endangered species can spread to new habitats in their natural areas of
distribution, thus ensuring viable populations.
13. Alien species and genetically modified organisms that may be a threat to
biological diversity are not introduced.
There are four targets related to the Sustainable Forests objective:
1. A further 900,000 hectares of productive forestland that is in need of
protection will be excluded from forest production until the year 2010.
2. The amount of dead wood and the area of forest with a high proportion of
deciduous trees and old-growth forest will be maintained and increased by
2010 by:
• increasing the quantity of hard dead wood by at least 40% throughout the
country and considerably more in areas where biological diversity is
particularly at risk
• increasing the area of established forest with a high proportion of
deciduous trees by at least 10 %
• increasing the area of old-growth forest by at least 5 %
• increasing the area regenerated with deciduous forest.
3. Forestland will be managed so as not to damage ancient monuments and to
ensure that damage to other well-known and valuable cultural remains is
negligible by 2010.
4. By 2005 action programmes will be under way for endangered species that
require targeted measures.
With the exception of target 4, the targets will be included in the forest sector
goals. Target 4 is directed towards government authorities and its realisation
cannot be influenced by forestry itself. The policy tools to be used in
implementing these goals are the same as those mentioned in the introduction to
this chapter.
In addition to the goals and targets under “Sustainable forests” there are also some
forestry-related goals and targets under other environmental quality objectives.
16RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Conclusions
The description and analysis presented in this report demonstrates that the IPF
requirements for NFP processes can be met without a formalised NFP process. It
remains for the Swedish authorities to inform the international forest community
that Sweden almost completely meets the requirements. This report, which
adheres to the COST Action E19 framework, can only partially serve this
purpose: the “story” can also be told in a simpler and more attractive way.
Furthermore, the contents of the Swedish “NFP” – that is the national forest
policy’s goals and tools – also need to be communicated to the international forest
community.
Generally, the Swedish conditions with respect to land tenure, legal regulations
and institutional aspects support the development of SFM. The participatory
mechanisms are also well developed. Negotiation and conflict resolution is
facilitated by comprehensive and easily accessible information on forests and
forestry. However, no specific instruments have been developed for conflict
resolution. Imperfections in the intersectoral approaches exist and need to be
further addressed. The relevant policy processes are distinctly iterative within a
four-year cycle.
17RAPPORT NR 5/2004
Bibliography
Anon. 1990. Utvärdering av skogspolitiken. Kommittédirektiv Dir1990:47.
Stockholm.
Anon. 2001. Svenska miljömål – delmål och åtgärdsstrategier. Regeringens
proposition 2000/01:130.
Naturvårdsverket 2003. http://www.internat.naturvardsverket.se. Stockholm.
SFS (Svensk författningssamling) 1974. Regeringsformen. SFS 1974:152.
Stockholm.
SFS (Svensk författningssamling) 1979. Skogsvårdslagen. SFS 1979:429.
Stockholm.
SFS (Svensk författningssamling) 1998. Miljöbalken. SFS 1998:808. Stockholm.
Skogsstyrelsen 1994. The Forestry Act. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.
Skogsstyrelsen 1996. Sweden’s New Forest Policy. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.
Skogsstyrelsen 1998. Skogsvårdsorganisationens utvärdering av skogspolitiken.
Meddelande 1 1998. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.
Skogsstyrelsen 2001. Forest Impact Analyses 1999. Skogsstyrelsen. Jönköping.
Skogsstyrelsen 2002. Skogsvårdsorganisationens utvärdering av skogspolitikens
effekter – SUS 2001. Meddelande 1 2002. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.
Note: SFS, or Svensk författningssamling, denotes the Swedish Statute Book
18Av Skogsstyrelsen publicerade Rapporter:
1985 Utvärdering av ÖSI-effekter mm
1985:1 Samordnad publicering vid skogsstyrelsen
1985:2 Beskärning i tallfröplantager
1986:1 Bilvägslagrat virke 1984
1987:1 Skogs- och naturvårdsservice inom skogsvårdsorganisationen
1988:1 Mallar för ståndortsbonitering; Lathund för 18 län i södra Sverige
1988:2 Grusanalys i fält
1988:3 Björken i blickpunkten
1989:1 Dokumentation – Storkonferensen 1989
1989:2 Bok, ek och ask inom svenskt skogsbruk och skogsindustri
1990:1 Teknik vid skogsmarkskalkning
1991:1 Tätortsnära skogsbruk
1991:2 ÖSI; utvärdering av effekter mm
1991:3 Utboträffar; utvärdering
1991:4 Skogsskador i Sverige 1990
1991:5 Contortarapporten
1991:6 Participation in the design of a system to assess Environmental Consideration in forestry a Case study of the
GREENERY project
1992:1 Allmän Skogs- och Miljöinventering, ÖSI och NISP
1992:2 Skogsskador i Sverige 1991
1992:3 Aktiva Natur- och Kulturvårdande åtgärder i skogsbruket
1992:4 Utvärdering av studiekampanjen Rikare Skog
1993:1 Skoglig geologi
1993:2 Organisationens Dolda Resurs
1993:3 Skogsskador i Sverige 1992
1993:4 Av böcker om skog får man aldrig nog, eller?
