Coffee Talk with Oscar Jacobsson: Private forest owners' perspectives in Sweden
Join us for a coffee chat with Oscar Jacobsson, a human geographer and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg’s Department of Economy and Society, in the Human Geography section. In BIOTraCes he leads the case study on “Bottom-up Forest Biodiversity” about private forest owners in western Sweden.
Can you tell us more about the focus of your case study?
Our case study examines how private forest owners in Sweden perceive biodiversity, which is a quite contentious issue in Swedish forestry. Our idea is to raise the voices of the private forest owners, highlighting their personal connections to their forests, which often tend to be forgotten in the wider forestry debates in Sweden.
We are looking at forest owners in different geographic contexts to highlight the diversity of experiences: Forest owners differ from each other, depending on their context. For example, we have one case quite close to an urban area, which is rather different than those located further in land. This approach can inform more nuanced and tailored policy approaches.
“We raise the voices of the private forest owners, highlighting their personal connections to their forests, which often tend to be forgotten in the wider forestry debates in Sweden”
What makes biodiversity protection such a contentious issue in Swedish forestry?
A key issue is the lack of a developed compensation system for biodiversity protection in forests. If protected species are found on a private forest, owners are generally prohibited from logging without compensation. This is a main issue. Meanwhile, Sweden’s commercial forestry sector has largely focused on monoculture systems, which means that many biodiversity values are being destroyed, especially in this industrial-scale forestry. The result is a tension between protecting biodiversity and the economic interests of those forest owners that depend on the income from forestry products. This is part of a tense debate especially between the forest industry and the different conservation organisations.
Are small private forest owners very concerned about the lack of compensation for biodiversity protection?
The compensation issue does come up when I talk to them, but actually less than I expected, considering how heated the debate is in Sweden. Many forest owners are not even fully aware of the debate. In fact, many are not heavily reliant on their forests for income. For them, forestry is more about supplementing their income than being a primary source.
How do small private forest owners interact with the larger industrial forest industry?
Most private forest owners are not directly involved in the industrial forestry sector, especially those with smaller properties. However, they for example often hire consultants or forest workers linked to the forest industry for services like harvesting and management planning. It is important to note that most of these forest owners are deeply connected to their land. Many value the different kinds of trees and species in their forests a lot. In my conversations with them, it’s clear that they enjoy species richness, and I think that that is something that we need to value higher. But at the same time, they are also quite tied to the forest industry in different ways. So while they are not industrial actors themselves, many of them are influenced by the forest industry, at least in parts of their forests.
What innovative nature-positive practices have you discovered among small private forest owners?
We have seen some interesting examples of alternative practices. For instance, one owner worked with a biologist instead of an industry consultant to create a forest management plan focused on ecosystem services rather than timber. This approach does not focus on generating economic income from the forest, but it highlights how some forest owners are experimenting with new ways of managing their land. I will definitely have more on innovative practices to share once I finish the data analysis.
What other opportunities are there for small private forest owners to support biodiversity in their forests?
An interesting development is the idea of “continuous cover forestry”[1] which is being promoted by various stakeholders, including the EU and conservation organizations. However, forest owners themselves often lack the knowledge or resources to implement it effectively. Many are interested in knowing more about it but do not know where to find information.
There is also potential in promoting the use of high-quality timber, which requires more biodiversity-friendly forest management practices. Right now, much of Sweden’s timber production focuses on biomass, with little attention given to high-quality wood for construction. There is an opportunity here for forest owners to target higher-value markets, though there is currently no well-developed system to support this.
Are there any organizations helping empowering small forest owners?
Yes, there are government bodies like the Swedish National Forest Agency, which offers courses and organises meetings to inform forest owners about alternative management practices. Additionally, many forest owners are connected to the forest owners’ association Södra, which acts as an economic cooperative in southern Sweden. This is one way for forest owners to organise an industrial production, tying themselves to this organisation: they can sell their trees to Södra, serving economic interests. While Södra is a major industrial player, it also does serve as a platform for forest owners to voice their concerns. For example, some forest owners have pushed the organisation to offer advisory services on continuous cover forestry, so there will likely be some changes in the future.
What policy recommendations do you have to support small forest owners in protecting biodiversity and adapting to climate change?
One recommendation would be for the authorities to improve their communication with forest owners. Many owners are simply unaware of the support available to them, such as courses or local meetings. While there is good support on paper, forest owners often do not know about these opportunities, especially those who are not very engaged with forestry. The authorities could do a better job of reaching out to these owners and helping them recognize their potential to make a difference.
Secondly, there is also an ongoing trend toward centralisation in forestry management: public authorities connected to forestry are withdrawing from the local scene. Previously many municipalities had their local forestry officers, where local people could ask about their questions, but now it is becoming more centralised which could limit local access to support. This could hinder communication between local and national levels, which is something that needs addressing.
“Many forest owners are simply unaware of the support available to them, such as courses or local meetings.”
Looking ahead, what role do you think small forest owners will play in the future of Swedish forestry?
It could go either way. There is a risk that forest owners will become even less engaged in their forests than they are now because they have other interests and jobs. Especially as urbanisation continues and people move away from their properties. They may rely more on consultants and less on direct involvement with their land. On the other hand, there is potential for forest owners to organise themselves around alternative values, such as recreation, biodiversity, and even nature-based tourism. If they can break away from industrial organisations and focus on these values, they could promote these interests and could also find alternative types of economic values in the future if they want to. I think being so tied to the forest industry is a limiting factor for the forest owners who want to use their forests in alternative ways.
“In the future, there is potential for forest owners to organize themselves around alternative values, such as recreation, biodiversity, and even nature-based tourism.”
Finally, what impact do you hope your research will have, both for forest owners and for broader forest management?
I hope our research will lead to more communication among forest owners, especially locally. For instance, in our case study area just outside Gothenburg, forest owners do not often interact with each other. Through our workshops, we hope to facilitate discussions and help them connect over shared interests. This could lead to collective action for their common interests at the local level.
For the broader forestry sector, our research aims to raise the voices of forest owners who are not very active themselves and are not typically involved in the conversation. By focusing on their personal relationships with their land, rather than just forestry practices in general, we hope to provide a more nuanced understanding of how these owners view biodiversity and forest management.
This interview was done in the middle of Oscar´s fieldwork and there is still a lot of analysis left to do. So, some of the insights he has shared may evolve as they dive deeper into the data.
[1] A nature-friendly and sustainable woodland management approach involving selectively thinning trees to create a diverse forest structure, see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-benefits-of-continuous-cover-forestry/the-benefits-of-continuous-cover-forestry