Te ma No rd 2008:562 AFFORNORD A FFO R N O R D Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development AFFORNORD Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development Edited by: Gudmundur Halldorsson, Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir and Bjarni Didrik Sigurdsson TemaNord 2008:562 AFFORNORD Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development TemaNord 2008:562 © Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2008 ISBN 978-92-893-1718-4 Editors: Gudmundur Halldorsson (Icelandic Forest Research and The Soil Conservation Service of Iceland), Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir (Icelandic Forest Research) and Bjarni Didrik Sigurdsson (Agricultural University of Iceland) Print: Scanprint a/s, Århus Cover: Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir Cover photo: Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir Copies: 400 Printed on environmental friendly paper This publication can be ordered at www.norden.org/order. Other Nordic publications are available at www.norden.org/publications Printed in Denmark Nordic Council of Ministers Store Strandstræde 18 DK-1255 Copenhagen K Phone (+45) 3396 0200 Fax (+45) 3369 0202 Nordic Council Store Strandstræde 18 DK-1255 Copenhagen K Phone (+45) 3396 0400 Fax (+45) 3311 1870 www.norden.org Nordic co-operation The European Union and the ArcticNordic cooperation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involving Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and three autonomous areas: the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland. Nordic cooperation has irm traditions in politics, the economy, and culture. It plays an important role in European and international collaboration, and aims at creating a strong Nordic community in a strong Europe. Nordic cooperation seeks to safeguard Nordic and regional interests and principles in the global community. Common Nordic values help the region solidify its position as one of the world’s most innovative and competitive. Content Preface ...........................................................................................................................7 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 11 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries ..........................................................15 Vegetation history ..................................................................................................16 Historical background of afforestation ..................................................................19 Why afforestation?.................................................................................................23 Species composition ..............................................................................................26 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................27 Effects of afforestation on wood production and forest yield .....................................29 Introduction ...........................................................................................................30 Beneits of afforestation ........................................................................................31 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................35 Effects of afforestation on biodiversity ........................................................................37 Introduction ...........................................................................................................38 Case studies linked to AFFORNORD ...................................................................39 General conclusions ..............................................................................................46 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................47 Modelling ground vegetation changes .........................................................................49 Introduction ...........................................................................................................50 The case studies selected .......................................................................................51 Model outputs ........................................................................................................52 Conclusions on modelled ground vegetation changes ..........................................53 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................55 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health ..............................................57 Introduction ...........................................................................................................58 Geodiversity...........................................................................................................60 Environmental identity ..........................................................................................66 Recreation and health ............................................................................................67 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................70 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................71 Effects of afforestation on rural development..............................................................73 Introduction ...........................................................................................................74 Rural areas and their development ........................................................................75 Rural development .................................................................................................77 Afforestation ..........................................................................................................78 Effects of afforestation on rural development .......................................................79 Conclusion .............................................................................................................85 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................86 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle.................................................................87 Introduction ...........................................................................................................88 Where and how is carbon stored in the forest? ......................................................88 Carbon sequestration through changed forest management ..................................89 How important is afforestation for