1993:5 Nyckelbiotoper i skogarna vid våra sydligaste fjäll
1993:6 Skogsmarkskalkning – Resultat från en fyraårig försöksperiod samt förslag till åtgärdsprogram
1993:7 Betespräglad äldre bondeskog – från naturvårdssynpunkt
1993:8 Seminarier om Naturhänsyn i gallring i januari 1993
1993:9 Förbättrad sysselsättningsstatistik i skogsbruket – arbetsgruppens slutrapport
1994:1 EG/EU och EES-avtalet ur skoglig synvinkel
1994:2 Hur upplever "grönt utbildade kvinnor" sin arbetssituation inom skogsvårdsorganisationen?
1994:3 Renewable Forests - Myth or Reality?
1994:4 Bjursåsprojektet - underlag för landskapsekologisk planering i samband med skogsinventering
1994:5 Historiska kartor - underlag för natur- och kulturmiljövård i skogen
1994:6 Skogsskador i Sverige 1993
1994:7 Skogsskador i Sverige – nuläge och förslag till åtgärder
1994:8 Häckfågelinventering i en åkerholme åren 1989-1993
1995:1 Planering av skogsbrukets hänsyn till vatten i ett avrinningsområde i Gävleborg
1995:2 SUMPSKOG – ekologi och skötsel
1995:3 Skogsbruk vid vatten
1995:4 Skogsskador i Sverige 1994
1995:5 Långsam alkalinisering av skogsmark
1995:6 Vad kan vi lära av KMV-kampanjen?
1995:7 GROT-uttaget. Pilotundersökning angående uttaget av trädrester på skogsmark
1995:8 The Capercaillie and Forestry. Reports No. 1-2 from the Swedish Field Study 1982-1988
1996:1 Women in Forestry – What is their situation?
1996:2 Skogens kvinnor – Hur är läget?
1996:3 Landmollusker i jämtländska nyckelbiotoper
1996:4 Förslag till metod för bestämning av prestationstal m.m. vid själverksamhet i småskaligt skogsbruk.
1996:5 Skogsvårdsorganisationens framtidsscenarier
1997:1 Sjövatten som indikator på markförsurning
1997:2 Naturvårdsutbildning (20 poäng) Hur gick det?
1997:3 IR-95 – Flygbildsbaserad inventering av skogsskador i sydvästra Sverige 1995
1997:4 Den skogliga genbanken (Del 1 och Del 2)
1997:5 Miljeu96 Rådgivning. Rapport från utvärdering av miljeurådgivningen
1997:6 Effekter av skogsbränsleuttag och askåterföring – en litteraturstudie
1997:7 Målgruppsanalys
1997:8 Effekter av tungmetallnedfall på skogslevande landsnäckor (with English Summary: The impact on forest land snails by atmospheric
deposition of heavy metals)
1997:9 GIS–metodik för kartläggning av markförsurning – En pilotstudie i Jönköpings län1998:1 Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning (MKB) av skogsbränsleuttag, asktillförsel och övrig näringskompensation
1998:2 Studier över skogsbruksåtgärdernas inverkan på snäckfaunans diversitet (with English summary: Studies on the impact by forestry
on the mollusc fauna in commercially uses forests in Central Sweden
1998:3 Dalaskog - Pilotprojekt i landskapsanalys
1998:4 Användning av satellitdata – hitta avverkad skog och uppskatta lövröjningsbehov
1998:5 Baskatjoner och aciditet i svensk skogsmark - tillstånd och förändringar
1998:6 Övervakning av biologisk mångfald i det brukade skogslandskapet. With a summary in English: Monitoring of biodiversity in
managed forests.
