Is There a Nordic Model for the Treatment of Introduced Tree Species

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

ISSN: 0282-7581 (Print) 1651-1891 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sfor20

Is there a Nordic Model for the treatment of introduced tree species? A comparison of the use, policy, and debate concerning introduced tree species in the Nordic countries

Fredrick Backman & Erland Mårald

To cite this article: Fredrick Backman & Erland Mårald (2016) Is there a Nordic Model for the treatment of introduced tree species? A comparison of the use, policy, and debate concerning introduced tree species in the Nordic countries, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 31:2, 222-232, DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2015.1089929 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2015.1089929

Accepted author version posted online: 02 Sep 2015. Published online: 01 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 112

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sfor20

Download by: [SLU Library] Date: 29 March 2017, At: 03:13 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2016 VOL. 31, NO. 2, 222–232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2015.1089929

REVIEW ARTICLE Is there a Nordic Model for the treatment of introduced tree species? A comparison of the use, policy, and debate concerning introduced tree species in the Nordic countries Fredrick Backman and Erland Mårald Department of historical, philosophical and religious studies, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY This article compares the use, policy, and debate concerning introduced tree species in the five Nordic Received 23 October 2014 countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland). These countries have a long common Accepted 30 August 2015 history and are culturally similar. They are often framed under the benchmark of the “Nordic KEYWORDS Model” or even the “Nordic Forestry Model”. Therefore, we hypothesize that the Nordic countries’ Forests; introduced trees; the treatment of introduced tree species share common aspects, and that global environmental Nordic countries; forestry; agreements and international currents in science and policy have reinforced these similarities. The biodiversity; history; comparison shows that globalization is strong and it seems, at least at a first glimpse, that the bioeconomy Nordic countries follow a kind of “Nordic Model” in their approach to introduced tree species. However, the history and importance of forestry, ecological conditions, afforestation campaigns, traditions of using introduced trees, understandings, and stakeholder positions have shaped different national and even regional path dependencies and circumstances. This, in turn, has transmuted international policy-making, regulations, and discussions into different specific ways to interpret, control, and implement the use of introduced trees in practice. This article concludes that global environmental agreements and international currents in science and policy adapt to diverse national contexts.

Introduction Environment Programme convened to establish a convention, the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), on biodiversity, The use of introduced plant species has a long history in agri- which was signed at the United Nations Conference on culture, horticulture, and forestry (Kjær et al. 2014). In forestry, Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 the area of planted forest comprising primarily introduced (Collar 1996). This convention declares that all participating species is about 24% globally. Although the basic data are countries should “prevent the introduction of, control or era- weak, because some countries have not reported on the use dicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habi- of introduces species, they show that in Europe and North tats or species” (CBD: Convention on biological biodiversity America, use of introduced species in planted forests is mod- 1993, Article 8h). This development has meant stricter erate to small (12% and 1.7% of afforestation/reforestation, control and restrictions on the transfer of species over respectively), while for some regions in Africa and South national and ecological borders. America it is close to 100% (FAO 2010f). During the last decade, the question of climate change has During the last decades the concern about introduced had a large impact on this issue. Global warming and the species in general has increased (Davis et al. 2011; Simberloff spread of non-native species work together, threatening vul- 2013). There is a growing awareness that the relocation of nerable species and habitats. However, global warming has species from one ecological context to another can cause been used not only as an argument for stricter restrictions economic and ecological losses (Rotherham & Lambert of non-native species. Regarding forests, it is expected that 2011). This idea can be traced to the establishment of the climate change will lead to redistribution of tree species International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1948, and loss of vulnerable species, which in turn will have and its work to introduce “red lists” in 1960 to protect threa- severe biological and economic consequences (Aitken et al. tened or endangered species (Gustafsson & Lidskog 2013). In 2008; Hanewinkel et al. 2013). A warmer climate could mean the 1980s, the concept of biological diversity made a break- that indigenous tree species will suffer from changed through in both the scientiﬁc and political debates. The growing conditions and new pathogens and insects in their spread of invasive species was considered in this context to native range. In this context, the use of introduced trees has be one of the biggest threats to habitats and endangered been suggested as a way to mitigate the consequences of species. Consequently, nature conservation meant not only climate change. “Assisted migration” or “directed diaspora” to protect threatened species but also to prevent movement – the movement of tree species to new locations – has of species to new areas. In the late 1980s, the United Nations been put forward as a measure to preserve biodiversity and

to secure forest production (Appell 2009; Hewitt et al. 2011; to map similarities and differences between the Nordic Kjær et al. 2014). From this perspective, “novel ecosystems” countries. to preserve different ecosystem services are equally important for the resilience of society as the “natural” and “pristine” ones (Marris 2011). Forestry in the Nordic countries This article compares the use, policy, and debate concern- The extent and importance of forests and forestry vary ing introduced tree species in the five Nordic countries: between the Nordic countries. Whereas in Finland and Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. These Sweden, and to some extent Norway, forestry has been a cor- countries have a long common history and similar cultural tra- nerstone of industry and economy, it has played a minor role ditions, often framed under the benchmark of the “Nordic in Denmark and Iceland (Jonsson et al. 2013). During the nine- Model” (Hilson 2008; Árnason & Wittrock 2012). The Nordic teenth century, the exploitation of forests in Norway, Sweden, countries have strong international contacts, including non- and Finland accelerated to supply a soaring demand in the governmental organizations, industry, science, and auth- industrialized core of Europe (Björklund 1998). This continued orities. All have been active in international environmental until the mid-twentieth century, when the forest industry undertakings. Three are full members of the EU; Iceland and became more efficient and productivity increased (Raitio Norway have a closely associated partnership and harmoniza- 2008; Antonson & Jansson 2011). In Denmark, Iceland, and tion with the EU. The CBD was also quickly ratified by the western Norway, a high degree of deforestation occurred Nordic countries in 1993–1994. Also within the forestry before and during the industrial era. Afforestation campaigns sector there is an established idea of a “Nordic forestry were initiated to counteract this development and in the post- Model”. This is associated with a successful combination of war era these efforts were intensified to increase forest cover efficient industrial forestry with a sustainable management (Fritzbøger 2001). In all five countries, private ownership dom- of biodiversity and other ecosystem services, which other inates over public ownership (FAO 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, regions in the world could follow as a road map (Westholm 2010d, 2010e, 2010f). et al. 2015). Finland is dominated by relatively flat topography, with Based on these similarities we hypothesize that the Nordic about 80% of all land below 200 metres above sea level countries’ treatment of introduced tree species shares (masl). Forests cover 65% of all land area, although large common aspects, and that global environmental agreements parts are on swampy ground, making it the European and international currents in science and policy have country with the highest relative forest cover (Table 1). The

