Climate Adaptation in Swedish Forestry: Exploring the Debate and Policy Process, 1990–2012

Abstract

This paper explores how climate change adaptation concerns were integrated into the Swedish forestry debate and policy process during the period of 1990-2012, and draws lessons on barriers and opportunities identified in this process. Using a framework focusing on "advocacy coalitions", we analyze how the adaptation debate in the forestry sector evolved over the period; who the main advocates for and against adaptation were; and which main arguments and processes affected the debate and policy. The results show that academics advocating climate change adaptation, aided by outside influences, such as political pressure for adaptation responses and the negative impacts of the 2005 storm Gudrun, contributed to an increased general awareness and understanding of adaptation issues amongst forestry stakeholders. Nonetheless, the strong dominance of actors arguing for increased forest production and the limited number and relatively poor organization of adaptation advocates have acted as barriers to mainstreaming adaptation concerns into forestry policy and practice. The dominant coalitions and their values have also determined the direction of debate and policy. The main conclusions for policymakers aiming to further this integration process are the importance of stimulating adaptation coalitions and the value of creating arenas for multiple stakeholder learning about adaptation. OPEN ACCESSForests 2015, 6 709

A Review of Applications of the Advocacy Coalition Framework in Swedish Policy Processes

“…Moderately strong support was found relating external events as a driver of policy change (Elliot and Schlaepfer 2001b; Nohrstedt 2007; 2009; 2011; Ulmanen, Swartling, and Wallgren 2015); however, disagreement remains more broadly over the specific mechanisms by which external events or shocks may impact the policy process. Three applications also tested the impact of policy‐oriented learning as a mechanism for policy change, with results indicating moderate support for this hypothesis (Elliot and Schlaepfer 2001a; 2001b; Ullmanen et al 2015).…”

Adaptation to Climate Change in Swedish Forestry

“…These types of reasoning amongst forest owners with regard to adaptation have, given the limited implementation so far in the system, not been sufficiently researched nor integrated into advice and decision-making systems (cf. [18]). Issues also remain concerning, for example the adaptations that can be combined systematically in relation to other factors: for instance, how priorities related to biodiversity (long rotation times) and adaptation to an intensive forest system (short rotation times) may be in conflict.…”

“…In addition, limited consideration has also been given to the adaptation alternatives that may reduce timber production outcomes in the short term, for example adaptations that include the conversion of monocultures to mixtures containing a higher proportion of deciduous trees or from rotationally-clear-felled stands to continuous-cover forestry (ibid. ; see also [9,17,18]). …”

The influence of climate change communication on cognitive, emotional and behavioural engagement with adaptation among forest owners in Sweden

“…Another way of framing climate change is in terms of losses or gains. As noted in Chapter 1, climate change has been framed as a risk as well as an economic opportunity for the Swedish forest sector (Ulmanen et al 2015). Again, Wiest et al (2015) and Spence and Pidgeon (2010) wicked, because vulnerability to climate change impacts is the consequences of other problems, it lacks a well-structured policy domain, and its framing and solutions are highlight contested and interconnected with other problems (Termeer et al 2013).…”

“…Ingemarson et al (2006) considered a broader spectrum of forest values which, besides recreation and tradition, also consist of values related to production and economic gains, including income generation, timber production, tax planning, return on investment, as well as values related to environmental protection including nature conversation, water conservation and soil conservation. Given that the debate about the Swedish forest sector's in climate change has historically focused on its ability to sequester carbon, we also include climate change mitigation and biofuel production to the list of values (Ulmanen et al 2015).…”