http://www.diva-portal.org
This is the published version of a paper published in Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research.
Citation for the original published paper (version of record):
Andersson, E., Keskitalo, E C., Bergstén, S. (2018)
In the eye of the storm: adaptation logics of forest owners in management and planning
in Swedish areas
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33(8): 800-808
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1494305
Access to the published version may require subscription.
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
Permanent link to this version:
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sfor20
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research
ISSN: 0282-7581 (Print) 1651-1891 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sfor20
In the eye of the storm: adaptation logics of forest
owners in management and planning in Swedish
areas
Elias Andersson, E. Carina H. Keskitalo & Sabina Bergstén
To cite this article: Elias Andersson, E. Carina H. Keskitalo & Sabina Bergstén (2018) In the eye
of the storm: adaptation logics of forest owners in management and planning in Swedish areas, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33:8, 800-808, DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2018.1494305
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1494305
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 02 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 119
In the eye of the storm: adaptation logics of forest owners in management and
planning in Swedish areas
Elias Anderssona, E. Carina H. Keskitaloband Sabina Bergsténb
a
Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden;bDepartment of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
ABSTRACT
With a changing climate, storm and wind throw is becoming an increasing risk to forest. However, Swedish forest management practices have so far involved relatively little consideration of adaptation to climate change. This study examined resistance and alternatives to “business as usual” forest management, drawing upon material obtained in interviews with individual forest owners who spontaneously identified and discussed storm and wind throw as a risk to their forest. They thereby expressed a logic differing from that of the forest industry in Sweden, which has largely normalised storm risk rather than considering it in climate change adaptation work. The present analysis illustrates the broad and largely concerned position of individual forest owners, in contrast with a more established industry position on storm as an accepted and existing risk. Overall, the study highlights the diversity, agency and power relations within Swedish forestry and the forested landscape– aspects that are vital to better understanding processes relevant to forest and climate change adaptation.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 15 June 2017 Accepted 24 June 2018 KEYWORDS Climate change; forest landscape; risk; resistance; subjectivity; Sweden
Introduction
As the climate is changing, it is reformulating our relationship with nature (Jamieson2007) with significant effects on human society and ecosystems (McCarthy et al.2001). In forestry, the shifts and increasing risks are multiple and have both ecologi-cal (Lindner et al.2010) and social implications on, e.g. vulner-ability (Adger 2000; Adger et al. 2004). The frequency and intensity of disturbance and extreme events, such as wind throw (Peltola et al.1999; Peterson2000; Blennow and Olofs-son2008; Blennow et al.2010), have increased and may have a major impact on the forest landscape (Allen et al. 2010; Keenan2015). Despite the documented present and future risks and the multiple options for forest management adap-tation (Stewart et al. 1998; Parker et al. 2000; Dale et al. 2001; Spittlehouse and Stewart 2004; Keenan 2015), the pace of adaption and mitigation in forestry and forest man-agement has been slow (Lawrence and Nicoll2016;
Anders-son and Keskitalo 2018). The challenge of implementing
adaptation measures in forestry is a pressing policy concern and a general topic that has been stressed by the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC2007,2014). In its latest assessment report, the IPCC notes that, although an important factor,“knowledge in itself is not sufficient to drive adaptive responses” (Klein et al. 2014, p. 911). This highlights the social and institutional barriers to implementation of adap-tation measures (Smit and Wandel2006).
Within Swedish forestry, storms and wind cause significant
economic damage (SweGov 2007). During storm Gudrun in
2005, timber volume corresponding almost to the normal annual cut in Sweden was damaged (Valinger et al. 2014). This had extensive economic and social implications for the private forest owners who owned most of the areas affected by this storm (Lidskog and Sjödin2014). Storm Gudrun in par-ticular highlighted the risk associated with climate change and the specific risk to spruce-dominated forests (Lodin et al. 2017), as presence of spruce was identified as one of the main causes behind the extensive damage (Valinger and Fridman 2011). Although there were efforts to promote a risk-spreading strategy in the process of reforestation after the storm (Felton et al. 2016), partly through consultation and grants to support regeneration with broadleaf tree species (Lidskog and Sjödin2014; Lodin et al. 2017), forest management practices (species choices, regeneration, clean-ing and thinnclean-ing practices etc.) remained highly intact. Only marginal adaptations by forest owners after the storm to a future risk of wind throw have been reported and no changes in choice of species (Valinger et al. 2014; Lodin
et al. 2017), with Norway spruce occupying 90% of the
replanted area (Valinger et al.2014).
The outcome of the reforestation work after the storm has been described as a result of path dependence and driven by profitability and lack of alternative management practices (Lidskog and Sjödin 2014; Lodin et al. 2017). Both private forest owners (Blennow2008; Lidskog and Sjödin2014) and professionals (Lidskog and Sjödin2016) have framed storms as a natural hazard, which renders their risk unavoidable
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACTElias Andersson elias.andersson@slu.se Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-90183 Umeå, Sweden
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 2018, VOL. 33, NO. 8, 800–808
and adaption measures needless. The lack of control over the effects of storms and other weather-related hazards (Harries 2008; Carroll et al.2009) results in a perception of powerless-ness and low self-efficacy, which to some extent limits the grounds for action and realising adaptive capacities (Adger et al.2009).