1998:7 Marksvampar i kalkbarrskogar och skogsbeten i Gotländska nyckelbiotoper
1998:8 Omgivande skog och skogsbrukets betydelse för fiskfaunan i små skogsbäckar
1999:1 Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning av Skogsstyrelsens förslag till åtgärdsprogram för kalkning och vitalisering
1999:2 Internationella konventioner och andra instrument som behandlar internationella skogsfrågor
1999:3 Målklassificering i ”Gröna skogsbruksplaner” - betydelsen för produktion och ekonomi
1999:4 Scenarier och Analyser i SKA 99 - Förutsättningar
2000:1 Samordnade åtgärder mot försurning av mark och vatten - Underlagsdokument till Nationell plan för kalkning av sjöar
och vattendrag
2000:2 Skogliga Konsekvens-Analyser 1999 - Skogens möjligheter på 2000-talet
2000:3 Ministerkonferens om skydd av Europas skogar - Resolutioner och deklarationer
2000:4 Skogsbruket i den lokala ekonomin
2000:5 Aska från biobränsle
2000:6 Skogsskadeinventering av bok och ek i Sydsverige 1999
2001:1 Landmolluskfaunans ekologi i sump- och myrskogar i mellersta Norrland, med jämförelser beträffande förhållandena i
södra Sverige
2001:2 Arealförluster från skogliga avrinningsområden i Västra Götaland
2001:3 The proposals for action submitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum
on Forests (IFF) - in the Swedish context
2001:4 Resultat från Skogsstyrelsens ekenkät 2000
2001:5 Effekter av kalkning i utströmningsområden med kalkkross 0 - 3 mm
2001:6 Biobränslen i Söderhamn
2001:7 Entreprenörer i skogsbruket 1993-1998
2001:8A Skogspolitisk historia
2001:8B Skogspolitiken idag - en beskrivning av den politik och övriga faktorer som påverkar skogen och skogsbruket
2001:8C Gröna planer
2001:8D Föryngring av skog
2001:8E Fornlämningar och kulturmiljöer i skogsmark
2001:8F Ännu ej klar
2001:8G Framtidens skog
2001:8H De skogliga aktörerna och skogspolitiken
2001:8I Skogsbilvägar
2001:8J Skogen sociala värden
2001:8K Arbetsmarknadspolitiska åtgärder i skogen
2001:8L Skogsvårdsorganisationens uppdragsverksamhet
2001:8M Skogsbruk och rennäring
2001:8N Ännu ej klar
2001:8O Skador på skog
2001:9 Projekterfarenheter av landskapsanalys i lokal samverkan – (LIFE 96 ENV S 367) Uthålligt skogsbruk byggt på land-
skapsanalys i lokal samverkan
2001:10 Blir ingen rapport
2001:11A Strategier för åtgärder mot markförsurning
2001:11B Markförsurningsprocesser
2001:11C Effekter på biologisk mångfald av markförsurning och motåtgärder
2001:11D Urvalskriterier för bedömning av markförsurning
2001:11E Effekter på kvävedynamiken av markförsurning och motåtgärder
2001:11F Effekter på skogsproduktion av markförsurning och motåtgärder
2001:11G Effekter på tungmetallers och cesiums rörlighet av markförsurning och motåtgärder
2001:11H Ännu ej klar
2001:11I Ännu ej klar
2001:12 Forest Condition of Beech and Oek in southern Sweden 1999
2002:1 Ekskador i Europa
2002:2 Gröna Huset, slutrapport
2002:3 Project experiences of landscape analysis with local participation – (LIFE 96 ENV S 367) Local participation in sustaina
ble forest management based on landscape analysis
2002:4 Landskapsekologisk planering i Söderhamns kommun
2002:5 Miljöriktig vedeldning - Ett informationsprojekt i Söderhamn
2002:6 White backed woodpecker landscapes and new nature reserves
2002:7 ÄBIN Satellit2002:8 Demonstration of Methods to monitor Sustainable Forestry, Final report Sweden
2002:9 Inventering av frötäktssbestånd av stjälkek, bergek och rödek under 2001 - Ekdöd, skötsel och naturvård
2002:10 A comparison between National Forest Programmes of some EU-member states
2002:11 Satellitbildsbaserade skattningar av skogliga variabler
2002:12 Skog & Miljö - Miljöbeskrivning av skogsmarken i Söderhamns kommun
2003:1 Övervakning av biologisk mångfald i skogen - En jämförelse av två metoder
2003:2 Fågelfaunan i olika skogsmiljöer - en studie på beståndsnivå
2003:3 Effektivare samråd mellan rennäring och skogsbruk -förbättrad dialog via ett utvecklat samrådsförfarande
2003:4 Projekt Nissadalen - En integrerad strategi för kalkning och askspridning i hela avrinningsområden
2003:5 Projekt Renbruksplan 2000-2002 Slutrapport, - ett planeringsverktyg för samebyarna
2003:6 Att mäta skogens biologiska mångfald - möjligheter och hinder för att följa upp skogspolitikens miljömål i Sverige
2003:7 Vilka botaniska naturvärden finns vid torplämningar i norra Uppland?