reinforced these similarities. Thereby this article highlights most common tree species are Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), how international currents and specific national conditions, Norway spruce (Picea abies), birch species (Betula pubescens including the interplay between debate, policy and practice, and Betula pendula), and European aspen (Populus tremula) affect how introduced trees are addressed in each country. (FAO 2010e). The main functions of the forests are for pro- The comparison focuses on four different aspects: (1) forestry duction (87%), conservation of biodiversity (9%), and multiple in the Nordic countries, including diverging ecological con- use (4%) (Table 2). During the 1980s, environmental groups ditions, amount of forest and the importance of forestry. (2) and forest researchers criticized the institutions responsible The use of introduced trees, including historical use, extent for the forest politics and research for their defective forest of use and which tree species that have been introduced. management. Above all, the criticism concerned the slow (3) Forestry and the institutionalization of biodiversity, cover- pace of forest regeneration and the destruction of several ing how international and national regulations and measures new forest areas, but there were also debates about pollution to protect biodiversity have been implemented. (4) Climate and the effects of the acid rains (Michelsen 1999). change and conflicts, comparing how the global warming In Sweden, mountains near the Norwegian border slope to debate and ideas about bioeconomy have influenced argu- low coastal areas. Forests constitute about 63% of the total ments of both proponents and opponents of introduced land area, with the most common species being Norway trees. The purpose is not to take side between arguments spruce, Scots pine, and birch species. The primary uses are for and against the use of introduced tree species, only to for production (74%), multiple uses (15%), and conservation compare and compile this development in the Nordic of biodiversity (10%) (FAO 2010d). In the post-war period, countries. the forest industry was modernized and clear-cutting domi- The article consists of a literature survey, done by search- nated in order to satisfy production needs. Environmental cri- ing national official statistics and statistics from the Food ticism in the 1970s and 1980s contributed to a policy shift in and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and by locating official documents from involved governmental authorities. Moreover, national library catalogues, article Table 1. Extent and increase of forest land 1990–2005. databases, and search engines (Google and Google-Scholar) % forest land of total land % increase were used. Search words such as “non-native”, ” introduced”, Country 1990 2005 1990–2005 “new”, “alien”, “foreign”, and “invasive” (and their Nordic Finland 64.7 65.5 1.2 equivalents) have been used in combinations with “trees”, Sweden 60.6 62.6 3.4 “ ” Norway 28.2 29.9 6.1 forestry , and the names of the Nordic countries. The Denmark 10.3 12.4 20.0 survey has then elaborated by looking for cross-references Iceland 0.000845 0.002466 192.0 in literature lists. Altogether, this approach has enabled us Source: FAO (2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f). 224 F. BACKMAN AND E. MÅRALD

Table 2. Land and forest areas, and designated forest functions. Designated function Country Land area Forest area Production Multiple use Conservation of biodiversity Other Finland 33,842 22,157 19,197 958 1925 77 Sweden 45,029 28,203 20,901 4317 2950 35 Norway 32,380 10,065 6042 1094 167 2762 Denmark 4310 544 299 146 40 58 Iceland 10,300 30 6 13 0 11 Note: Values are in 1000 hectares. Source: FAO (2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f).

the 1990s, with the establishment of an environmental goal distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or pro- parallel with the production goal (Bush 2010). pagules of such species that might survive and subsequently Norway has a varied topography, with a rugged coastline reproduce” and “introduction” was defined as “the movement and 32% of the land situated below 300 masl, whereas the by human agency, indirect or direct, of an alien species rest is mountainous land. Today, about 31% of the total outside of its natural range (past or present)”. The data pro- land area is forested, with the dominant species being vided by the FAO are based on the CBD definitions. Norway spruce, Scots pine, and birch species (Frivold 1999). Table 3 gives the proportion of planted introduced species When it comes to primary designated functions, 60% of the in the Nordic countries. Overall, Norway, Sweden, and Finland forest area is for production, 27% for protection of soil and have in common that the quality of the tree products in those water, and 11% for multiple uses (FAO 2010b). countries has largely been satisfied by their native tree The Danish topography is flat, with the highest point just species, while in Denmark and Iceland, there has been a 173 masl. Forests cover 13% of the land area. The most much greater demand to use non-native species. The FAO common tree species are beech (Fagus sylvatica), (introduced) statistics potentially differs from the national data. Regarding Norway spruce, oak (Quercus robur), and pine (Pinus spp.). Sweden, for example, the FAO statistics are based on trees Forests are used mainly for production (55%), followed by planted during a 20-year period ending with the reporting multiple use (27%) and conservation of biodiversity (7%) year 2005. Because lodgepole pine was planted at a large (FAO 2010a). In the early 1800s, the total forest coverage scale during a 25-year period starting in the early 1970s, it was just a small percentage of the land area; in 1990 it was means that there is an overlap between these two periods

10%, and in 2005 about 12%. This increase has partly been that affect the statistics. Thus, the figure 17.7% seems high caused by policy ambitions to double the forest area within because the planting of lodgepole pine reduced greatly one tree generation (80–100 years) from 1994. from the 1990s onwards (Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2014). Never- Iceland’s topography is relatively elevated, with a central theless, we use the FAO statistics because they make a com- volcanic plateau including the largest glacier in Europe, with parison between the countries possible. Besides, the low land mainly along the coasts. Iceland is by far the least national statistics in the respective countries are based on forested of the Nordic countries (0.2% of the land area). different prerequisites and methods that would make an in- Natural forest and woodland cover has increased by about depth national comparison rather complex. 25%, and afforestation initiatives have tripled the area of cul- Although foreign tree species had been introduced in tivated forest since 1990. When Iceland was settled in the Finland at least as early as the eighteenth century, ambitious ninth century, it was covered with approximately 25% systematic trials did not start until the 1920s and 1930s, when forests or woodland (Helldén & Ólafsdóttir 1999; Thorsson 400 hectares were planted in different parts of the country. 2008). By the mid-twentieth century, the island was almost More than 70 species of conifers and 100 species of hard- completely deforested, with the woodlands having been uti- woods, mainly from North America and Asia, were tried. lized for fuelwood, building material, fodder, and charcoal, However, these trials did not result in greater use of most of with livestock grazing preventing regeneration. Today, about two-thirds of all forest area is privately owned; the Table 3. The amount of planted introduced species in relation to planted forests rest is publicly owned. Multiple use (43%) dominates, followed and forests in general. by production (20%) and social services (19%) (FAO 2010c). Planted forests Planted introduced species 1000 % of planted % of total The use of introduced trees Country/region 1000 ha ha forests forests Finland 5904 22 0.4 0.1 Regarding non-native trees, it is important to note that the Sweden 3613 639 17.7 2.3 definitions and interpretations of “native” and “alien” Norway 1400 258 18.4 2.6 Denmark 397 192 48.4 36.0 species have shifted (Bradshaw 1995; Falk-Petersen et al. Iceland 22 17 77.7 68.5 2006). For example, in the original 1993 CBD document, the Nordic countries 11,336 1128 10.0 1.9 terms “alien species” and “introduction” were not defined. In Europe (31 58,904 7183 12.2 0.7 countries) 2002, an annex on alien species was added to the CBD. The world (117 218,022 52,369 24.0 1.3 Here “alien species” was defined as “a species, subspecies or countries) lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present Source: FAO (2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f). SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 225 the species tested and introduced trees today make up only a century, the main objective for using introduced trees was marginal part of all forest plantations. The most common production including afforestation of previously non-forested introduced tree species is the Siberian larch (Larix sibirica), areas. The most common planted introduced species include which some consider to be an indigenous species. There are Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, and pine (Pinus spp.). about 20,000–30,500 hectares of Siberian larch planted in In Iceland, organized afforestation is considered to have Finland, with 500 hectares planted annually (Ringagård started in 1899 with the planting of introduced species at 2009; Främmande trädslag 2011). Thingvellir in western Iceland and other small trials, although Sweden has one of the most extensive plantations of intro- these efforts were then discontinued. Planting of introduced duced trees in Europe. By 2010, about 639,000 hectares of pri- species started again around 1950, and in 1967, the Forestry marily the North American lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) Research Station was established with the main purpose to had been planted, which was about 3% of the total forest find suitable introduced species for production. Trials were area and according to FAO’s statistics 18% of forest planta- established with species from Europe, North America, Asia, tions (FAO 2010d). To anticipate a predicted timber shortage and Chile (Bragason 1995). Afforestation increased consider- caused by an uneven age class distribution in existing forests, ably with the Land Reclamation Forest Project and increased forest companies started a large-scale introduction of lodge- grants for farm afforestation in 1990. The forestry objectives pole pine around 1970 in northern Sweden (Elfving et al. have changed with new resolutions and acts. The ambition 2001; Martinsson 2011). Propelling the introduction that the of the Regional Afforestation Projects Act of 2006 was to affor- pulp and paper manufacturer’s Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebola- est, over the next 40 years, at least 5% of the total land area up get and Iggesund, who introduced the lodgepole pine on a to 400 masl. Even though the Icelandic economy suffered large-scale beginning in 1973 and is one of the largest from the financial crisis in 2008, rising costs of imported forest owners in Sweden. Until the mid-1980s, this planting wood due to the collapse of the Icelandic Krona made dom- continued at a high rate, but after alarms about damage estic wood more profitable (Eysteinsson 2013b). The most caused by pathogens and public debate, the plantation common species planted are native downy birch (B. pubes- decreased to a low level (Karlman 2001). Other species have cens) and introduced Siberian larch, lodgepole pine, and also been introduced, such as hybrid larch (Larix × eurolepis Sitka spruce, with introduced species comprising about 70% Henry), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga of planting. menziesii), and hybrid aspen, but compared to lodgepole pine, the use of these species is marginal especially in the north Forestry and the institutionalization of