Given that the frequency and damaging effects of storms vary in different parts of Sweden, the experiences and percep-tions of storms among forest owners also differ (Blennow and Sallnäs2002; Blennow2012; Eriksson2014). There is increas-ing concern and awareness among forest owners about the implications of climate change, both in Sweden (Blennow et al.2012; Eriksson2014; Lidskog and Sjödin 2014) and in Europe (Blennow et al. 2012; Seidl et al. 2016). However, despite direct experience of weather-related hazards poten-tially having an impact on the behaviour and practices of forest owners (cf. Spence et al. 2011), so far little has changed in practice in the management and choice of tree species in the affected areas (Lidskog and Sjödin2014; Valin-ger et al.2014; Lodin et al.2017). Studies on the different areas affected by storms in Sweden illustrate how financial depen-dence on forest influences risk perceptions and the strategies undertaken (Lönnstedt and Svensson 2000; Eriksson 2014). The main focus on the economic consequences of storms (Blennow and Sallnäs 2002; Hartebrodt 2004; Størdal et al.
2007) has highlighted the lack of active management of
risks (Blennow 2008) and the limited attention to other values in Swedish forestry (Hugosson and Ingemarson2004; Nordlund and Westin2011). The lack of forest management alternatives, the strong economic rationale and the impact of cultural and social norms on risk perception and strategies have been highlighted as drivers for maintaining dominant rationales and logics (Reser and Swim 2011; Lidskog and Sjödin 2014; Eriksson 2017; Andersson and Keskitalo 2018). In their study on spruce dominance in reforestation after storms, Lodin et al. (2017, p. 196) concluded that “the high proportion of spruce cannot be reduced to the individual rationality of the forest owners”. In the case of storms, this emphasises how different logics and rationalities hinder
effective climate change policy and adaptation (Slocum
2004; Tennberg 2009; Methmann 2010; Oppermann 2011)
that require space for alternative thoughts and actions (Burch-ell1996). The emergence of a specific rationality is often pro-duced and articulated in relation to, or in the absence of,
programmes (Mckee 2009) and re-negotiations of present
roles and rationalities (Larner and Butler2005).
In the deregulated context of Swedish forestry, forest gov-ernance is highly dependent on the shared norms and ratio-nales of what has been called the“Swedish forestry model” (Törnqvist1995; Appelstrand 2007), i.e. the social regulatory practices where authority is negotiated and developed (Lidskog and Lofmarck2015). In the Swedish forestry case, the dominant logic of the forest industry is focused on maxi-mising production and providing material for a specific set of industrial products (e.g. quantity, qualities and species), but without weighing its possible dependence on long-term climate change considerations within the production system (cf. Lidskog and Sjödin 2014; Lodin et al. 2017; Andersson and Keskitalo2018). Adaptation options that do not challenge
the present production system and rationales, such as earlier logging and better choice of plant material (although usually not changing species, for instance from spruce, or increasing variety), are more likely to be undertaken, while options that might limit commercial output in the short term, such as increased variety and more broadleaf species, have largely been downplayed by the forest industry (Andersson and Kes-kitalo2018). In order to understand the way in which decision-making amongst different actors in forestry is structured, it is essential to explore how forest owners ascribe meaning to the discourse of climate change and forest management (meaning making), and how they position themselves within that meaning (cf. Sawicki 1994; Thomas and Davies 2005). Structured by the production of knowledge, specific understandings and facts can becomefixed as “truths”
(Fou-cault 1991). For the case of forest management, such
“truths” may include, e.g. that forest management should focus on planted monocultures, not on mixed forest (e.g. Scott1998), and that risks can be known and controlled on the basis of scientific probability calculations (Aradau and Van Munster2007). The contemporary logic or conventional risk management would thus imply that risk is acceptable as long as it is repairable (Aradau and Van Munster2007) or, in the case of storm and forestry, replantable. However, this type of cost–benefit analysis produces a “highly selective picture of both problems and adaptation strategies” (Engels 2008, p. 190). By making the forest“legible” by homogenising and structuring it according to rational and (narrow) scientific standards, diversities of local meaning are being lost (Scott 1998) and causing challenges for site adaptation. To challenge such “truths”, one means is “micro-level resistance” (cf.
Thomas and Davies 2005), which involves contests over
meanings, the articulation of counter discourses and“the pro-duction of alternative forms of knowledge or where such alternatives already exist, of winning individuals over to these discourses and gradually increasing their social power” (Weedon1996, p. 111). In contrast to the established position of the forest industry, this study explores the discur-sive spaces and agency within the adaptation logics of
Swedish forestry (cf. Andersson and Keskitalo 2018) by
drawing upon micro-level resistance of forest owners through articulation of alternative rationales and discourses in relation to climate change and implications of storms. The analysis examines whether an understanding of the power perspectives and competing rationalities inherent in decision-making, including on forest, needs to be placed centre stage in adaptation research (e.g. Okereke et al. 2009) and whether it needs to consider the multiple consider-ations of forest owners related to adaptation in relation to storm and wind throw risk – aspects that are significant in understanding the process of implementing policy and climate change adaptations. In its explorative approach, the
present analysis offers a deeper and more multi-faceted
understanding than earlier studies of the way politics plays out over a multilevel governance landscape (cf. Carpenter 2001; Kolk and Levy2001; Lund2013) and how new forms of agency are underpinned (cf. Green 2008; Pattberg and Stripple 2008). By exploring the logic of adaptation that shapes the subjectivities, it also aims to “gain clarity about
the conditions under which we think and act in the present” (Dean2010, p. 48) and to bring attention to the interpretive struggle of discourses and logics, and how these are consti-tuted within the local context (Prasad and Prasad 2000; Mumby2005).
Material and methods
This study is based on qualitative interview material on forest ownership from two cases, in northern and southern Sweden. The interviews were conducted without direct emphasis on storm or climate change, and the study therefore presents the responses of those who spontaneously (i.e. without inter-viewer prompting) mentioned adaptation in their forestry practices related to potential or actual storm damage, and how these may differ in comparison with more established approaches in the forest industry. In this way, the qualitative approach provides a diverse and in-depth understanding of various subject positions and experiences (Winchester2010), based on existing considerations on this issue among the interviewees.
