Risk management in Swedish forestry – Policy formation and fulfilment of goals

The formation of a risk management policy in Swedish forestry and its consequences for fulfilment of goals was analysed. The risk of wind damage was used as a model where an apparent gap between stated accepted risk and extent of risk‐reducing measures taken among south Swedish non‐industrial private forest owners was used as a starting point. The results of an enquiry, and personal experiences from the debate after an extensive wind damage event in January 2005, were used and complemented study of literature. It was concluded that risks have not been particularly actively managed in the Swedish forestry culture. This was explained by notions of seeing (i) risks such as wind damage as a natural hazard rather than a technological risk that can be modulated, and (ii) forestry as an enterprise free of valuation in which value aspects of risk were neglected. A narrow agenda in Swedish forest research influenced the risk management policy, where forest consultants played an important role as a link between science and practice and between the public and the private. Neither the legislator nor the forestry consultants declared how they weighted risk which reduced the fulfilment of goals. At the national level relaxation of regulations after 1993 has not yet resulted in markedly diversified privately owned forests and spreading of risk as intended, and the management of the risk of wind damage before January 2005 was in many cases not adapted to the risk the individual forest owner was prepared to take. The results were discussed with respect to possibilities for improved fulfilment of goals in Swedish forestry by facilitating more active risk management.

[1]  O. Sallnäs,et al.  A landscape perspective on differentiated management for production of timber and nature conservation values , 2006 .

[2]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  Tomas Öberg,et al.  Risk Management in Post‐Trust Societies , 2006 .

[4]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[5]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Fallacies of risk , 2004 .

[6]  M. Jonsell,et al.  Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden , 1998, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[7]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  P. Gärdenfors,et al.  Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making , 1982, Synthese.

[9]  Lawrence J. Axelrod,et al.  Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards , 1999 .

[10]  George O. Rogers,et al.  Dynamic Risk Perception in Two Communities: Risk Events and Changes in Perceived Risk , 1997 .

[11]  Decision Support for Active Risk Management in Sustainable Forestry , 2006 .

[12]  S. Hansson Weighing risks and benefits , 2004 .

[13]  P. Slovic Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Johannes Persson De förbisedda objektsaspekterna av risk , 2002 .

[15]  Johannes Persson Riskkommunikation och tillit , 2004 .

[16]  F. Helles,et al.  Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter , 1986 .

[17]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Introduction : Bayesian decision theory, foundations and problems , 1988 .

[18]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Department of Clinical Studies, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark , 1999 .

[19]  H. Peltola,et al.  Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: an analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland , 2000 .

[20]  B. Gardiner,et al.  The stability of different silvicultural systems: a wind-tunnel investigation , 2005 .

[21]  B. Gardiner,et al.  Field and wind tunnel assessments of the implications of respacing and thinning for tree stability , 1997 .

[22]  N. Sahlin,et al.  Epistemic risk: The significance of knowing what one does not know , 1994 .

[23]  Per Eliasson Skog, makt och människor. En miljöhistoria om svensk skog 1800-1875. , 2002 .

[24]  R. Alexander,et al.  Minimizing Windfall Around Clear Cuttings in Spruce-Fir Forests , 1964 .

[25]  Ingar Brinck,et al.  Om riskkommunikation: kartor, klyftor och mål , 2005 .

[26]  Peter Schlyter,et al.  Recorded storm damage in Swedish forests 1901-2000 , 2004 .

[27]  Ola Sallnäs,et al.  Risk Perception Among Non-industrial Private Forest Owners , 2002 .

[28]  M. Hugosson,et al.  Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment , 2004 .

[29]  Gert-Jan Nabuurs,et al.  Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries , 2003 .

[30]  Andrew P. Morse,et al.  Mechanisms Controlling Turbulence Development Across A Forest Edge , 2002 .

[31]  A. Somerville Wind stability: forest layout and silviculture. , 1980 .