while in the south they are more frequent due to the north biodiversity and the south having different ecoregions. By the early twentieth century, there were concerns in When Finland signed the CBD in 1992, the debate about bio- Norway about deforestation causing a lack of wood resources diversity was not new. The first official red list of endangered for the forest industry. The Norwegian Forest Survey was species was established in 1985 (Tikkanen et al. 2006). Follow- established in 1919 to increase the wood resources through ing the CBD, the forest legislation was reformed. Some goals afforestation programmes. The first initiative took place in of the general Nature Conservation Act of 1996 were to “main- the 1930s, although large-scale afforestation did not start tain biological diversity” and to “conserve nature’s beauty and until 1951. The plan was to cultivate 325,000 hectares of scenic value” (Naturvårdslag 1996). Moreover, the act stated land in western Norway and 100,000 hectares in the northern that “[n]on-native species [ … ] are not to be released into part, thereby replacing heathland, pastures, and birch forests the wild if there is cause to suspect that the species may with productive conifer plantations. This continued at a high become established permanently”, and if a non-native plant level until the 1980s, resulting in a doubling of the standing could “constitute a health hazard or have a detrimental volume (Frivold 1999). About 250,000 hectares of the affores- effect on an indigenous Finnish species”, the Ministry of tation areas consist of Norway spruce, 45,000 of Sitka spruce Environment could take action to prevent the spread (Natur- and Lutz spruce (Picea × lutzii Littl.), and the rest of species vårdslag 1996). However, an exception was made for “the such as lodgepole pine, Scots pine, larches, and Douglas fir planting or sowing of trees for the purpose of forestry” (Nat- (Øyen & Nygaard 2007). urvårdslag 1996). Denmark has a long history of introducing tree species, Finland’s National Forest Programme 2015, approved in much as a consequence of the country being largely defor- 2008, set up a number of goals to be achieved by 2015, ested in the seventeenth century and earlier. In the eight- such as improving the production capacity and diversifying eenth and nineteenth centuries, the west coast of the the methods in forest management. Preventing introduced Jutland peninsula had severe problems with sand dunes, species from spreading was mentioned as one measure to which had drifted farther inland, destroying arable land and achieve this goal (Finlands nationella skogsprogram 2015 forcing relocation of villages (Kjærgaard 1994). Various 2008). The Forest Biodiversity Action Programme for Southern tactics were used to battle these drifts, for example, the use Finland 2008–2016, known as the METSO-programme, com- of introduced trees. By the 1850s, afforestation plans were for- plemented the 2015 programme. The objective was to “halt mulated through a law that made the state responsible for the ongoing decline in forest biotopes and species and estab- most of the sand dune stabilization programme (Fritzbøger lish stable favorable trends in forest biodiversity by 2016” 2001). Various types of foreign tree species were tried, such (Government resolution on the forest biodiversity programme as mountain pine (Pinus mugo). During the twentieth for Southern Finland 2008–2016 (METSO) 2008). In 2012, the 226 F. BACKMAN AND E. MÅRALD government approved a national strategy to combat invasive caused some protests, which followed the argument that non-native species, to approach the EU Biodiversity Strategy the conifers were not included because of their economic to 2020. The objective was to identify which non-native importance to forestry (Sabima 2013b). Artsdatabanken and species were already in Finland and prevent the spreading NBIC decided to meet these demands and assigned a of new ones (Statsrådets principbeslut 2012). In addition, special group that would evaluate 11 conifer tree species. the government formed an advisory board in 2013 on inva- This time, trees such as the Sitka spruce and the silver fir sive non-native species to coordinate and promote the (Abies alba) were indeed classified as high-risk species (Øyen implementation of the strategy. et al. 2009). For the 2012 Norwegian Black List, NBIC had eval- The development in Sweden was quite similar. During the uated 91 tree species, including conifer and broad-leaved 1970s and 1980s, red lists for some species were established, trees. Of these, 25 were blacklisted, the Sitka spruce being and in the early 1980s, the Swedish University of Agricultural one of them. The main reason was that it had been planted Sciences (SLU) established a databank of threatened species. primarily in coastal heathlands, which have a designated By 1990, this had grown into a separate unit at SLU, later status as a threatened nature type, and was expected to renamed ArtDatabanken. Starting in 1990, the unit began spread further (Gederaas et al. 2012). publishing annual red lists (Gustafsson & Lidskog 2013). The The Danish Red List has been maintained since 1986, and Forestry Act of 1993 was a compromise between productive after the ratification of CBD in 1993, the task to authorize the forestry and biodiversity: “The forest is a national resource. It list was directed to the National Environmental Research Insti- shall be managed in such a way as to provide a valuable tute and the Danish Nature Agency (Wind 2003). From 1997, a yield and at the same time preserve biodiversity” (Skogsvård- Yellow List was also maintained, supervising species being on slag 1993). Moreover, the act stated that introduced species the decline and seen from an international perspective as may be used only in exceptional cases in forestry, and that especially important to protect within Denmark (Stoltze & forest owners must report to the Swedish Forest Agency Pihl 1998). Because of their rarity in a European context, the when cultivating introduced tree species. The act specified dune heaths of Jutland became listed as a NATURA 2000 pro- some geographic limitations for the use of lodgepole pine. tected habitat. With support from the EU LIFE project 2001– As a response to CBD, the Swedish Biodiversity Centre was 2005, approximately 26,000 hectares of the habitat would established in 1995 with the objective to initiate and coordi- be restored (Miljøministeriet 2009). This meant control of nate research on the preservation, sustainable use, and restor- introduced species such as the invasive mountain pine and ation of biodiversity. The Environmental Objectives, which the lodgepole pine.