Variation in the geographical context of the forest owners was achieved by drawing upon two case study areas:
Vilhel-mina municipality in Västerbotten county, north-west
Sweden, and Hässleholm municipality in Skåne county, southern Sweden (Figure 1). Both municipalities are rural and non-metropolitan, although on different scales. Vilhel-mina covers more than six times the area (870,000 ha) of Häs-sleholm (131,000 ha), but has experienced long-term depopulation during the past century (StatSwe 2016). In general, forest properties are smaller in Hässleholm than in Vil-helmina, and a larger proportion of forest owners live at a dis-tance from their holdings in Vilhelmina than in Hässleholm. The proportion of female to male forest owners is slightly lower than the national average, which is 38%, in both muni-cipalities, while the mean age is slightly higher (60 in Vilhel-mina and 59 in Hässleholm; 58 nationally). In order to ensure a maximum range of interviewees, purposive selection criteria were adopted (Ritchie et al.2003). From a register of forest owners, 51 forest owners differing in age, sex and size of prop-erty were selected, based on four geographical categories: (i) residents living in the countryside close to their holdings; (ii) residents living in the municipality centre at some distance from their holdings; (iii) non-residents living in the main cities of the county at some distance from their holdings; and (iv) non-residents living in the capital region of Stockholm, far from their holdings. A semi-structured open-ended inter-view guide focusing on a range of themes on forest ownership was used. All the interviews were carried out in person by one of the co-authors during the first half of 2015, digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically coded.
This study analysed the responses of 40 forest owners, from among the total of 51, who themselves spontaneously raised the issue of storm damage in the interviews, a pro-portion that indicates the great importance assigned to this issue amongst the interviewees. These 40 interviewees were quite equally divided between the north and south of Sweden, and between men and women. Forest owners in both case areas have experience of storm damage, but the
severity of the damage has tended to be greater in the south of Sweden than in the north, including experience of storms Gudrun and Per, two of the largest recent storms in southern Sweden (and Sweden at large). In northern Sweden, considerations were mainly limited to more local storm damage. To maintain the anonymity of participants, interviewees are presented in the Results section based on gender (M/F) and geographical area (S/N). Translation from the original Swedish was performed by the authors.
In line with the theoretical considerations outlined above, the analysis was guided by an understanding of language as constitutive rather than descriptive, and explored how climate change challenges (mainly wind throw) were constructed and how alternative logics were articulated in relation to the established logics of Swedish forestry. With the emphasis on meaning making (i.e. the practice of constructing meaning) and discursive resistance practices (i.e. practices to challenge and undermine dominant perceptions and meanings), this study did not seek to determine the general adaptation logics of Swedish forest owners, but rather how risks were defined and specific interventions were articulated and dis-cursively negotiated.
In line with the inductive approach of the study, three general themes (species choice, forest management and
Figure 1.The case study areas in northern (Vilhelmina) and southern (Hässle-holm) Sweden. Illustration: Olof Olsson.
landscape implications) that reflected the primary fields of conflict in relation to storms were selected from the larger coding of all interviews. Within these themes, subthemes, as outlined in the Results section, were constructed based on the main discursive arguments. Given our focus on discursive resistance and meaning making, thefindings are presented based on these subthemes and how these are situated within and interlinked with the three general themes, in order to provide a deeper understanding of both the discur-sive space and the practice of resistance within these.
Results
Forest owner framings: a framing of storm as uncontrollable and non-tolerable risk
As forest owners, many of the interviewees in the present study talked about storms with great emotion and empha-sised the extensive implications, both economic and social, of the various storms that have occurred in the past decade. A number of them provided tragic examples of how neigh-bours and relatives have been negatively affected by the storms. A few mentioned forest owners who have committed suicide due to the extensive forest losses to the storms. In con-trast to the perception of forest and its long cycles, various drastic changes and implications of storms for forests were brought up. One of the forest owners interviewed emphasised the rapidity of change associated with the storms:
It can change quickly when storms such as Gudrun come. It can change fast – from having a productive forest to later not having a productive forest. (F-S)
Many of the forest owners displayed great commitment to their forest and were worried about its status and develop-ment and their ability to handle future challenges. They reported that the storms have also demanded unplanned, and in some cases unwanted, actions:
Since there have been a lot of storms, we have been forced into involuntary harvest, or whatever you would call it. (M-N)
The economic implications of storms are thus a great concern and challenge to the interviewees in their forest ownership, mainly because of their level of economic dependence on their forest. A number of them talked about their own and neighbours’ losses due to the storm, and emphasised the great values that disappeared overnight and the dreams and plans connected to these:
It wasn’t insured, so I think it was timber with a value of five hundred thousand [Swedish Crowns], but instead I only got eleven thousand (…) it was a loss … There was a lot of things that [I] could have used the money for, but instead it went to the forest company after the storm here. So it didn’t turn out the way I thought. (M-S)
This situation of uncertainty introduced instability into the dis-course on forest management and the authorities within the field. In relation to their own capacities and resources, some of the forest owners expressed this uncertainty about whom to trust, both in terms of advice on forest management and in the event of a future storm:
There are those who assert that they never going to thin any more, and there are those who say that there always have been storms, but I will give it great thought before thinning myself next time– whether or not to do it, actually. (M-N)
After Gudrun, we contacted some of the forest companies, but they had so much to do that it was of no use. They didn’t bother with such small estates, but rather took care of larger plan-tations. (F-S)
How the storm altered their perception of forests and forestry was thus a recurring theme among many of the forest owners. It forced them to change not only their understanding, but also their actions in relation to their forest. A number of them expressed frustration over the lack of alternatives and choices:
The responsibility is always there, that this is something that I haven’t chosen. This is not an active choice but something that has been laid on me. (F-S)
Forest owner integration of risk management consideration and forest management alternatives: Revising species choice and resisting cleaning
In relation to storms, choice of species was a central topic of discussion among many of the forest owners interviewed. Based on their experiences from the previous storms, the majority of them confirmed that spruce is more “storm-sen-sitive” than other trees. However, based on this knowledge,
they argued for a number of different actions and