carbon sequestration? .....................................90 Gaps in our understanding of carbon sequestration by afforestation ....................91 Scaling up the effect of afforestation on carbon stocks .........................................93 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................98 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................99 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................101 What can we learn from working together? ........................................................102 Critical indings on the beneits of afforestation..................................................103 Critical indings on the challenges of afforestation .............................................105 The way forward ..................................................................................................107 Dansk sammendrag ....................................................................................................109 Appendix 1 – Participants in the AFFORNORD project ........................................... 113 Appendix 2 – Projects linked to AFFORNORD ........................................................ 115 Appendix 3 – Species names ..................................................................................... 119 Opposite page: Lagarljot, East Iceland. Photo: Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries Preface Gudmundur Halldorsson and Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir 7 8 Preface The present book is the result of the Nordic project AFFORNORD – the Effects of Afforestation on Ecosystems, Landscape and Rural Development. This project was launched in 2004 as a theme project of the Nordic Council of Ministers, appointed by the Icelandic Ministry of Agriculture. Professors, administrators, scientists, M.Sc. and Ph.D. students from 11 different Nordic universities, institutes and organizations contributed to the project. The goal of the AFFORNORD project was to analyse the effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development, primarily within Denmark, South Sweden, West Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The examples and data presented here are primarily from this region where deforestation, and subsequently afforestation, has been most intense in the past. The large scale afforestation process started in the 19th century in Denmark, in the 1930s in West Norway and in the 1990s in Iceland. This time span affords opportunities to use experience from regions which have gone through the afforestation process for the beneit of others that are in the primary phases of afforestation. The aims of afforestation have been to positively inluence rural development, create or improve natural resources, restore lost ecosystems and improve living conditions, as well as to mitigate the constantly increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, there has been a signiicant concern that afforestation might also have negative effects, especially on biodiversity and the landscape. This dialogue is also known from the British Isles, where use of exotic tree species has been criticised, e.g. because of an alleged negative effect on birdlife and the landscape. This discussion is becoming more intensive in countries where afforestation has recently started, as in Iceland. The positive effects of afforestation on rural development have also been questioned. There are many studies known from different ields where the effect of afforestation has been examined, including Nordic studies. In the AFFORNORD project we link together different studies to create a holistic view of the effects of afforestation. This is necessary as optimising one parameter, for example production, might have negative effects on others, such as biodiversity and the landscape. Although there are many studies on forest ecosystems in the Nordic countries, there are certain gaps in our knowledge that need further research. The effect of afforestation on soil fauna is a research ield that has not received much attention, even though it may provide key information on the changes in biodiversity. Furthermore, soil fauna play an important role in the decomposition process and in soil fertility. It was therefore decided to focus on the diversity of one soil fauna group, Collembola. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 9 The AFFORNORD project has been carried out in three major steps: a) linkage of different Nordic research projects, b) common ield studies (Collembola), and c) consolidation of knowledge, through joint courses, workshops and a conference. The project held an international conference on the effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development in Reykholt, Iceland, in 2005. The conference was attended by almost 100 scientists, administrators and forest planners. There were three parallel sessions in the ields of ecosystems, landscape and rural development where the latest results were presented. The proceedings of the conference contained 43 scientiic papers and have already been published as part of the TemaNord series. In the present book we have compiled and synthesized information from the proceedings together with information from projects and ield studies involved in the AFFORNORD project. The aim of this book is to give a holistic view of the effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development and propose guidelines for improving planning of afforestation. Many individuals and organizations have supported the AFFORNORD project. For this we would like to express our gratitude. We thank the Icelandic Agricultural Ministry for proposing AFFORNORD as the Icelandic theme project in 2004. The project was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Dr Magnus Gröntoft, secretary of the Nordic Environment Strategy for Agriculture and Forestry, has been our contact person within the Council and we would like to thank him for his invaluable help. Last but not least, we would like to thank all those that contributed to this book, especially members of the AFFORNORD project group and those who participated in the conference or other AFFORNORD activities. Summary AFFORNORD is a collaborative research project under the Nordic Council of Ministers. The aim of the project is to give a general overview over the effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development. In this book we discuss the effects of afforestation in relation to wood production, biodiversity, landscape, public health, rural development and carbon sequestration. The most important conclusions from the project are as follows: Wood production: • • • • Wood production is primarily dependent on tree species in relation to climatic and soil conditions. Selection of tree species is therefore of major importance. Timber and fuelwood is the primary source of direct revenue for many forest owners and their primary motivation for multipurpose forest management. International competition will presumably maintain low prices on traditional wood products for the foreseeable future. However, increased use of wood products for heating and bioenergy, to counterwork the greenhouse effect, can possibly increase the prices in the future. There is a direct relationship between the development of regional business activities and the private- and socioeconomic potential of afforestation. 