were established by the parliament in 1999, were amended In 2004, the Action Plan for Biodiversity and Nature Conser- in 2005 with a new objective about biodiversity (Sweden’s vation in Denmark 2004–2009 was presented. The NATURA environmental objectives 2006). Because a great majority of 2000 sites, including the dune heaths of Jutland, were priori- biological diversity was found in managed landscapes, it tized for initiatives because of their high value: “It is necessary became important to incorporate production forests in the to give the same priority to nature as is given to other areas in efforts to accomplish this objective. To realize the objective society. All of nature is not equally important” (Danish Govern- an action plan was established in 2008, which stated “that ment 2009). Moreover, the action plan imposed on the Danish human spread of organisms that naturally do not belong in Forest and Nature Agency, and other responsible agencies Swedish ecosystems should not be allowed to harm biological was meant to strengthen the measures to “prevent the intro- diversity, ecosystem function, socio-economic and cultural duction of alien species in nature”. In 2008, the Nature and values or human or animal health” (Nationell strategi 2008). Forest Agency launched an action plan to mitigate problems In Norway, reports of forests damaged by air pollution con- with invasive alien species. The general strategy was divided tributed to a more pronounced environmental concern in the into three areas: prevention, eradication, and control 1980s (Bergseng 2007). The parliament approved in 1981 the (Miljøministeriet 2009). This action plan was complemented first national plan for conservation of nature, and, in 1984, the with the 2008 Danish Black List, a database of unwanted inva- Norwegian Monitoring Programme for Forest Damage was sive flora and fauna species. Among the plants listed were the initiated (Aamlid et al. 2000). In 2001, the government mountain pine (P. mugo) and lodgepole pine. decided to establish the Norwegian Biodiversity Information The Iclandic Nature Conservation Act of 1999 states that Centre (NBIC), which became operational in 2005. NBIC com- “the Minister [for the Environment] may authorise the piled a “black list” covering alien species that might affect eco- import, cultivation and distribution of live alien organisms” systems, habitats, or native species in an undesirable way (The Icelandic Nature Conservation Act 1999). An amendment (Gederaas et al. 2007). The leading criteria were the species’ followed in 2000, the objective of which was to prevent intro- invasiveness as well as their potential threat to red-listed duced plants from causing undesirable changes to the biodi- species and valuable habitats (Gederaas et al. 2012). This versity of the local ecosystems. Plants were defined as analysis resulted in the 2007 Norwegian Black List, listing indigenous if they were listed in the 1948 official Flora of 217 of a total 2483 known non-native flora and fauna Iceland. All introduced plants, except for greenhouse plants, species. It should be stressed that these blacklisted species were forbidden in protected areas as well as anywhere are not banned from use but their use require permission above 500 masl (Innanríkisráðuneytið 2000). In a 2010 amend- from the county governor. ment, this was lowered to 400 masl (Innanríkisráðuneytið Interestingly, only one tree species, the sycamore maple 2010). In 2008, a strategy for Biological Diversity was released (Acer pseudoplatanus), was among those 217 evaluated. This by the government. The strategy listed ten objectives, one of SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 227

which was to revise laws and regulations on import, distri- there is no specific bioeconomy strategy, but the “Iceland bution, and cultivation of species which might threaten the 2020” government strategy for the economy and community, biodiversity (The European Environmental Agency 2010). published in 2011, includes ideas for eco-innovation (Rönn- The new nature conservation strategy for 2009–2013 was lund et al. 2014). approved by the parliament in 2010, with the main focus on In the context of, on the one hand, the risks involved with protection of species, habitats, and ecosystems in line with “invasive biology” and, on the other hand, the relevance of international agreements. forests in mitigating problems connected with climate change, the trade-off between conservation and production regarding the use of introduced trees has led to conflicts in Climate change and conflicts the Nordic countries, as the following paragraphs will show. At the shift into the twenty-first century, science and politics The Finnish Forestry Development Centre Tapio, funded by seem to be moving into a view that nature is reactive and both the government and the forest sector, supports the unpredictable (Beck 1992). Floods, storms, droughts, and Finnish forestry sector by providing expert knowledge and diminishing biodiversity as well as disturbing data on global services. In their 2006 manual “Recommendations for Good warming are affecting political and research agendas. Globa- Forest Management”, they advised tree planters to cultivate lization, including movement of species, involves uncertain- only indigenous tree species such as spruce, pine, birch, and ties and risks. The establishment of research on “invasive aspen. In special cases introduced trees could be cultivated biology” and the regulations of introduced species are in for research purposes or for wood, but always at a “small line with such thinking (Rotherham & Lambert 2011). At the scale”, although it was not specified what was meant by same time, the pressure on forest resources has increased, small scale. As mentioned, the Siberian larch was considered with prospects for new business opportunities related to indigenous (Ringagård 2009). climate politics, energy transitions, tourism, and growing In 2007, the Swedish parliament approved a bill on how to demands for forest products (Mårald & Westholm 2015). increase the production of biomass. One way was to review One area where introduced trees have come to play an the vague legislation on forest cultivation using introduced important role is in the ongoing ambitions towards what is species (Miljö- och jordbruksutskottets betänkande 2008). generally referred to as a biobased economy, or bioeconomy The task of adapting the legislation to the new knowledge for short. This means that the production of renewable bio- and experience gained since the 1993 Forest Act was del- based raw materials is seen as replacements of finite fossil egated to the Swedish Forest Agency, which liaised with a