approaches to forest management. A number of them claimed that the positive aspects, mainly the economic benefits, still outweigh the risk associated with planting spruce and managing it in a more conventional way, while others were more hesitant. The majority of them claimed that major storm damage is associated with spruce and that, in some cases, it was“only the spruce” that was felled in the storms. This shows a wider awareness among these forest owners of both the risks associated with spruce but also its potential limitations, and how to manage those risks. One of the interviewees who still continues to plant spruce stressed the need to be more selective and strategic in planting:
We will continue with the spruce, although if there has been a wind throw (…) we will look at the ground, and where it’s too wet we will not plant spruce but instead let the birch come on its own. Before you planted spruce everywhere and [it] didn’t work. (M-S)
However, a number of the forest owners questioned the econ-omic rationale for planting spruce at all, by emphasising the risk associated with this species in relation to storms. One of
them said this in the context of traditional forest
management:
All the calculations that you make on the forest cycle, maybe a seventy-year cycle, they never make it since after seventy years most of it has been thrown down by the wind a long time ago. Then it’s just to start all over again. So there is definitely reason to reflect over whether or not deciduous forest actually is better in this area, purely economically also. (M-S)
The tradition of planting of spruce was targeted by a number of forest owners, who argue for a more reflexive practice of forestry and forest management:
Without trying any new tree species or methods, people are just planting spruce because there has always been spruce forest there. You shouldn’t transform the whole property, but I think that you should try some at least. It was like that when my father was managing the forest and took advice from the timber purchaser– it was only spruce on the table, all the time. With the storm, you saw that you couldn’t have spruce everywhere. It has started a discussion and many forest owners are thinking about planting other tree species. (M-S)
Thus based on the effects of storms, a substantial number of the forest owners described their processes of either planting more broadleaf trees to trying to transform their forest from spruce-dominated to broadleaf forest, thus diverging from the dominant economic output from business-as-usual among the forest industry (cf. Andersson and Keskitalo2018). For instance, one interviewee noted that the knowledge and experience of spruce have led some forest owners to“plant a bit more broadleaf and manage things to ensure that more broadleaf will grow”. In this process, some of the forest owners also referred to the historical forest landscape and the naturalness of different forests and species in various areas, and to the role of keeping forest natural or in line with what was grown there earlier, something that was not an argument among the forest industry. A forest owner emphasising this heritage or historical continuity over time described the ambition thus:
I will transform previous pine forest to broadleaf forest, partly due to the fact that much of the pine forest was thrown down by the storms, but also because it’s actually natural broadleaf forest soil. So it feels natural to return it to what it once was, but also because broadleaf forest is much less sensitive to storms than pine forest. (M-S)
A number of the forest owners also cited aesthetic reasons for emphasising continuity over time and finding alternatives, mainly to spruce. Two of them described these thoughts and connected them to their actions in their forest:
But now we have removed the spruce, for aesthetic reasons and because there was not much spruce here before. So we thought it was suitable to bring it back to what it once where– a lot of broadleaf forest. A plus is that the broadleaf does not fall after every autumn storm. It keeps standing, unlike the spruce, which falls frequently. (M-S)
It is actually something urgent. It’s not for economic reasons, but instead to get a more beautiful forest. [The forest] has become destroyed and hideous– that pains me the most to see. (M-S)
In relation to species choice, a number of the forest owners thus underlined a conflict with the interest of various forest companies and organisations, as well as the role of these organisations in upholding the plantation of spruce on the basis of economic rationales. One of the forest owners emphasised that other motives should also be considered, but that the professionals “say that [spruce] is the best to
plant, and they have the economics in mind – and many
forest owners also do”. Another forest owner described their experience after the storm as:
When Gudrun took a big area, a couple of hectares, like match-sticks, then the [forest owners’ association] had much to do, so it took a while before we got anything done, planted etc., so I thought about letting the birch develop on its own. But then some time after I couldn’t decide so I consulted the [professional at the forest owners’ association] (…). He didn’t think that this was a good idea and insisted that it should be spruce, so I planted spruce (…), which I regret now. There should have been a birch forest there instead. (F-S)
Interconnected with the rationales of tree species is thus a dis-course on forest management. The production and articula-tion of specific meanings and understandings of the forest gives specific logics and rationales in relation to the manage-ment of the forest and ways to interact with it. When these rationales come into conflict with, e.g. the physical world, which according to some of the forest owners has partly been the case with storms, it contributes, in quite a violent way, to destabilising the discourse on forest management in various areas. One of the forest owners gave an example of this conflict:
You actually get punished for managing your property. Ours was nice and cleaned– and then came the storm and took it. The ones that had mismanaged their properties and had not cleaned got through it better. There’s a little bit of bitterness in that. (M-S)
The reasons for this destabilisation were debated amongst the forest owners interviewed. Many of their statements were in opposition to the main meaning-making process of the present discourse around storm throw, which tries to nat-uralise the problem to increase stability. In terms of forest management, the primary target of resistance is what the forest owners categorise as“modern” or large-scale forestry. The opposition is mainly articulated through the argument for alternative meanings of good forest management and in relation the key rationales of the discourse, i.e. economic. By displaying the connection between the discourse and specific rationales, some of the forest owners attempted to destabilise the dominant discourse:
Since the machines are just getting bigger and bigger, of course that they want to make clearings. (…) If you want to get as many cubic metres in the shortest time possible, then this is what it’s all about. Based on its profitability, small-scale forestry might be difficult, but you might sell quality instead. (…) there is less time between the harvests and you don’t need to turn over the whole forest, but instead utilise it more frequently. (M-N) If we continue like this then it will only be pulp– the fast-growing Contorta that was such a hype during a period– nobody talks about it today. And the planting– these small pods that you just put down. They didn’t turn out any root system from that. It was no good. (…) Everything has been economic thinking, but as it looks now it might be that we have to think in a different way to get it economic. (M-N)
Resistance strategies to forest-management-as-usual: Other values and continuity forestry or selective felling practices, as opposed tofinal felling
The meaning of specific forests and the naturalisation of these in relation to forest management are thus a central area of conflict. A number of forest owners in this case thus utilised
a strategy of resistance, mainly with the focus on promoting alternative forest management strategies and measures. As one of the forest owners stated:
I think it is much due to modern forestry. Much of [the fellings] were in the planted forest where we have been and managed. The natural forest handled it better. The plantations that were cleaned took a particularly hard beating and there were many plantations where all fell and where there is now a clearing instead.