12 Summary Biodiversity: • • • • Afforestation changes species composition for all functional groups, even if the total species richness may not be affected. Afforestation increases signiicantly species richness of fungi and soil invertebrates. Afforestation in areas or habitats which are important for speciic species is of signiicant concern. The effects of afforestation on biodiversity can vary from one region to another and any general rule on these effects must therefore be applied with certain precautions. Landscape and public health: • • • • • Afforestation may cause loss of view and can thereby change the impression of the form and construction of the landscape. New forests must be designed in such a way that they conform with the other elements and the character of the landscape. Sharp, straight borders should be avoided. It is also important to maintain open areas within the forest with a view over the landscape. Afforestation can cause irreversible changes to cultural heritage and can damage archaeological sites. This must be avoided by careful planning of new forests. Afforestation can be effectively used to stop erosion and can thereby play an important role in protecting speciic landscapes and physical installations in the landscape. There is a positive relationship between human experiences of nature and health. People seem to react differently, but most often positively, to the natural environment compared to urban sites. A forest is an ideal alternative for offering varied nature experiences and for reloading ones mental and physical strength. Rural development: • • Afforestation can have a positive effect on economic activity and employment in rural areas, but does not always manage to halt negative population development. It can take a very long time before the effects of afforestation on rural development are fully realized. Afforestation in the Nordic countries • • • 13 Increasing the number of small-scale private owners contributes to new forest functions that aim for multifunctional utilization rather than wood production. The effects of afforestation differ between different Nordic societies and regions. Afforestation programs can compete with other land use. Carbon sequestration: • • • Afforestation reduces atmospheric CO2 by net carbon storage in biomass and soils. Selection of tree species and forest management practices can increase the net amount of carbon taken up and stored. It is not necessarily the fastest growing tree species that have the highest carbon sequestration potential at a given site. There is no doubt that afforestation affects ecosystems, landscapes and rural development in several ways, positive as well as negative. No land-use, whether it is afforestation or other uses, meets all environmental goals simultaneously. Some negative impacts are inevitable, even if the most conscientious management is employed. Generally, a trade-off must be made between the desire for a more-or-less pristine environment and the need for a working and operational landscape for the beneit of society at large. Opposite page: Birch seedling in Iceland. Photo: Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir. History of afforestation in the Nordic countries Olafur Eggertsson, Per Holm Nygaard and Jens Peter Skovsgaard 16 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries Vegetation history The last late glacial from 22,000 up until just before 13,000 years ago was very cold and dry throughout Europe. Large ice sheets were present over much of northern Europe, and ice caps covered the Alps and the Pyrenees. Forest and woodland were almost non-existent, except for isolated areas of woodland vegetation and close to the mountain ranges of southern Europe. Instead, a sparse grassland or semi-desert covered most of southern Europe, at the same time as a mixture of the dry, open steppe tundra and polar desert covered the parts of northern Europe not occupied by ice sheets (Figure 1). Ice-wedge geomorphological features suggest that permafrost extended across most of Europe, down to about the latitude of central France. At this time drifting sand and wind erosion were common in north and central Europe. At the glacial maximum in Fennoscandia, only the south-western part of Jutland was ice free and a large part of what is today the North Sea was dry land connecting Jutland with Britain. The ice sheets also covered the whole of Iceland and the Faroe Islands (Figure 1). Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, and similar to the present, although with a strong cold dry event around 11,000 years ago (The Younger Dryas event). Around 8,000–5,000 years ago climatic conditions seem to have been slightly warmer than at present across central and northern Europe. Figure 1. Last glacial maximum in Northern Europe, ca 20 thousand years ago. Glaciers covered Fennoscandia, Faroe Islands and Iceland, whereas, South-West Jutland and most of southern and central Europe was ice free and covered by steppe-tundra vegetation. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 17 Figure 2. A pollen diagram from the inner Oslo Fjord, Norway, showing the immigration of different tree species into the region after the last glaciation. Based on Ulf Hafsten 1957. When the ice sheet started to melt away tree species began to colonise the ice-free regions. Some fragments of vegetation may have survived during some periods of the glaciations in Fennoscandia and Iceland (on nunataks), but the most common opinion is that most species that are present in this region immigrated during and after the deglaciation. During the irst colonisation phase in Fennoscandia birch, juniper, aspen and Scots pine reached the area. As climate improved and became warmer, similar to the present day climate, species like hazel, oak, elm and lime immigrated and established through the boreal, Atlantic and subboreal period. Norway spruce and beech immigrated later, as the climate shifted towards cooler and moister conditions some 4000 years ago (Figure 2). Most of these tree species never reached Iceland or the Faroes, due to geographical isolation. Pollen analyses show that birch species colonised both countries soon after the glaciers started to retreat. In the Faroes the distribution of birch was most wide-spread 9500–9000 years ago, but after that birch species seem to have retreated and stayed at a relatively low level until the settlement of the islands. Soon after the settlement downy birch disappeared completely from the Faroes. In Iceland the distribution of birch was greatest 9000–7000 years ago. The birch forests retreated again for a period of 2000 years due to climatic change. The climatic conditions improved ca. 5000 years ago and the distribution of birch increased again and it has been 18 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries Figure 3. A characteristic soil proile from Icelandic mire with a birch and willow pollen diagram. During the boreal (9-7000 years ago) and the subboreal (5-2500 years ago) the mires became dryer, represented as log horizons in the mires and increase in birch pollen. Illustration by Thorbergur H. Jonsson, pollen diagram based on Thorleifur Einarsson 1991. estimated that at the time of the settlement in the late 9th century 20–30% of Iceland was covered by birch forests (Figure 3). During the last 5000 years the forests of Fennoscandia have been inluenced by human impact, including slash and burn practices, grazing, and production of timber, irewood, charcoal, iron, tar, potash, and fuel. In Iceland and the Faroes this occurred much later, i.e. between AD 500 and 900. Human impact has led to large-scale forest clearance, especially in the southern (Denmark, South Sweden) and western (West Norway, the Faroes, Iceland) part of the Nordic region. In the Faroes forests had completely disappeared around AD 1000, forests covered only 2–3% of Denmark in the beginning of the 19th century, and the forest coverage in Iceland was below 1% in the beginning of the 20th century. Table 1. The forest cover in different countries in the Nordic region (in thousands of hectares). Faroes Forest Iceland Denmark Norway Sweden Finland 0 43 500 9387 27528 22500 Other wooded land 0,1 106 136 2613 3257 802 % forest and other wooded land of total area of country 0,1 1,5 14,8 37,1 68,4 68,9 Total area of country 140 10300 4309 32376 44996 33814 Present forest cover in the Nordic region ranges from 0.1%, in the the Faroes, up to 69% of the land area in Finland (Table 1). Afforestation in the Nordic countries 19 Figure 4. The estimated woodland cover in Iceland before it was settled in the late 9th century (left, approximately 30% woodland) and today (right, approximately 2% woodland). Historical background of afforestation As stated earlier, afforestation in the Nordic region has been most intensive in the southern (Denmark and South Sweden) and western (West Norway, the Faroes and Iceland) part of the region. Throughout this region steps have been taken to protect existing forests and establish new ones. The Danish Forest Act of 1805 introduced the concept of forest reserves, which was applied to the majority of forested land at the time. Forest reserves, in principle, could not be converted to other land uses and management had to comply with good forestry practices, primarily aimed at wood production. By the late 1860s an emerging national movement towards the utilisation of the vast areas of barren heathland in Jutland provided a foundation for afforestation activities that lasted essentially unchanged for a century. Initiatives were triggered by a number of factors that do not relate directly to forestry. The loss of one third of the Danish land area in 1864 following a war with The German Federation (Prussia and Austria), enhanced patriotism, industrial development, and substantial public grants were some of the driving forces. The most conspicuous factor appears to be the loss of land due to war. Land lost outwardly should be regained within the country became a successful slogan for heathland afforestation. At the same time there was a strong belief that afforestation would be a major factor in promoting economic development for the beneit of land owners as well as entire local communities. This was probably the main argument for almost a whole century, but recent research disproved the theory. 20 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries Heathland plantations were established by different groups of owners: private land owners, co-operatives, newly-rich people in major cities, and the national forest service. While patriotism, expected future income, and regaining past status, lost land and timber resources undoubtedly played a signiicant role, many private land owners were probably equally persuaded by public grants for afforestation. Next, inluential city people who had recently become wealthy through the emerging industry saw an opportunity to establish a contemporary parallel to inherited nobility. Their remote heathland estates also provided secluded recreational opportunities. During the 1920s renewed interest in continuous cover forestry and the advent of nature conservation led to a halt in afforestation. Subsequently, the economic recession in the 1930s re-started activities to mitigate massive unemployment. Heathland afforestation was promoted until the 1960s, but discontinued due to high employment rates and changes in agricultural policies. In 1896, The Danish Forestry Society suggested the establishment of an oficial forestry extension service for owners of small forests only, and since 1904 the government has encouraged small woodlot owners to form associations in order to take advantage of economies of scale. In 1904 the irst local Forest Owners Association was founded and government grants were made available to these associations for increasing wood production. The primary aim of the Association at this time was to offer forestry extension services to its members. Consultants were inanced partly by membership fees and partly by The Danish Forestry Society, and smaller forest owners strived to obtain state subsidies for forestry extension services. A committee under The Danish Forestry Society analysed the silvicultural status of the smaller Danish forests, especially in Jutland, and presented their indings and proposals to the Ministry of Agriculture. Consequently, an act which made it possible for the Ministry to grant local Forest Owners Associations the right to operate a forestry extension service for their members was introduced in 1919. In 1939 the seven local Forest Owners Associations had a total of 2,200 members and forest land totalling 13,000 ha. The outbreak of World War II and compulsory felling started the establishment of new associations. The irst local Forestry Extension in the island of Zealand, Denmark, was founded in 1940. The same year the nine existing Associations founded Danish Forestry Extension (DFE) to be able to act jointly and represent the forest owners’ interests on a national basis. By 1965 DFE consisted of 16 local units with 5,300 members and a total of 34,700 ha of forest land. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 21 Since 1969 private forests have been open for public access on roads and pathways from 7:00 am to sunset. Moreover, many private forest districts have followed state forest districts in establishing various facilities for public use, such as playgrounds, simple camp sites, information boards, visitor centres, barbecue sites, bird-watching towers, etc. Forest owners, private and public, also make their forest available on a voluntary basis for local schools for education purposes. A new Forest Act was passed in 1989. The new Act changed Denmark’s fundamental management principle from being one of “good forestry” to one of “good and multiple-use forestry”. This allowed for the development of a new grant scheme, which was in part to increase the area of broadleaved stands. In the 1990s the government was dedicated to doubling the nation’s forest area within one rotation (80–100 years), through state afforestation and inancial support to private afforestation. The new Danish Forest Act from 2004 has four primary objectives: • • • • Conserve and protect the Danish forests. Improve the stability of the forest sector, the ownership structure and productivity. Contribute to increasing forest cover. Strengthen the advisory service and information on good and multiple-use forest management. As a result, the main objective of the National Forest Programme is full implementation of sustainable forest management, which incorporates economic and ecological as well as social considerations. Among the objectives of this Programme is that forest landscapes should cover 20–25% of Denmark after one tree generation (80–100 years), and the scope and potential for natural habitats and processes should be strengthened. During the period from 1994 to 2004 an additional 20,000 ha of agricultural land have been afforested in Denmark. Approximately 75% of the afforestation has been done by private landowners, and the rest has been public afforestation projects, mainly by the Danish Forest and Nature Agency (DFNA). The irst steps towards a national afforestation programme in Norway were taken in the late 1930s when the Forest Director (Skogdirektøren 1937) and a committee of the Norwegian Forest Society (Utmarkskomiteen 1939) evalu- 22 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries ated the critical forest situation and examined the possibilities for increasing forest investment in the coastal regions. However, World War II made any further action dificult. In 1946, the head of the Forest Research Station of West Norway, Anton Smitt, presented to the Parliament a vision of how afforestation would gradually improve people’s quality of life and scenarios for a new wood-based industry. The irst really large step was taken in 1951 by the White Paper “Innstilling fra Skogkommisjoen” (Skogdirektøren 1951–54), the basic ideas of which were adopted by the Norwegian Parliament in 1953–54. The major conclusions from this work were: • • In the afforestation areas, each municipality was responsible for setting up their own reforestation plans and programmes for tree planting and setting priorities. The government was willing to subsidize up to 50% of the cost of establishing new plantations. Municipality grants implied that up to 75% of the planting costs were covered from governmental sources (after 1964, 85% of the costs were covered by the government). Figure 5. The Icelandic Forest Research at Mogilsa around 1970 (top) and 2008 (bottom). The research station is a national gift from the Norwegian people. It was oficially opened in 1967 by King Harald V of Norway (then prince). Photos: top Unknown, bottom Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 23 In Iceland, organized forestry is considered to have started in 1899 with the planting of the “Pine Stand” at Thingvellir. Forestry efforts focused on protecting birch forest remnants during the irst half of the 20th century, with several forest areas being acquired by the Iceland Forest Service (IFS) (founded in 1908) for that purpose. These, along with more recently acquired afforestation areas and experimental forests, comprise the National Forest system today. The Icelandic government did not really become heavily involved until the 1950s, when it became much more active in terms of legislation, research and inancial support. Since 1955, forest laws have banned clearcutting of the native birch forests except by permission of the IFS, and land reclamation is intended to lead to establishment of woodlands where possible. By adding a forest tax to cigarettes during the 1960s and part of the 1970s, the government was able to support the tree-planting activities of both the private forest societies and farmers. In the 1980s and 1990s government activities expanded rapidly, with erosion control and recreation as the main objectives. President Vigdís Finnbogadóttir made afforestation a priority and a popular concern. In the years of her term, from 1980 to 1996, the Icelandic state budget for forestry increased, mainly because of support provided for farmers’ afforestation programmes. In addition, private investors, local communities, forest societies and other entities were supporting afforestation. The latest legislation regarding local afforestation programmes states that at least 5% of the lowland (215,000 ha), shall be transformed into woodlands during the next four decades. The increase in woodlands has not occurred without conlict with livestock farmers. For centuries, the commons were used for sheep and horse grazing, and