raw materials. Forest biomass is promoted as one of many number of external parties such as authorities, industries, important sectors of bioeconomy strategies. On a global organizations, research, and environment groups and level, bioeconomy became articulated in the 2009 OECD suggested changes to the existing regulations. Above all, report that estimated what the bioeconomy in 2030 might the Forest Agency recommended the use of more introduced look like. This document was an inspiration to the 2012 Euro- species in order to increase the production of wood and pean Commission strategy called “Innovating for Sustainable better prepare for expected climate changes. For example, Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe” (McCormick & Kautto the use of lodgepole pine would be allowed to a greater geo- 2013). According to this EU strategy, forests are important in graphical extent than previously (Ringagård 2009). fighting the climate change. But because increased harvests The Forest Agency’s report caused reactions. Some actors reduce carbon sinks, there is a need for “speeding up pro- opposed the more open stance towards introduced trees. duction rates and developing forest raw materials with new The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) classi- properties” (European Commission 2012). fied lodgepole pine as a harmful species, which should not In the forested Nordic countries Finland and Sweden’s be established (Nationell strategi … 2008). Similarly, the efforts to promote biomass and biofuel are nothing new. In Swedish Society for Nature Conservation considered that absolute terms, both Sweden and Finland among are the introduced trees were too risky to be cultivated and that largest biomass producers in the EU. Also Denmark has a the promotion of the lodgepole pine was in conflict with par- quite large production. In relative terms, Finland and liament’s environmental objectives and Sweden’s commit- Sweden have the highest shares of bioenergy in final ment to the CBD (Svenska naturskyddsföreningen 2010). energy consumption (European Commission 2014). In con- The Union of the Swedish Sámi called for the forest industry trast both Norway and Iceland have a low consumption of to be more respectful of the reindeer industry. They wanted biomass (Pöyry 2008). The Nordic Countries have also initiated a ban on lodgepole pine because it changes the conditions the EU’s bioeconomy strategies to varying extents. In 2012, for the lichen pasture, which is essential to the reindeer Norway initiated a research programme called “Sustainable (SSR: Ett renskötselanpassat skogsbruk 2010). The forest Innovation in Food and Bio-based Industries” (BIONAER). industry was of a different opinion. For example, Sveaskog – The same year, the Swedish governmental research council the national forest company and Sweden’s largest forest Formas published the “Research and Innovation Strategy for owner – wanted a more open stance towards introduced a Bio-based Economy”. In Finland, the Government published trees. Partly because of threatening climate change, the the Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy in 2014. The Danish Govern- potential use of “economically sound alternatives” would be ment has developed a “growth plan”, published in 2013, for important for the native trees. Moreover, Sveaskog did not increasing biobased solutions, although several of the initiat- consider lodgepole pine to be invasive (Sveaskog 2010). The ives require new laws and regulations. In Iceland, similarly, Swedish Forest Industries Federation wanted, because of 228 F. BACKMAN AND E. MÅRALD the different opinions between the Forest Agency and the A 2011 science-based evaluation by the National Environ- SEPA, further clarifications regarding introduced tree species mental Institute, Denmark’s biodiversity 2010, showed a contin- (Skogsindustrierna 2010). ued loss of biodiversity in all ecosystems. Invasive trees, In Norway, the new black list status of the Sitka spruce specifically the mountain pine and lodgepole pine, were men- caused a debate. Against the tree was the Norwegian tioned briefly as threats to the biodiversity of the coastal eco- Society for the Conservation of Nature, who argued that no system, while the Japanese rose (Rosa rugosa) was singled out Sitka spruce – whether already planted or planned for plant- as the biggest threat. However, even while the conifers were ing – should be part of the Norwegian nature (Naturvernfor- recognized as a threat, they were also considered valuable for bundet 2012). A contrasting argument was given by the recreational purposes (Danmarks biodiversitet 2010 2011). As Norwegian Forest Owners’ Federation, who claimed that a result of the COP 10 conference and the Aichi targets to there was no evidence that Sitka would be worse for the reduce the loss of biological diversity until 2020, the Danish heathlands compared to other tree species (Bøhn 2012; Sko- Society for Nature Conservation presented in 2012 an initiat- geierne raser mot svartelisting av sitkagran 2012). Another ive to formulate a new national strategy and action plan proponent of the Sitka was Allskog, an umbrella organization which will be implemented by 2015. The report declares for the forest owners of middle and north Norway, who con- that, in accordance with the Aichi targets, by 2020 all invasive sidered the Sitka a “climate-tree”, which not only could bind species and their pathways should be identified as well as twice the amount of carbon dioxide in coastal areas as an indi- either eradicated or under control based on a national prior- genous spruce, but also grow in places where indigenous itization. Specifically to the biodiversity of the coast, conifers spruce does not thrive. However, these claims for positive should be prevented from spreading outside the dune carbon dioxide effects were criticized by the WWF, who heath plantations, and, in some cases, plantations should be rather saw Norway focusing on conservation of “natural deforested (Danmarks natur frem mod 2020 2012). forests” (Hofoss 2012) (WWF: Norway 2012). Meanwhile, the The recent Icelandic debate concerns primarily placement Minister of Petroleum and Energy clarified that the blacklist- and extent of afforestation areas, as well as the regulation of ing of Sitka did not mean that there was a national ban non-native species in a revision of the nature conservation act. against it (Lang 2012). On the one hand, there are those who oppose intentional The Norwegian debate did not end there. A report about spreading of non-native species and request stricter regu- afforestation as a measure against climate change claimed lations. The Ecological Association of Iceland maintains that that it would be possible to plant at least 25,000 hectares of there is a consensus in research that the spreading of non-

new forests per year during a 20-year period, mainly using native species can have drastic biological consequences for spruce, including Sitka spruce (Haugland 2013). Several the ecosystems. Especially in isolated Iceland, invasive researchers within ecology responded in an appeal that it species can have disastrous consequences, a threat that will was uncertain whether afforestation would have any mitigat- increase due to climate change, and must therefore be strictly ing effects on climate change, whereas plantation of “climate monitored and regulated (Schmalensee et al. 2011; Vistfræði- forests” certainly would have severe negative effects on biodi- félag Íslands 2011). On the other hand, the Iceland Forest versity and cultural landscapes (Sabima 2013a). Moreover, Service and the Icelandic Forestry Association consider affor- “Norway spruce must be regarded as an alien species in estation as a way forward and claim that the fears about the most places in Western and Northern Norway because the use of introduced trees are exaggerated. The economic, eco- species has not succeeded in spreading naturally beyond logical, and social benefits of afforestation and the use of the Hardangervidda plateau and Saltfjellet after the last ice introduced trees far exceed any potential negative effects in age” (Sabima 2013b). treeless Iceland. Introduced trees are also considered impor- In Denmark, the debate concerns the government’s ambi- tant for erosion control, biological diversity, production, and tion to support afforestation. Green Growth – the first com- added security against climate change (Eysteinsson & Sigur- prehensive governmental plan for Danish nature, geirsson 2011; Eysteinsson 2013a). environment, and farming – was announced in 2009. The ambition was to establish 75,000 hectares of new natural areas, including 7700 hectares of forest, until 2015 (Grøn Discussion vækst 2009). However, the plan was criticized by the Danish Forest Association for lacking a strategy concerning the exist- Is it then possible to see a Nordic model for the treatment of ing forests other than those covered by the NATURA 2000 introduced tree species? And, as we hypothesized, have projects. Other representatives of the forest industry urged global environmental agreements and international currents the government to formulate a proper forest strategy. This in science and policy reinforced the similarities between the led the government to appoint in 2010 a commission to countries? When comparing the four aspects different map out and analyse options to fulfil the versatile aims of driving forces appear. Initially industrialization, economy Danish forestry. The commission’s report was published in and afforestation campaigns were important. More recent 2011, and one of the aspects stressed was the preservation environmental issues and biodiversity have grown strong, and strengthening of biological diversity. Those in favour of and balancing production and biodiversity is the core of the the existing forests argue that in order to prevent the loss idea of Nordic Forestry Model. Finally, today the climate of biodiversity it is insufficient to plant new trees. Instead, change debate and the idea of a bioeconomy, including the existing forests should be prioritized (Jerking 2012). energy transition to biomass, have been influential. Although SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 229

these driving forces are primarily international in nature, they in the southwestern and northern parts, which the debate have influenced the Nordic countries to a large degree. about the blacklisting of Sitka spruce illustrates. In Iceland, The comparisons between the Nordic countries regarding the conflict is even more marked. With a recent and the institutionalization of biodiversity and its implementation ongoing afforestation programme, where the use of intro- in relation to forestry and the use of introduced trees display duced trees is essential in achieving the goals, the clash many similarities. As early as the 1980s, Finland, Denmark, and with the equally recent ambitions to establish biodiversity Sweden took initiatives to establish official “red lists” and on the political agenda becomes very palpable. A landscape Sweden made biodiversity an objective equivalent to pro- that some see as valuable for tourism, handy for grazing duction in the Forestry Act of 1993. Norway, after a little sheep, and good for (status quo) biodiversity is seen by slower start, developed the most elaborate system to others as deforested, unproductive, eroded, and bad for control and assess non-native species, including trees, with (potential) biodiversity. the “black list”. Finland has gradually formed institutions During the last decade, global warming has become an and a system to control and manage non-native species. important argument among both opponents and proponents Iceland started relatively late around the millennium shift. of introduced trees. On the one hand, it is argued that risks Nevertheless, the Nordic countries have all been “good and negative effects of climate change and the use of intro- pupils” in the implementation of the CBD and directives duced trees work together, threatening vulnerable indigen- from the EU. ous species, habitats, and social values by increasing risks of Sweden and Finland are wooded countries where the invasions and outbreaks of pests and pathogens. On the forest industry has a huge economic importance. However, other hand, the use of introduced trees has been reformu- whereas Sweden has the most extensive use of introduced lated into a kind of “neo-productive” discourse under the trees in terms of planted area of all the Nordic countries, label bioeconomy, which resembles the earlier efforts to Finland has only a very marginal use. There are also differ- enhance forestry production during the twentieth century. ences between the policy-making and its implementation. The use of introduced trees and assisted migration is Sweden was early to include biodiversity in the forestry legis- described as a way to secure both economic and ecological lation, but there is still a window for the use of introduced values and functions in an uncertain time of rapidly changing trees in forestry. There have been investigations regarding conditions for forests and forestry. Moreover, with the use of both intensive forestry including the use of introduced tree fast-growing introduced “climate trees” it is possible to miti- species and to preserve biodiversity including harder restric- gate climate change by carbon sequestration or use more