Interviewer: What do you think could you have done differently? Selective felling maybe– go into the forest and take the best in order to get the rest to grow too. I don’t really know, but it could be an idea to not create monocultures. (M-N)
Some of the forest owners are using the destabilisation of the discourse to articulate the benefits of alternative forest man-agement focusing on, e.g. selective felling and different prac-tices of thinning and cleaning. One of the forest owner described the storms, and their consequences, as an “eye-opener”:
It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I think that the storms were an eye-opener for many. We got hit hard. It might be that they have seen that these big clear-fellings, the plantations, the fertilisers, results in the rooting being bad (…) and in the trees becoming fragile because their fast growth. They have seen that it’s not good and might need to change – to think in other ways. It might not be that insane to go back to selective felling and those ideas. (M-N)
In the act of resistance, many of the forest owners used history, in terms of narratives and experience, as a way to con-struct other, or what they call“old”, meaning of good forest management.
I wouldn’t say that there is a new way of thinking because it’s not new– maybe different in relation to the traditional large-scale for-estry. You can call it an alternative, but I’m not a “green-waver” – not that alternative. But instead more along the line of alternative forest management. (M-S)
I think it’s quite clear. I remember from when I was a child – then [the forest] was a capital that was standing on the property that you didn’t touch. There was a different attitude to the forest then. (M-S)
In the seventies, there was quite a lot of old forest in these areas, but today it’s almost all gone. With the high level of felling, there is a lot of young forest. The young forest should be fertilised and be fast-growing. What happens? All of it is turned into pulpwood. Today, the properties are so big that the individual forest owner does not have the time to manage it as before. It’s done in a totally different way. As an example, I have a thinning of 30 hec-tares and I have been thinking about what to do with it. If we are doing a conventional cleaning it might run the risk of being wind-felled. (M-N)
A number of the forest owners argued that the storms, mainly Gudrun, were the start, both physically and discursively, of alternative practices in relation to the dominant discourse. One of the interviewees emphasised this:
I’m a bit into continuity forestry. That we should do some selective felling was the plan even before Gudrun. But then everything fell and we had to start all over again. The idea is that there should be nofinal felling and instead continuity. (M-S)
Strategies to manage risks associated with storms among a number of forest owners were primarily focused on decreas-ing the sensitivity of the stands to storm. Within these articu-lations, there was promotion of alternative practices of felling and age and species distributions of stands. One of the forest owners pointed out the sensitivity of present stands and management:
When it comes to harvesting, I am avoiding clear-fellings and instead practising selective felling, where you pick out bigger trees all the time. The idea is to get a bigger age difference in the forest to decrease its sensitivity. If you have a more equal age distribution within a stand and a storm comes along– then everything falls. If you have a greater age difference in the forest there’s a better chance that it will keep standing. (M-S)
Some of the forest owners argued for more drastic changes, while others advocated smaller adjustments to current prac-tices. One argued for different felling practices within different types of stands:
I’m not practising selective felling in the pine forest but within the broadleaf forest. (…) In the beech forest you are working with longer rotation periods, maybe eighty or even a hundred years (…) it takes about twenty years to rejuvenate a beech forest. (M-S)
Some of the forest owners emphasised how the negative implications of storms are exaggerated by other types of development. After recent storms, one of the forest owners underlined the interconnection between the market and forest management and its consequences:
After the storms Gudrun and Per, but also [storm] Simone last year, I think that people are working with shorter rotation lengths today – more intensive in that way. As a result of the lower profits on pulpwood, it might be that we are not carrying out the clearing in the same way and to the same extent as done previously. (…) This is not good for forestry or for development in the forest. (M-S)
Thus, the interviewees to a large extent noted the importance of integrating and emphasising other values of the forest. For instance:
Thinking about the storm damage risks, it’s a more secure way of management for the forest. I also think it gets better for the game with greater differences in the forest. I don’t believe in this uni-formity [of the forest] with one type of tree. (M-S)
Another thing that has developed is the satisfactory feeling of owning forest. To be out and walk in your own [forest] and maybe look equally onflowers as on cubic metres within it. (M-N) Risk in the landscape and the importance of management at adjoining plots: Requirements for a culture change?
Interviewees also noted a higher focus on risk, both amongst themselves and their neighbours. Many interviewees claimed that the risk to their forest will be affected by adjoining forest management, to the point that they emphasise the need for shifts in not only how they log, but also in how adjoining properties log and manage forest. In relation to this consider-ation, some interviewees also noted the risk that might be a result of management for economic value, in particular when a property is seen as an investment rather than a long-term concern. Whilst some emphasised that there might thus be a need for a culture change of the type they
describe above, many also noted that this will not be possible in exclusion, as properties that practise a more cautious form of forestry will still be affected by risks posed by properties close by that continue managing their forestry to maximise economic output.