2003:8 Kalkgranskogar i Sverige och Norge – förslag till växtsociologisk klassificering
2003:9 Skogsägare på distans - Utvärdering av SVO:s riktade insatser för utbor
2003:10 The EU enlargement in 2004: analysis of the forestry situation and perspectives in relation to the present EU and
Sweden
2004:1 Ännu ej klar
2004:2 Skogliga konsekvensanalyser 2003 - SKA 03
2004:3 Natur- och kulturinventeringen i Kronobergs län 1996 - 2001
2004:4 Naturlig föryngring av tall
2004:5 How Sweden meets the IPF requirements on nfpAv Skogsstyrelsen publicerade Meddelanden:
1985:1 Fem år med en ny skogspolitik
1985:2 Eldning med helved och flis i privatskogsbruket/virkesbalanser 1985
1986:1 Förbrukningen av trädbränsle i s.k. mellanskaliga anläggningar/virkesbalanser 1985
1986:3 Skogsvårdsenkäten 1984/virkesbalanser 1985
1986:4 Huvudrapporten/virkesbalanser 1985
1986:5 Återväxttaxeringen 1984 och 1985
1987:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1986
1987:2 Återväxttaxeringen 1984 – 1986
1987:3 Utvärdering av samråden 1984 och 1985/skogsbruk – rennäring
1988:1 Forskningsseminarium/skogsbruk – rennäring
1989:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1988
1989:2 Gallringsundersökningen 1987
1991:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1990
1991:2 Vägplan -90
1991:3 Skogsvårdsorganisationens uppdragsverksamhet
– Efterfrågade tjänster på en öppen marknad
1991:4 Naturvårdshänsyn – Tagen hänsyn vid slutavverkning 1989–1991
1991:5 Ekologiska effekter av skogsbränsleuttag
1992:1 Svanahuvudsvägen
1992:2 Transportformer i väglöst land
1992:3 Utvärdering av samråden 1989-1990 /skogsbruk – rennäring
1993:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1992
1993:2 Virkesbalanser 1992
1993:3 Uppföljning av 1991 års lövträdsplantering på åker
1993:4 Återväxttaxeringarna 1990-1992
1994:1 Plantinventering 89
1995:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1994
1995:2 Gallringsundersökning 92
1995:3 Kontrolltaxering av nyckelbiotoper
1996:1 Skogsstyrelsens anslag för tillämpad skogsproduktionsforskning
1997:1 Naturskydd och naturhänsyn i skogen
1997:2 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1996
1998:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens Utvärdering av Skogspolitiken
1998:2 Skogliga aktörer och den nya skogspolitiken
1998:3 Föryngringsavverkning och skogsbilvägar
1998:4 Miljöhänsyn vid föryngringsavverkning - Delresultat från Polytax
1998:5 Beståndsanläggning
1998:6 Naturskydd och miljöarbete
1998:7 Röjningsundersökning 1997
1998:8 Gallringsundersökning 1997
1998:9 Skadebilden beträffande fasta fornlämningar och övriga kulturmiljövärden
1998:10 Produktionskonsekvenser av den nya skogspolitiken
1998:11 SMILE - Uppföljning av sumpskogsskötsel
1998:12 Sköter vi ädellövskogen? - Ett projekt inom SMILE
1998:13 Riksdagens skogspolitiska intentioner. Om mål som uppdrag till en myndighet
1998:14 Swedish forest policy in an international perspective. (Utfört av FAO)
1998:15 Produktion eller miljö. (En mediaundersökning utförd av Göteborgs universitet)
1998:16 De trädbevuxna impedimentens betydelse som livsmiljöer för skogslevande växt- och djurarter
1998:17 Verksamhet inom Skogsvårdsorganisationen som kan utnyttjas i den nationella miljöövervakningen
1998:18 Auswertung der schwedischen Forstpolitik 1997
1998:19 Skogsvårdsorganisationens årskonferens 1998
1999:1 Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993-1998. Slutrapport
1999:2 Nyckelbiotopsinventering inom större skogsbolag. En jämförelse mellan SVOs och bolagens inventeringsmetodik
1999:3 Sveriges sumpskogar. Resultat av sumpskogsinventeringen 1990-1998
2001:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens Årskonferens 2000
2001:2 Rekommendationer vid uttag av skogsbränsle och kompensationsgödsling
2001:3 Kontrollinventering av nyckelbiotoper år 2000
2001:4 Åtgärder mot markförsurning och för ett uthålligt brukande av skogsmarken
2001:5 Miljöövervakning av Biologisk mångfald i Nyckelbiotoper
2001:6 Utvärdering av samråden 1998 Skogsbruk - rennäring
2002:1 Skogsvårdsorganisationens utvärdering av skogspolitikens effekter - SUS 2001
2002:2 Skog för naturvårdsändamål – uppföljning av områdesskydd, frivilliga avsättningar, samt miljöhänsyn vid föryngringsav-
verkning
2002:3 Recommendations for the extraction of forest fuel and compensation fertilising
2002:4 Action plan to counteract soil acidification and to promote sustainable use of forestlandYou can also read