tion of the use introduced trees, but no decisive actions or biomass for energy production. These arguments, which decisions either way have been taken. Likewise, in Finland, have been formulated at an international level, are found in there are still possibilities for using introduced trees, but varying degrees in all the Nordic countries. because the use of introduced trees has been very limited As shown, globalization and the influence of international the issue about introduced trees is marginal in the forestry discussions are strong, in this case conflating forestry and the debate. Consequently, during the last years, Finland has issue of biodiversity. Thus, it seems, at least at a first glimpse, been able to launch national action plans and coordinate its that the differences between the Nordic countries regarding work regarding biodiversity and forestry, including intro- the use and regulation of introduced trees are levelled out, duced species. as we assumed. Consequently, it might be tempting to con- Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and some parts of southern- clude that the Nordic countries all follow a kind of “Nordic most Sweden have in common that they launched large- Model” in their approach to introduced tree species. scale tree plantation programmes during the second half of However, there are distinct approaches between the countries the twentieth century to afforest earlier non-wooded or spar- where debate, policy, and practice interplay in different ways. sely forested areas. Heathlands, sand dunes, and deforested The main finding of this article is that it is important to focus and broadleaf-covered landscapes were seen as unproductive on not only current discussion to understand the debate and and causing environmental problems. Introduced trees were handling of introduced trees. The history and importance of both a countermeasure to erosion and sand drift, and a way forestry, ecological conditions, afforestation campaigns, tra- to boost forest production, a practice that was seen as quite ditions of using introduced trees, understandings, and stake- unproblematic until the 1980s or in Iceland even later. holder positions have shaped different national or even Because these kinds of landscapes have become rarer in regional path dependencies and circumstances. This, in turn, Denmark and Norway due to the afforestation and because has transmuted international policy-making, regulations, and of a re-evaluation of these landscapes for hosting threatened discussions into different specific ways to interpret, control, species, cultural heritage, and aesthetic dimensions, dense and implement the use of introduced trees in practice. forest plantations instead have been perceived as a problem in some cases. Especially the use of introduced trees, which could be invasive and threatening to the valuable Acknowledgements landscapes, have been assessed and regulated. Denmark, ’ however, has a long tradition of using introduced trees in We are grateful to the individuals who took part the Future Forests Exotic s workshop series and contributed knowledge and ideas which inspired this commercial forestry, something that continues without study. We especially want to thank Ola Rosvall, Tor Myking, Thröstur Eys- much change or debate. In Norway, the clash between for- teinsson, and the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for comment- estry and nature conservation interests is more pronounced ing on the manuscript. 230 F. BACKMAN AND E. MÅRALD

Disclosure statement Elfving B, Ericsson T, Rosvall O. 2001. The introduction of lodgepole pine for wood production in Sweden – a review. For Ecol Manag. 141:15– No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors. 29. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00485-0. European Commission. 2012. Commission staff working document. Accompanying the document. Communication on Innovating for Funding Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe. Brussels: European The research was funded through Future Forests, a multi-dis- Commission. European Commission. 2014. Commission staff working document: State of ciplinary research programme supported by the Foundation play on the sustainability of solid and gaseous biomass used for electri- for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA), the Swedish city, heating and cooling in the EU. [cited 2015 Aug 14]. Available from: Forestry Industry, the Swedish University of Agricultural https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable- energy/biomass. Sciences (SLU), Umeå University, and the Forestry Research European Environmental Agency. 2010. The European environment – Institute of Sweden. state and outlook 2010: Iceland; [Internet] [cited 2014 Jun 25]. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/is/soertopic_ view?topic=biodiversity. References Eysteinsson Þ. 2013a. Forestry in a treeless land. Egilsstaðir: Iceland Forestry Service. Aamlid D, Tørseth K, Venn K, Stuanes AO, Solberg S, Hylen G, Eysteinsson Þ. 2013b. Forestry in a Treeless Land. 4th ed. Egilsstaðir: Christophersen N, Framstad E. 2000. Changes of forest health in Iceland Forest Service. Norwegian boreal forests during 15 years. For Ecol Manag. 127:103– Eysteinsson Þ, Sigurgeirsson A. 2011. Misnotkun talna um framandi tegun- 118. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00123-1. dir [Misused number of alien species]. Visir [Internet]. [cited 2015 Apr Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holliday JA, Wang T, Curtis-McLane S. 2008. 28]. Available from: http://www.visir.is/article/20110207/SKODANIR03/ Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for 453043304. tree populations. Evol Appl. 1:95–111. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2007. Falk-Petersen J, Bøhn T, Sandlund OT. 2006. On the numerous concepts in 00013.x. invasion biology. Biol Invasions. 8:1409–1424. doi:10.1007/s10530-005- Antonson H, Jansson U, editors. 2011. Agriculture and forestry in Sweden 0710-6. since 1900: geographical and historical studies. Stockholm: Royal FAO. 2010a. Global forest resources assessment. Country report: Denmark. Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. Rome: FAO. Appell D. 2009. Can “Assisted Migration” Save Species from Global FAO. 2010b. Global forest resources assessment. Country report: Norway. Warming? Sci Am. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: Rome FAO. http://www.scientiﬁcamerican.com/article/assited-migration-global- FAO. 2010c. Global forest resources assessment. Country report: Iceland. warming/. Rome: FAO. Árnason JP, Wittrock B, editors. 2012. Nordic paths to modernity. FAO. 2010d. Global forest resources assessment. Country report: Sweden. New York: Berghahn. Rome: FAO.