Several interviewees noted that risks affect adjoining properties:
Those that own forest right next to mine certainly have an interest in what I have on my property; what type of trees I have there, especially after the storm Gudrun. You notice with the attack of bark beetles and how it spreads rapidly (…) due to the fact that there are many similar trees. (F-S)
There are no alternatives. We logged in one spot and then the neighbour had high spruces next to it that became very exposed from the southern side. So my guess is if there is a storm coming, it will bring them down. (F-S)
In relation to the storm Hilde, the neighbour to the west had made afinal felling, which made us more storm sensitive because our forest was at the edge. (M-N)
We have been affected by (X) and their way of carrying out fellings – they are overlogging. Due to this, we lost two thousand square metres of old forest, which we had saved, last year. They logged and took out everything without showing any consideration for their neighbours. (…) They logged all and then came the autumn storm. I lost everything. I even lost a key habitat. (M-N) A neighbour logged a bit of area by the road and almost immedi-ately half a hectare was wind-thrown [on our property]. (M-S)
Some of these considerations seem to be related to decreased control over forest close to their own holding, including, e.g. a discussion on forest owners purchasing land for economic output but without links to the area. These considerations could be seen not only in relation to forestry, but also in relation to the effect of clear felling on residents in the area. Thus, several interviewees made comments along the follow-ing lines:
Forestry as it works out is totally crazy. People from other places are buying very large forest properties, those who have much money, and then turn it into enormous fellings. I think this is com-pletely wrong. Those living in the place might have smaller forest properties, maybe for household timber andfirewood. They are thinning and carrying out selective felling themselves and might get some of their income [from the forest] instead of buying, logging, buying new and logging. It is turning into ruthless exploi-tation. (M-N)
They are not considering that there is a number of landowners around them… they don’t give a damn if they are clear-felling – resulting in hard winds as it would be a storm where their neigh-bours have their houses. If they only come here one week per year, they don’t notice and they don’t care. They don’t think that way. My parents’ village is a perfect example of this. There is bare forest land almost everywhere (…) and the snow is drifting and there is wind from all directions. (F-N)
Discussion
As the physical conditions of forestry are shifting due to climate change and increased frequency of storms (cf. Stewart et al.1998), the discourse on traditional forest man-agement could be seen as destabilised, since according to our interviewees it shows limited signs of adapting to shifts
such as these, thereby decreasing its own legitimacy (cf.
Mckee 2009). The main way of creating specific meaning
about storms within the dominant discourse has been to nat-uralise these events and downplay their implications and effects (cf. Blennow 2008; Lidskog and Sjödin 2014, 2016). However, many of the forest owners interviewed in this study criticised this discursive practice and engaged in micro-level resistance through emphasising both the limit-ation of present forest management measures and planning and the relation between the present understanding and practices of forestry and the forest industry. Through these articulations, they thereby emphasise that these practices
and understandings are neither neutral nor “given” (cf.
Bieler and Morton2001).
By defining other temporal, aesthetic and residential par-ameters of the landscape, forest owners in the cases described here challenged the naturalness of present forests and forestry operations. This was mainly done by questioning the extensive domination of spruce in the landscape and the present rationale that guides its management and replanta-tion, but also included considerations regarding clearing, undertaking continuity forestry or selective felling. Forest owners also questioned a market-based economic rationale for forestry compared with rationales that also consider his-torical continuity, aesthetics and the impacts on those living close to forestry logging areas. Forest owners also pointed out that a dominant forest management discourse focused on economic output may limit the possibilities for individual shifts in forest management, as risks resulting from manage-ment on neighbouring properties may transfer onto, and impact, their own property (cf. Andersson and Keskitalo2018). In this way, the forest owners in this study could be seen as challenging the neutrality of the present forest management rationale on multiple grounds, including the subject of the rationale (for whom), its ability to handle other values and aspects of the forest (emotional and aesthetic) and funda-mentally its economic basis. The extensive focus on the econ-omic consequences of storms, both in the material of this study and in previous studies (Blennow and Sallnäs2002; Har-tebrodt2004; Størdal et al.2007), reveals the competing and conflicting rationalities of forest and risk management (cf.
Raco 2003), restricted active management of risks (cf.
Blennow 2008) and the limited attention to other values in Swedish forestry (cf. Hugosson and Ingemarson 2004;
Nor-dlund and Westin 2011). In combination with species
choices and management, this challenging of the dominant rationales and discourse is performative in terms of both articulations and practice, i.e. by adopting alternative forest and risk management practices.
Thus, the study shows how the present logics and ratio-nales of a larger forest industry may be seen to limit alterna-tive forest management rationales and practices, and thereby also potential climate change adaptation (cf. Slocum 2004; Tennberg2009; Methmann 2010; Oppermann2011). It also illustrates how a process of implementing effective adap-tation measures might require space for alternative thoughts and actions (cf. Burchell1996; Mouffe2000). Through its focus on micro-level resistance, this study underlines how agency, the range of actions and choices, is located in structure (e.g.
relations, institutions, rationales and logics), but not deter-mined by it. It illustrates the discomfort of the interviewees, in various ways, with their subject positions within the present discourse and logics of Swedish forestry. They primar-ily undermined its stability and neutrality by exposing its bias and power relations, e.g. its industrial focus on maximising production and supplying material for a specific set of indus-trial products (e.g. quantity, quality and species). This is mainly driven by how their relationship with nature is reformulated through the process of climate change (cf. Jamieson2007), as well as other structural shifts within the forest landscape and its ownership (cf. Eriksson2014). By destabilising the dis-course and its fundamental rationales, the forest owners revealed the selective picture and meaning of the problems associated with storms that are produced by the present logic (cf. Engels2008). By scrutinising this micro-level resist-ance, this study provides insights into the effects of power and specific logics in Swedish forest discourse (cf. Foucault 1982) and how it is structured and underpinned by the pro-duction of knowledge (cf. Foucault1991; Scott1998).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas: [Grant Number 2011-1702].