the plantations have had to be surrounded with fences to protect them from animals, resulting in many square plantations around Iceland. However, in recent decades the number of grazing animals has declined. More and more of the former pastures have been fenced in, allowing both natural regeneration of birch and plantations of this and other species. Why afforestation? The aims of afforestation within the Nordic region are many and depend on various factors. Earlier, and especially in regions with a strong forest 24 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries industry, the primary aim was to build up resources for the timber industry and to have a positive inluence on rural development. An example of this is the large-scale afforestation in West and North Norway which began in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Within a period of sixty years the plan was to cultivate 325,000 hectares of land in West Norway and 100,000 ha in North Norway, mostly by establishing highly productive spruce plantations. Simultaneously, by increasing the productivity of spontaneous woods of broadleaves and pine by improved silviculture the allowable annual cut by 2030 is estimated to reach about 3.7 million m3 in West Norway and about 1.0 million m3 in North Norway. The recommendations about tree species and provenances, cultivation methods and management relied on the results from forest research. Projects were designed both at governmental and local levels. The Norwegian Forest Society and the forest county societies have been designated to undertake parts of the programme, i.e. the production of seedlings. Most municipalities had initiated local afforestation programs in the mid-1950s, and up to the 1980s the plans and time schedules were well adhered to. However, after 1980 there has been an overall decline in tree planting in the afforestation areas due to several reasons: • • • • • • The most suitable areas for economically attractive forestry were to a great extent already cultivated. The economic support from the government became less favourable. The awareness of environmental impact increased and local conlicts emerged. The economic contribution from forestry to the farmers’ income gradually declined due to lower prices for wood and the higher costs of labour. The property structure was still dominated by small scale owners for whom income from forestry became more and more marginal. The huge colonization of other forest land of broadleaves and Scots pine in the afforestation areas has called for a more focused effort. In Iceland large scale afforestation began only by the end of the 20th century when regional afforestation programs were started (Figure 6). This involved direct support from the government to farmers for planting new forests. Farmers could thereby acquire some income for planting on their own land. The primary aim of these projects has been to have a positive inluence on rural development. Studies in East Iceland, where these plans 25 Afforestation in the Nordic countries 6 5 Millions of seedlings Figure 6. Annual planting in Iceland during 1942-2006. Afforestation suffered from extreme spring frost in 1963 which killed a large proportion of planted forest in southern and western Iceland. This had a negative effect on public interest and it took almost 30 years before the number of planted seedlings equalled previous planting. 4 3 2 1 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year are most developed, have shown that the projects have served that aim to some extent. Other aims of these projects have been vaguer. Due to slow growth, signiicant income from timber production can only be expected by the late 21st century and as the country does not have any signiicant timber industry or tradition for utilising timber products it is dificult to estimate what will be the value of these forests as a resource for any future timber industry. Other beneits from afforestation in Iceland are environmental, such as soil protection and carbon sequestration, and social, such as forests for amenity and recreation. In general there has been a shift in the focus of afforestation projects from productive forestry to forestry for environmental and social purposes. As an example, one ifth of the Danish municipalities plan to afforest some areas in the next 5 years, for example to attract new inhabitants. The attractiveness and values of afforested areas have been investigated in two independent Danish studies. In the irst study qualitative and quantitative surveys in two municipalities indicated that forests improved the quality of life of the respondents. A short distance from the residence to the nearest forest usually resulted in a higher frequency of forest visits and a more positive view on the natural qualities of the local area in general, compared to respondents living further from forests. Proximity to nature, including forests, was furthermore mentioned as the most important reason for choice of their present home by 17% of the respondents. These results are supported by the second study in which housing prices were used to bring out the residents’ valuation of forested housing areas. By using the hedonic price method homeowners’ willingness to pay for proximity to forests was found to be signiicant and positive, and in most circumstances the aggregated value is expected to exceed the cost of afforestation. 26 History of afforestation in the Nordic countries Species composition Throughout the region there has been increased emphasis on use of native species. This has been partly due to the decreased importance of productive forestry and partly due to increased concern about the use of exotic species. In Denmark there is now little natural forest left, and large parts of the forests are quite uniform and often with limited value for the protection of biological diversity and recreational purposes. Almost 37% of the forests are deciduous, while the remaining woodlands are planted with non-native coniferous tree species. A recent development during the last 10 years is that the fraction of deciduous forest is now increasing, whereas it used to be decreasing. This development is triggered through state afforestation, inancial incentives and a negative development in soft-wood prices. The Danish forest cover is still increasing through public afforestation and private afforestation promoted through incentives. But still, Denmark is a relatively forest-poor country, with only around 0.1 ha of forest per capita, as