Beck U. 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage. FAO. 2010e. Global forest resources assessment. Country report: Finland. Bergseng E. 2007. Evaluating financing of forestry in Europe (EFFE): Rome: FAO. country report – Norway. EFFE Project reference: QLK5-CT-2000- FAO. 2010f. Global forest resources assessment 2010: main report. Rome: 01228. Ås: Institutt for naturforvaltning, Universitetet for miljø- og Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. biovitenskap. Finlands nationella skogsprogram 2015: mera välfärd genom skoglig Björklund J. 1998. Den nordeuropeiska timmergränsen i Sverige och mångfald: statsrådets principbeslut [The national forestry program of Ryssland [The northern European wood boundary in Sweden and Finland 2015: more welfare through forest diversity: the ministry’s Russia]. Kulturens frontlinjer, 10. Umeå: Kulturgräns norr. decision]. 2008. Jord- och skogsbruksministerietspublikationer 3a/ Bøhn N. 2012. Sitka svartelistet, lutz og fjelledelgran frikjent [Sitka black- 2008. Helsingfors: [Jord- och skogsbruksministeriet]. listed, Lutz and subalpine fir cleared] [Internet]. Oslo: Norges Främmande trädslag – en möjlighet eller ett hot? 2011. Metla News; 2011 Skogeierforbund; [updated 2012 Jun 12; cited 2015 Apr 28]. Apr 18 [Internet] [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.metla. Available from: http://www.skogeier.no/artikkel.cfm?id_art=465. fi/uutiskirje/rannikkometsat/2011-02/uutinen-3.html. Bradshaw RH. 1995. The origins and dynamics of native forest ecosystems: Fritzbøger B. 2001. Kulturskoven: dansk skovbrug fra oldtid til nutid [The background to the use of exotic species in forestry. Icel Agric Sci. 9:7–15. cultural forest: Danish forestry from prehistoric times to the present]. Bragason A. 1995. Exotic trees in Iceland. Icel Agroc Sci. 9:37–45. Frederiksberg: DSR. Bush T. 2010. Biodiversity and sectoral responsibility in the development Frivold LH. 1999. Skoghistorie i Norge [Forest history in Norway] of Swedish forestry policy, 1988–1993. Scand J Hist. 35:471–498. doi:10. In: Pettersson R, editor. Skogshistorisk forskning i Europa och 1080/03468755.2010.528249. Nordamerika [Forest history research in Europe and North America]. CBD: Convention on biological biodiversity. 1993. Convention on biologi- Stockholm: Skogs-och lantbruksakad; p. 207–236. cal biodiversity [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http:// Gederaas L, Loennechen Moen T, Skjelseth S, Larsen L-K, editors. 2012. www.cbd.int/convention/text/. Alien species in Norway: with the Norwegian black list: 2012. Collar NJ. 1996. The reasons for red data books. Oryx. 30:121–130. doi:10. Trondheim: Artsdatabanken. 1017/S0030605300021505. Gederaas L, Salvesen I, Viken Å, editors. 2007. Norsk svarteliste 2007: Danish Government. 2009. Action plan for biodiversity and nature conser- økologiske risikovurderinger av fremmede arter [The Norwegian black- vation in Denmark 2004-2009. Kbh.: Danish Government [Internet]; list 2007: ecological risk assessments of foreign species]. Trondheim: [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://eng.naturstyrelsen.dk/ Artsdatabanken. media/nst/Attachments/ActionPlan_300604.pdf. Government resolution on the forest biodiversity programme for Danmarks biodiversitet 2010: status, udvikling og trusler [The Biodiversity Southern Finland 2008-2016 (METSO). 2008. Metso; 2008 [Internet]. of Denmark 2010: status, development and threats]. 2011. Faglig [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/ rapport fra DMU nr. 815. Aarhus: Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. metsat/5yckfcmWR/METSOResolution2008-2016_ENGL.pdf. Danmarks natur frem mod 2020: om at stoppe tabet af biologisk mangfol- Grøn vækst [Green growth]. 2009. Regeringen (Ed.) [Internet]; [cited 2015 dighed [Denmark’s nature towards 2020: about preventing the loss of Apr 28] Available from: http://fvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/FVM.dk/ biological diversity]. 2012. Kbh.: Det Grønne Kontaktudvalg. Dokumenter/Servicemenu/Publikationer/Groen_vaekst.pdf. Davis MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE, Ewel JJ, Vermeij GJ, Brown JH, Gustafsson KM, Lidskog R. 2013. Boundary work, hybrid practices, and por- Rosenzweig ML, Gardener MR, Carroll SP. 2011. Don’t judge species table representations: an analysis of global and national coproductions on their origins. Nature 474:153–154. doi:10.1038/474153a. of red lists. Nat Cult. 8:30–52. doi:10.3167/nc.2013.080103. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 231

Hanewinkel M, Cullmann DA, Schelhaas M-J, Nabuurs G-J, Zimmermann Miljö- och jordbruksutskottets betänkande. 2007/08:MJU18, En skogspoli- NE. 2013. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic tik i takt med tiden. [Committee on Environment and Agriculture value of European forest land. Nat Clim Chang. 3:203–207. doi:10. report. 2007/08:MJU18, A forest policy in pace with time.]. 2008. 1038/nclimate1687. Stockholm: Riksdagen. Haugland H. 2013. Planting av skog på nye arealer som klimatiltak: egnede Miljøministeriet. 2009. Handlingsplan for invasive arter [Action plan arealer og miljøkriterier [Planting of forests in new areas as mitigation: for invasive species] [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28] Available from: appropriate areas and environmental criteria]. Miljødirektoratet http://hdl.handle.net/109.1.3/ca2fc116-d20c-4210-a5d7-619d9044b Rapport M26-2013. Trondheim: Miljødirektoratet. 192. Helldén U, Ólafsdóttir R. 1999. Land degradation in NE Iceland: an assess- Nationell strategi och handlingsplan för främmande arter och genotyper ment of extent, causes and consequences. Lund electronic reports in [National strategy and action plan for foreign species and genotypes]. physical geography, No. 3. Dept of Physical Geography and 2008. Rapport 5910. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket. Ecosystem Science. Naturvårdslag. 1996. The Finnish Natural Conservation Act. Established 20. Hewitt N, Klenk N, Smith AL, Bazely DR, Yan N, Wood S, MacLellan JI, Dec. 1996 [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www. Lipsig-Mumme C, Henriques I. 2011. Taking stock of the assisted finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1996/19961096. migration debate. Biol Conserv. 144:2560–2572. doi:10.1016/j.biocon. Naturvernforbundet. 2012. Fremmede arter truer norsk natur [Internet]; 2011.04.031. [cited 2014 Jun 25]. Available from: http://naturvernforbundet.no/ Hilson M. 2008. The Nordic model: Scandinavia since 1945. London: pressemeldinger/fremmede-arter-truer-norsk-natur-article27220-1479. Reaktion. html. Hofoss E. 2012. Vil utrydde granskog på Vestlandet og i Nord-Norge. Øyen B-H, Andersen HL, Myking T, Nygaard PH, Stabbetorp OE. 2009. En Aftenposten; [Internet] [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http:// vurdering av økologisk risiko ved bruk av introduserte bartreslag i www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Vil-utrydde-granskog-pa-Vestlande Norge: erfaringer ved bruk av kriteriesettet for Norsk svarteliste 2007 t-og-i-Nord-Norge-6849257.html. [An assessment of ecological risk in the use of introduced species in Icelandic Nature Conservation Act. 1999. No. 44, 22 March; [Internet] Norway: experiences using the criterias for the Norwegian blacklist [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/ 2007] Series: Forskning fra Skog og landskap 1/09. Ås: Norsk institutt legislation/nr/389. for skog og landskap. Innanríkisráðuneytið. 2000. Reglugerd um innflutning, ræktun og drei- Øyen B-H, Nygaard PH. 2007. Afforestation in Norway – effects on wood fingu útlendra plöntutegunda. 583/2000 [Internet]; [updated 2015 resources, forest yield and local economy. In: Effects of afforestation Apr 27; cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.reglugerd.is/ on ecosystems, landscape and rural development. Proceedings of interpro/dkm/WebGuard.nsf/key2/583-2000. the AFFORNORD conference; 2005 June 18–22; Reykholt, Iceland; Innanríkisráðuneytið. 2010. Reglugerd um breytingu á reglugerð nr. 583/ TemaNord 2007/508:333-342. 2000 um innflutning, ræktun og dreifingu útlendra plöntutegunda. Pöyry E. 2008. Fact and figures on the use of bioenergy in the Nordic 651/2010 [Internet]; [updated 2015 Apr 27; cited 2015 Apr 28]. Countries (No. 2008-054). Report. Available from: http://www.reglugerd.is/interpro/dkm/WebGuard.nsf/ Raitio K. 2008. “You can’t please everyone”: Conflict management prac- key2/651-2010. tices, frames and institutions in Finnish state forests. Series: Joensuun

