Why do forest owners (not) grow trees?

Per SandströmOn behalf of:

Erik Wilhelmsson, Gun Lidestav, Torgny Lind and Kerstin Westin

IUFRO, Brisbane 2015-10-13

Private Forest Ownership in Europe

2

Proportion of forest land (%) in private ownership (Pulla et al. 2013)

+ Restitution+ Privatization+ Reforestation

Changes in prerequisites and expectations

Changes in NIPF ownership structure

Increased heterogeneity, fragmentation, dissociation

“Governance” and “Market”

Less activity in forest management increased area put aside for nature concern without any management

Fig. 1. Annual increment and felling in small-scale forestry in m3. Data from NFI. Average of five year periods (1980=1978-1982, 1981=1979-1983 etc.). The increase in increment from 1982 to 1983 is to approximately half an effect of an improved method for estimation of increment.

Growth and felling on NIPF owned forests in Sweden

Aim: to search for explanations to continued high level of management practices for timber production in times of changed conditions for ownership and management

Literature review

Peer-reviewed articles and doctoral thesis’s, published official reports and policy documents 1980 -

Possibilities

Incentives

Restrictions/Constrains

The Swedish Forestry Model

Planering för att leva och verka på flera platser

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Very

What is important to NIPF owners

NIPF owners living on the property

NIPF owners living at a distance

The educational process of NIPF owners & norm sending structures

Laws and policies

The development of the production

technology

Forest owner

The development of the market economy

The socio-economical development

(Törnqvist 1995)

The educational process of NIPF owners & norm sending structures, cont.

Three approaches:

Voice

Loyalty

Exit

Legislation and policies

“Freedom under responsibility”

From more of a governmental learning process to more of a market influenced learning process

The forest management plan

Activity on certified and non-certified holdings, %

Lidestav & Berg Lejon, 2011

Motives for forest certification

Resi

dent

Not

Re

side

nt

Environmental motives39 37

Economical motives 42 34Moral motives 7 8Influence from Forest Owner Association

27 17

Fig 4. Certified NIPF owners motives for joining the certification scheme, % owners. Note that more than one motive can be indicated (Lidestav & Berg Lejon 2011)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Gross valueNet conversion valueResult after costs

Fig. 5. Gross value, net conversion value and result after costs for silviculture, precommercial thinning, fertilization, drainage and forest roads in SEK/m3. Values are given in prices 2011. Exchange rate app. 10 SEK/€. Data from Swedish Forest Agency.

The market development & The development of production technology

The Swedish model for forest management including the norm setting structures still works as incitement for NIPF forest owners on how to manage their forests

To understand the behavior we cannot rely on studies of single aspects; i.e. attitudes. We must consider all the various aspects of what makes NIPF ownership important

We need to better and more systematically follow the changes over time including socio-economical aspects

Concluding reflexions

Thanks for your attention!

Acknowledgments

The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry

SLO-foundation

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fig 5. Number of NIPF owners work in their forests in hours. (Statistical yearbook, Forestry).

The socio-economic development