No abstract

Research Highlights: The European Union’s last large intact forest landscapes along the Scandinavian Mountain range in Sweden offer unique opportunities for conservation of biodiversity, ecological integrity and resilience. However, these forests are at a crossroad between intensified wood production aimed at bio-economy, and rural development based on multi-functional forest landscapes for future-oriented forest value chains. Background and Objectives: We (1) estimate the area of near-natural forests potentially remaining for forest harvesting and wood production, or as green infrastructure for biodiversity conservation and human well-being in rural areas, (2) review how forest and conservation policies have so far succeeded to reduce the loss of mountain forests, and (3) discuss what economic, socio-cultural and ecological values that are at stake, as well as different governance and management solutions. Materials and Methods: First, we estimated the remaining amount of intact mountain forests using (1) the Swedish National Forest Inventory, (2) protected area statistics, (3) forest harvest permit applications and actually harvested forests, (4) remote sensing wall-to-wall data on forests not subject to clear-felling since the mid-1950s, (5) mapping of productive and non-productive forestland, and (6) estimates of mean annual final felling rate. Second, we review policy documents related to the emergence of land use regulation in north Sweden, including the mountain forest border, and illustrate this with an actual case that has had significant policy implementation importance. Results: There is a clear difference between the proportions of formally protected productive forestland above the mountain forest border (52.5%) and north Sweden in general (6.3%). A total of 300,000 ha of previously not clear-felled mountain forest outside protected areas remain, which can support novel value chains that are not achievable elsewhere. Conclusions: The mountain forests in Sweden provide unique conservation values in the European Union. Since the beginning of the 1990s, policy regulations have been successful in limiting forest harvesting. Currently, however, mountain forests are a battle ground regarding intensification of forest use, including logging of forests that have never been subject to clear-felling systems vs. nature conservation and wilderness as a base for rural development. The ability of mountain municipalities to encourage sustainable rural forest landscapes must be strengthened.

Animal husbandry in Europe that sustained once wide-spread semi-natural grasslands has been replaced by maximum sustained yield agriculture and forestry. This transformation coincides with declining populations of species dependent on semi-natural grasslands. A key task is therefore to define benchmarks for landscape restoration in terms of well-planned functional habitat networks, i.e., green infrastructure. Using a representative example of the European landscape gradient between agricultural and forest landscapes in southern Sweden as a case study, we analyzed the historic range of variability of the total area, quality, and size of grassland patches, and compared this to the requirements of focal grassland species. Spatial data covering the past two centuries indicated a 75-80% loss of total grassland area. Three factors affected the functionality of grasslands as green infrastructure. First, during the period 1927-1976, the loss of all grassland areas with high nature values was 41-59%. Second, as a measure of alteration, the number of semi-natural grassland types declined from 5 to 1. Third, to address habitat fragmentation, an analysis of changes in grassland patch size showed that patches sufficiently large to support local populations of complete focal grasslands species assemblages declined by 89-100%. The cumulative effect of loss, alteration, and fragmentation over the past two centuries indicates that the functionality of semi-natural grasslands has declined by at least 98%. However, this estimate does not consider land use changes before 1800, reduced connectivity, and altered biotic and abiotic processes in both semi-natural grasslands and the surrounding matrix. We stress the need to define the historic range of variability as a benchmark in relation to species' requirements to maintain semi-natural grasslands as green infrastructure. Finally, integrated land management and governance that support multi-functionality of grasslands is needed.

There are currently competing demands on Europe's forests and the finite resources and services that they can offer. Forestry intensification that aims at mitigating climate change and biodiversity conservation is one example. Whether or not these two objectives compete can be evaluated by comparative studies of forest landscapes with different histories. We test the hypothesis that indicators of wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related in a gradient of long to short forestry intensification histories. Forest management data containing stand age, volume and tree species were used to model the opportunity for wood production and biodiversity conservation in five north European forest regions representing a gradient in landscape history from very long in the West and short in the East. Wood production indicators captured the supply of coniferous wood and total biomass, as well as current accessibility by transport infrastructure. Biodiversity conservation indicators were based on modelling habitat network functionality for focal bird species dependent on different combinations of stand age and tree species composition representing naturally dynamic forests. In each region we randomly sampled 25 individual 100-km areas with contiguous forest cover. Regarding wood production, Sweden's Bergslagen region had the largest areas of coniferous wood, followed by Vitebsk in Belarus and Zemgale in Latvia. NW Russia's case study regions in Pskov and Komi had the lowest values, except for the biomass indicator. The addition of forest accessibility for transportation made the Belarusian and Swedish study region most suitable for wood and biomass production, followed by Latvia and two study regions in NW Russian. Regarding biodiversity conservation, the overall rank among regions was opposite. Mixed and deciduous habitats were functional in Russia, Belarus and Latvia. Old Scots pine and Norway spruce habitats were only functional in Komi. Thus, different regional forest histories provide different challenges in terms of satisfying both wood production and biodiversity conservation objectives in a forest management unit. These regional differences in northern Europe create opportunities for exchanging experiences among different regional contexts about how to achieve both objectives. We discuss this in the context of land-sharing versus land-sparing.

No abstract