Jerking A. 2012. Aukens skov-projekt vækker undren. Altinget [Internet]; yliopiston yhteiskuntatieteellisiä julkaisuja, n:o 86. Joensuu: Joensuun [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.altinget.dk/miljoe/ yliopisto. artikel/aukens-skov-projekt-vaekker-undren. Ringagård J. 2009. Regler om användning av främmande trädslag [Rules Jonsson R, Mustonen M, Lundmark T, Nordin A, Gerasimov Y, Granhus A, concerning the use of foreign species]. Meddelande 7/2009:7. Hendrick E, Hynynen J, Kvist Johannsen V, Kaliszewski A, et al. 2013. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen. Conditions and prospects for increasing forest yield in northern Rotherham ID, Lambert RA. 2011. Invasive and introduced plants and Europe. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 271. animals: human perceptions, attitudes, and approaches to manage- Available from: http://www.metla.ﬁ/julkaisut/workingpapers/2013/ ment. Washington, DC: Earthscan. mwp271.htm. Rönnlund I, Pursula T, Bröckl M, Hakala L, Luoma P, Aho M, Pathan A, Karlman M. 2001. Risks associated with the introduction of Pinus contorta Pallesen BE. 2014. Creating value from bioresources: innovation in in northern Sweden with respect to pathogens. For Ecol Manag. Nordic Bioeconomy. Nordic Council of Ministers: Nordic Innovation. 141:97–105. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00492-8. Sabima. 2013a. Nei til planting av “klimaskog”! [No to planting of “climate Kjær ED, Lobo A, Myking T. 2014. The role of exotic tree species in Nordic forest”] [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www. forestry. Scand J For Res. 29:323–332. doi:10.1080/02827581.2014. sabima.no/1293/nei-til-planting-av-klimaskog. 926098. Sabima. 2013b. Også norske arter kan være fremmede [Norwegian Kjærgaard T. 1994. The Danish revolution, 1500–1800: an ecohistor- species can also be foreign] [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available ical interpretation d Thorkild Kjærgaard. Cambridge: Cambridge from: http://www.sabima.no/ogsa-norske-arter-kan-vere-fremmede. University Press. Schmalensee von M, Guðbrandsson GI, Gíslason GM, Pálmadóttir GL, Lang Å. 2012. Sitkagran er ikke forbudt. Norges Skogeierforbund Ægisdóttir HH, Jónsdóttir IS, Svavarsdóttir K, Libungan LA, [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.skogeier. Sigurðardóttir R, Magnúsdóttir R, et al. 2011. Þrettán vistfræðingar no/artikkel.cfm?id_art=472. svara [Thirteen ecologists answer] Visir [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Mårald E, Westholm E. 2015. Changing approaches to forest futures in Available from: http://www.visir.is/threttan-vistfraedingar-svara/article/ Sweden. Nat Cult. 2011308122612. Marris E. 2011. Rambunctious garden: saving nature in a post-wild world. Simberloff D. 2013. Invasive Species: what everyone needs to know. New York: Bloomsbury. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martinsson O. 2011. Non-native trees in Sweden’s forests: the recent past Skogeierne raser mot svartelisting av sitkagran. 2012. [Forest owners rail and present. In: Antonson H, Jansson U, editors. Agriculture and for- against the blacklisting of Sitka spruce]. Nationen: Distriktenes estry in Sweden since 1900: geographical and historical studies. Naeringsliv [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http:// Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry; www.nationen.no/tunmedia/skogeierne-raser-mot-svartelisting-av- p. 442–459. sitkagran/. McCormick K, Kautto N. 2013. The Bioeconomy in Europe: an overview. Skogsindustrierna. 2010. Användning av främmande trädslag [Use of Sustainability 5:2589–2608. doi:10.3390/su5062589. foreign species] [Internet]; [updated 2011 Mar 28; cited 2015 Apr 28]. Michelsen K-E. 1999. Skogshistoria i Finland [Forest history in Finland] In: Available from: http://www.skogsindustrierna.org/vi_tycker/remissvar_ Pettersson R, editor. Skogshistorisk forskning i Europa och arkiv/remissvar_skog/anvandning_av_frammande_traslag. Nordamerika [Forest history research in Europe and North America]. Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2014: Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry. 2014. Stockholm: Skogs- och lantbruksakad; p. 195–206. Jönköping. Skogsstyrelsen. 232 F. BACKMAN AND E. MÅRALD

Skogsvårdslag. 1993. The Swedish forestry act [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr Sweden’s environmental objectives: buying into a better future: a progress 28]. Available from: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/html/swe15989.htm. report from the Swedish Environmental Objectives Council de Facto SSR: Ett renskötselanpassat skogsbruk. 2010. Svenska Samernas 2006. 2006. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Riksförbund [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http:// Thorsson J. 2008. Desertification of high latitude ecosystems: conceptual www.sapmi.se/skogspolicy.pdf. models, time-series analyses and experiments [doctoral dissertation]. Statsrådets principbeslut om nationell strategi för främmande arter. 2012. College Station: Texas A&M University. Valtioneuvosto [Finnish Government] [Internet]; [cited 2014 Jun 25]. Tikkanen O-P, Martikainen P, Hyvärinen E, Junninen K, Kouki J. 2006. Red- Available from: http://valtioneuvosto.fi/tiedostot/julkinen/periaate listed boreal forest species of Finland: Associations with forest struc- paatokset/2012/vieraslaji/sv.pdf. tures, tree species, and decaying wood. Ann Zool Fennica. 43:373–383. Stoltze M, Pihl S, editors. 1998. Gulliste 1997 over planter og dyr i Vistfræðifélag Íslands. 2011. Ágengar framandi lífverur eru Danmark [Yellow list 1997 of plants and animals in Denmark]. umhverfisvandamál [Invasive foreign species are environmental] Miljø-og Energiministeriet, Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser og Skov-og [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://vistis.is/2011/01/ Naturstyrelsen. 22/agengar-framandi-lifverur-eru-umhverfisvandamal/ Sveaskog. 2010. Remissyttrande: Regler om användning av främmande Westholm E, Beland Lindahl K, Kraxner F, editors. 2015. The future use of trädslag [Internet]; [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: https:// Nordic forests: a global perspective. Cham: Springer. web.archive.org/web/20130402095126/http://sveaskog.se/sv/press-och- Wind P. 2003. Manual for rødlistning af plante- og dyrearter i Danmark nyheter/remissvar/remissyttrande-regler-om-anvandning-av-frammande- [Manual for the redlisting of plants and animal species in Denmark]. tradslag/. Teknisk anvisning fra DMU, nr. 20, M. Danmarks (Ed.) [Internet]; Svenska naturskyddsföreningen. 2010. Regler om användning av [cited 2015 Apr 28] Available from: http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_ främmande trädslag Naturskyddsföreningens remissvar [Internet]; Publikationer/3_tekanvisning/rapporter/TA20.pdf. [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.naturskyddsforeningen. WWF: Norway. 2012. Stopp sitkagrana [Prevent the Sitka spruce] [Internet]; se/node/9786. [cited 2015 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.wwf.no/?36606.