References
Adger WN.2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr. 24(3):347–364.
Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S.2004. New indi-cators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Vol. 122. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A.2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change. 93(3):335–354.
Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, et al.2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag. 259(4):660–684. Andersson E, Keskitalo ECH.2018. Adaptation to climate change? Why
business-as-usual remains the logical choice in Swedish forestry. Glob Environ Change. 48(1):76–85.
Appelstrand M.2007. Miljömålet i skogsbruket : styrning och frivillighet [The environmental goal of Swedish forest policy– regulation and voluntariness]. Lund: Lund University.
Aradau C, Van Munster R.2007. Governing terrorism through risk: taking precautions, (un)knowing the future. European Journal of International Relations. 13(1):89–115.
Bieler A, Morton AD.2001. The Gordian knot of agency– structure in inter-national relations:. European Journal of Interinter-national Relations. 7(1):5–35. Blennow K.2008. Risk management in Swedish forestry– policy formation
and fulfilment of goals. J Risk Res. 11(1–2):237–254.
Blennow K.2012. Adaptation of forest management to climate change among private individual forest owners in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics. 24:41–47.
Blennow K, Andersson M, Bergh J, Sallnäs O, Olofsson E.2010. Potential climate change impacts on the probability of wind damage in a south Swedish forest. Clim Change. 99(1):261–278.
Blennow K, Olofsson E.2008. The probability of wind damage in forestry under a changed wind climate. Clim Change. 87(3):347–360. Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M.2012. Climate change:
believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS ONE. 7(11):e50182. Blennow K, Sallnäs O.2002. Risk perception among non-industrial private
forest owners. Scand J Forest Res. 17(5):472–479.
Burchell G.1996. Liberal government and techniques of the self. In: Barry A, Osborne T, Rose N, editor. Foucault and political reason: liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities of government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; p. 19–36.
Carpenter C.2001. Businesses, green groups and the media: the role of non-governmental organizations in the climate change debate. Int Aff. 77(2):313–328.
Carroll B, Morbey H, Balogh R, Araoz G.2009. Flooded homes, broken bonds, the meaning of home, psychological processes and their impact on psychological health in a disaster. Health Place. 15(2):540–547. Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, et al.2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience. 51(9):723–734.
Dean M. 2010. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Engels A.2008. Local environmental crisis and global sea-level rise: The case of coastal zones in Senegal. In: Casimir MJ, editor. Culture and the changing environment uncertainty, cognition and risk manage-ment in cross-cultural perspective. New York (NY): Berghahn Books; p. 175–195.
Eriksson L. 2014. Risk perception and responses among private forest owners in Sweden. Small-Scale Forestry. 13(4):483–500.
Eriksson L.2017. The importance of threat, strategy, and resource apprai-sals for long-term proactive risk management among forest owners in Sweden. J Risk Res. 20(7):868–886. doi:10.1080/13669877.2015. 1121905.
Felton A, Gustafsson L, Roberge JM, Ranius T, Hjältén J, Rudolphi J, Lindbladh M, Weslien J, Rist L, Brunet J, et al. 2016. How climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies can threaten or enhance the biodiversity of production forests: insights from Sweden. Biol Conserv. 194:11–20.
Foucault M.1982. The subject and power. Crit Inq. 8(4):777–795. Foucault M.1991. Governmentality. In: Burchell G, Gordon C, Miller P,
editors. The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality: with two lec-tures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; p. 87–104.
Green JF.2008. Delegation and accountability in the clean development mechanism: the new authority of non-state actors. J Int Law Int Relat. 4(2):21–55.
Harries T.2008. Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself against a natural hazard. Health Risk Soc. 10 (5):479–490.
Hartebrodt C.2004. The impact of storm damage on small-scale forest enterprises in the south-west of Germany [journal article]. Small-scale forest economics. Manag Policy. 3(2):203–222.
Hugosson M, Ingemarson F.2004. Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fenn. 38(2):217–231.
IPCC.2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC.2014. Climate Change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. Jamieson D.2007. The moral and political challenges of climate change.
In: Moser SC, Dilling L, editor. Creating a climate for change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 475–482.
Keenan RJ.2015. Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest man-agement: a review. Ann For Sci. 72(2):145–167.
Klein RJT, Midgley GF, Preston BL.2014. Adaptation opportunities, con-straints and limits. In: IPCC, editor. Climate Change 2014: impacts, adap-tation and vulnerability Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects Working SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 807
Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; p. 899–943.
Kolk A, Levy D.2001. Winds of change:. Eur Manag J. 19(5):501–509. Larner W, Butler M.2005. Governmentalities of Local Partnerships: the Rise
of a“Partnering State” in New Zealand. Studies in Political Economy. 75 (1):79–101.
Lawrence A, Nicoll B.2016. Climate impacts and adaptations in forest management. In: Letcher TM, editor. Climate change. 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier; p. 585–594.
Lidskog R, Lofmarck E.2015. Managing uncertainty: forest professionals’ claim and epistemic authority in the face of societal and climate change. Risk Management. 17(3):145–164.
Lidskog R, Sjödin D.2014. Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners. Scand J Forest Res. 29(3):275–282.
Lidskog R, Sjödin D.2016. Extreme events and climate change: the post-disaster dynamics of forestfires and forest storms in Sweden. Scand J Forest Res. 31(2):148–155.
Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, et al.2010. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest eco-systems. For Ecol Manag. 259(4):698–709.
Lodin I, Brukas V, Wallin I.2017. Spruce or not? Contextual and attitudinal drivers behind the choice of tree species in southern Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 83(10):191–198.
Lönnstedt L, Svensson J.2000. Non-industrial private forest owners’ risk preferences. Scand J Forest Res. 15(6):651–660.
Lund E. 2013. Environmental diplomacy: comparing the influence of business and environmental NGOs in negotiations on reform of the clean development mechanism. Env Polit. 22(5):739–759.
McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS.2001. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.
Mckee K.2009. Post-Foucauldian governmentality: what does it offer criti-cal social policy analysis? Critic Soc Policy. 29(3):465–486.
Methmann CP.2010.“Climate protection” as empty signifier: a discourse theoretical perspective on climate mainstreaming in world politics. Millennium J Int Stud. 39(2):345–372.
Mouffe C.2000. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
Mumby DK. 2005. Theorizing resistance in organization studies. Management Communication Quarterly. 19(1):19–44.
Nordlund A, Westin K.2011. Forest values and forest management atti-tudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests. 2(1):30–50. Okereke C, Bulkeley H, Schroeder H.2009. Conceptualizing climate
gov-ernance beyond the international regime. Global Environ Politics. 9 (1):58–78.
Oppermann E.2011. The discourse of adaptation to climate change and the UK climate impacts programme: De-scribing the problematization of adaptation. Climate Dev. 3(1):71–85.
Parker WC, Colombo SJ, Cherry ML, Greifenhagen S, Papadopol C, Flannigan MD, McAlpine RS, Scarr T.2000. Third millennium forestry: what climate change might mean to forests and forest management in Ontario. For Chron. 76(3):445–463.
Pattberg P, Stripple J.2008. Beyond the public and private divide: remap-ping transnational climate governance in the 21st century [journal article]. International environmental agreements: politics. Law Econ. 8 (4):367–388.
Peltola H, Kellomäki S, Väisänen H.1999. Model computations of the impact of climatic change on the windthrow risk of trees. Clim Change. 41(1):17–36.
Peterson CJ.2000. Catastrophic wind damage to North American forests and the potential impact of climate change. Sci Total Environ. 262 (3):287–311.
Prasad P, Prasad A. 2000. Stretching the iron cage: the constitution and implications of routine workplace resistance. Organiz Sci. 11 (4):387–403.
Raco M.2003. Governmentality, subject-building, and the discourses and practices of devolution in the UK. Trans Inst Br Geographers. 28(1):75–95. Reser JP, Swim JK.2011. Adapting to and coping with the threat and
impacts of climate change. Am Psychologist. 66(4):277–289. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Elam G.2003. Designing and selecting samples. In:
Ritchie J, Lewis J, editor. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage; p. 77–108. Sawicki J.1994. Foucault, feminism and questions of identity. In: Gutting
G, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. New York (NY): Cambrige University Press; p. 286–313.
Scott JC.1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. (Yale agrarian studies.
Seidl R, Aggestam F, Rammer W, Blennow K, Wolfslehner B.2016. The sen-sitivity of current and future forest managers to climate-induced changes in ecological processes. Ambio. 45(4):430–441.
Slocum R.2004. Consumer citizens and the cities for climate protection campaign. Environ Plan A. 36(5):763–782.
Smit B, Wandel J.2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change. 16(3):282–292.
Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF.2011. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related toflood experience. Nature Clim Change. 1(1):46–49.
Spittlehouse DL, Stewart RB.2004. Adaptation to climate change in forest management [climate change; sustainable forest management; adap-tation]. J Ecosyst Manag. 4(1):1–11.
StatSwe. 2016. Folkmängd i riket, län och kommuner [Population in the country, counties and municipals].http://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/ statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningens-sammansattning/befolk ningsstatistik/pong/tabell-och-diagram/kvartals--och-halvarsstatistik --kommun-lan-och-riket/kvartal-2-2015/:Statistics Sweden.
Stewart RB, Wheaton E, Spittlehouse D.1998. Climate change: implications for the boreal forest. In: Legge AH, Jones LL, editor. Emerging Air issues for the 21st century: The need for multidisciplinary management. Pittsburg (PA): Air and Waste Management Assoc.; p. 86–101. Størdal S, Lien G, Brian Hardaker J.2007. Perceived risk sources and
strat-egies to cope with risk among forest owners with and without o ff-property work in eastern Norway. Scand J Forest Res. 22(5):443–453. SweGov.2007. Sweden facing climate change: threats and opportunities :
final report (commission on climate and vulnerability) (SOU 2007:60). Stockholm: Swedish Government Official Report.
Tennberg M.2009. Is adaptation governable in the Arctic? National and regional approaches to Arctic adaptation governance. In: Koivurova T, Keskitalo HEC, Bankes N, editor. Climate governance in the Arctic. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 289–301.
Thomas R, Davies A.2005. Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public ser-vices. Organiz Stud. 26(5):683–706.
Törnqvist T. 1995. Skogsrikets arvingar: en sociologisk studie av skogsägarskapet inom privat, enskilt skogsbruk [Inheritors of the woodlands : a sociological study of private, non-industrial forest own-ership]. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Valinger E, Fridman J.2011. Factors affecting the probability of windthrow
at stand level as a result of Gudrun winter storm in southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag. 262(3):398–403.
Valinger E, Kempe G, Fridman J.2014. Forest management and forest state in southern Sweden before and after the impact of storm Gudrun in the winter of 2005. Scand J Forest Res. 29(5):466–472.
Weedon C. 1996. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell.
Winchester H.2010. Qualitative research and its place in human phy. In: Hay I, editor. Qualitative research methods in human geogra-phy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 1–22.