compared to Sweden with 2.8 ha per capita. The Norwegian forests are characterised by only two native coniferous tree species of commercial interest, Norway spruce and Scots pine. Early foresters claimed the need for introduction of more species. Among the irst was Andreas Bull (1780) who wrote the book An Attempt to Improve the Norwegian Forestry. The main reasons for introducing new species in forestry were the search for faster-growing species, species better adapted to an oceanic climate, species more resistant to pathogens, but also the idea of more exotic forests. About 50 tree species have been introduced through forestry in Norway covering today about 1% of the productive forest area (80,000 ha). However, only a few have been planted to a larger extent such as Sitka and Lutzi spruce (55,000 ha), lodgepole pine (12,500 ha), larch (4,000 ha) and ir (3,000 ha). In this connection the intensive afforestation of West Norway by native Norway spruce should also be included. The total area of plantations in Norway amounts to 3.6 million ha, of which 2.8 million is spruce. In Iceland, many exotic species have been tried during the past 50 years. The period from 1950 to 1990 was a time when a great deal of experience was gained through experimenting with different exotic species and provenances. The main species planted were exotic conifers: Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, Scots pine, lodgepole pine and Siberian larch. Afforestation in Iceland through planting has increased signiicantly since 1990 to over 6 million seedlings in 2004. Planting of native birch Afforestation in the Nordic countries 27 has been “increasing”, comprising as much as 30% of seedlings planted in some years. Siberian larch is planted to roughly the same extent as native birch, followed by Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and black cottonwood. These 5 species comprise about 90% of the seedlings planted in Iceland, with over 20 other species comprising the remaining 10%. As in Iceland, many tree species have been tried in the Faroes. All of these must be considered as exotics as forest-forming tree species disappeared from the islands a thousand years ago. The most important coniferous species are Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and larch. Many different broadleaved trees are used; amongst the most important are birch, alder, black cottonwood and rowan. Bibliography Danish Forestry Extension. 2004. Informational brochure. Danish Forestry Extension. Einarsson, Th. 1994. Myndun og mótun lands. Mál og menning, Reykjavík, 301 pp. FAO, Global Forest Resources Assessment. 2005. Fodgaard, S. 2004. Afforestation in Denmark. In: Restoration of Boreal and Temperate forests. Eds. Stanturf, J. and Madsen, P. Vol. 1, Part 5. 211–224. Fritzbøger, B. 1994. Kulturskoven. Dansk skovbrug fra oldtid til nutid. Gyldendal. 440 pp. Hafsten, U. 1957. Pollen-analytic investigation on the late Quaternary development in the inner Oslofjord area. Univ. Bergen Arb. no. 8. 163 pp. Hannon, G., Wastegard, S., Bradshaw, E. and Bradshaw, R. 2001. Human impact and landscape degradation on the Faroe Island biology and environment. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol. 101B, No. 1–2. 129–139. Helles, F. 1984. Hedeskovbrug og regionaløkonomi. Analyse af private plantagers socioøkonomiske betydning for en midtjysk hederegion 1866–1929. KVL, Meddelelser fra Skovbrugsinstituttet, Rk. 2, Nr. 18. 310 pp. Höjgaard, A., Jóhansen, J. and Ødum, S. 1989. A century of tree-planting in the Faroe Islands. Föroya Fródskaparfélag, Tórshavn. 187 pp. Johann, E., Agnoletti, M., Axelsson, AL., Bürgi, M., Östlund,L., Rochel, X., Schmidt, UE., Schuler, A., Skovsgaard, JP. and Winiwarter, V. 2004. History of secondary Norway spruce forests in Europe. European Forest Institute, Research Report 18. 25–62. Ministry of the Environment. 2004. The Danish national forest programme in an international perspective. Danish Forest and Nature Agency. 187 pp. Opposite page: The lake Saimaa, Finland. Photo: Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir. Effects of afforestation on wood production and forest yield Bernt-Håvard Øyen and Per Holm Nygaard 30 Effects of afforestation on wood production and forest yield Introduction From the irst plantings and experiences in the afforestation areas in West and North Norway it became evident that there was a large potential for increasing the yield by changing tree species, especially from mismanaged broadleaves and pine to dense spruce plantations. The focal point in this chapter will therefore be the experience in Norway, with some examples from other countries. Most Norwegian studies concerning the effects of changing tree species in reforestation areas have been conducted in neighbouring stands that offer similar growth conditions. The results from these studies Titel (Table 2) 1 contrast the results from mixed stands in South-East Norway and Sweden, where the growth differences between the tree species is less pronounced. About 85% of the reforestation areas in West and North Norway consist of Norway spruce plantations (approximately 250,000 ha), Sitka spruce (approximately 45,000 ha), and other conifers, including Scots pine, Douglas ir, larches and others. Table 2. Effect of tree species conversion on site index (growth potential) and yield over one rotation in Western Norway. Only a few of the most common tree species conversions are shown. The figures are based on data from Skogforsk. Conversion Downy birch o Norway spruce Scots pine o Norway spruce Norway spruce o Sitka spruce Downy birch o Scots pine Downy birch o Sitka spruce Scots pine o Sitka spruce Scots pine o Japanese larch Downy birch o European larch Grey alder o Norway spruce Gain in site index (H40 in m) Gain in yield (m3/ha/yr) 7–9 6–8 6–8 4–6 3–4 3–4 0 0 8–10 7–9 6–8 6–7 6–8 4–6 6–8 4–6 7–9 6–8 Growing stock in the afforestation areas has more than doubled since the 1930s and the annual increment is about three times higher. Presently, the 320,000 ha of natural Scots pine forests in West Norway have an annual production of about 2.5 m3/ha whereas the 165,000 ha of spruce plantations have an annual yield of about 7.9 m3/ha. In the afforestation plans of the Forestry Commission the predicted yield of the spruce plantations was 5 m3/ha/yr. With a spruce plantation area of 275,000 ha, this would imply a future potential annual yield of about 1.38 Afforestation in the Nordic countries 31 Figure 7. Scots pine logs in eastern Norway. This species is one of the most economically important tree species in Scandinavia. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. million m3. However, in the yield tables for Norway spruce in West Norway the production has varied from 6.1 to 14.7 m3/ha/yr, therefore 5 m3/ha/yr must be a minimum estimate. In new yield tables from Skogforsk the production in unthinned Norway spruce plantations has varied from about 6 to 15 m3/ha/yr, these increments being attained in 100 to 60 years, respectively. In Sitka spruce the yield has varied from 12.0 to 32.0 m3/ha/yr. The latest increment igures for Norway spruce plantations from the 1990s show 1.7 million m3. By applying yield igures of 8.5 m3/ha/yr in West Norway and 4.5 m3/ha/yr in North Norway the spruce plantations will yield a total of about 2.2 million m3 per annum. It has been estimated that the yield from spruce plantations in West Norway would reach a potential harvesting level of about 0.8 million m3 in 2020 and 2.7 million m3 in 2060, although these predictions are highly dependent on the investment programs. Therefore, with a further stabilization of the spruce area, it seems likely that the spruce plantations in the afforestation areas will yield slightly more than 2.0 million m3. The present annual harvested volumes are about 0.15 million m3 in northern Norway and 0.25 million m3 in western Norway, i.e. the potential for gradually increasing the cutting is substantial. The natural pine and broadleaves are having less economic importance in Norwegian forestry because 80-90% of the present commercial harvesting is taking place in the productive spruce plantations. Beneits of afforestation Worldwide, economic development theory provides a basic rationale for tree planting for both industrial and non-industrial purposes. In Norway the afforestation rationales can generally be conined to several factors, such as 32 Effects of afforestation on wood production and forest yield increase of forested land and larger growing stock, environmental or social beneits, stimilation of local economy and multiplier effects. Increase of forested land and larger growing stock More wood resources offer more possibilities and lexibility for wood-using industries; adding industrial value in the forestry sector, and will also strengthen the farmers’ possibilities for higher income and maintaining a rural way of life. Afforestation and forest resources inluence the real estate market. A property with great wood resources is far more valuable than properties without any woods. The national economic rationale may also be conined to import substitution, less dependency on imports or generation of greater export income. Environmental/social beneits There are several environmental and social beneits to be gained by afforestation, i.e. storage of carbon, soil and water protection, snow and slope stabilization, windbreaks, less pressure on natural forests and promotion of outdoor activities and public health. Stimulation of the local economy Subsidizing tree planting in larger reforestation programs will increase government income from taxes and stimulate the demand for labour, for instance through forest nurseries, transportation, services and management. Figure 8. Wood products are more than just paper and timber. Scandinavians have long tradition of local use of wood. This traditional fench in northern Sweden is a good example for alternative use. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 33 Multiplier effects Afforestation will offer “multiplier effects” by stimulation of labour in other sectors: services, road construction, trade, etc. Norwegian studies from the 1970s revealed that one worker in the forestry sector provided occupation for 1.3–1.9 employees in other jobs. With a lower level of labour involved in forest management, it is likely that these effects have decreased during the last few decades. In the 1950s the basic objective in afforestation was to maximize inancial returns from real estate assets through wood production and the exploitation of commercial opportunities, using private capital wherever it was appropriate. Investment decisions were primarily made on the basis of discounted net beneit. However, state investments in intervention in afforestation areas could barely be justiied by commercial returns alone but were also dependent on environmental and social beneits. Other outputs have become increasingly important. A recent study showed that British forests generated non-market beneits equivalent to £1,000 million per year. Although the population is less dense in Norway, considerable non-market values are also generated here. Optimum investment and management strategies in afforestation areas are still poorly understood – since the works are intermixed with other societal activities. Complex plantation forestry in reforestation areas, designed to maximize social beneits rather than wood production, are still under development in Norwegian afforestation areas - as in afforestation areas elsewhere. Since most plantations were established in the 1960s and 1970s a large increase in harvestable volume is expected around 2020. In the meantime a wide range of policy tools should be considered to increase the beneits Figure 9. Sawmill in eastern Norway. Wood processing contributes signiicantly to the economy of the Nordic countries. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. 34 Effects of afforestation on wood production and forest yield from afforestation: i.e. further investments in infrastructure, management options and silviculture for new or prolonged rotations, restoration and better combined land use, management of plantations to optimize their value as wildlife habitat, increasing the vitality of small scale companies, etc. Challenging times lie ahead. International competition will maintain pressure on timber prices for the foreseeable future, commercial tree planting shows no sign of abating, and increasing demands on forests to meet social and environmental objectives will challenge current approaches to forest management. A crucial question is how to affect rural business activities in a positive way to ensure a more eficient outcome of afforestation programs. This ield deserves further research and development in the future. All things considered, an optimistic view of the forests in the afforestation districts seems to be fully justiied. Throughout history it seems hard to identify any cultures that have faced large problems caused by a surplus of commercially interesting forest resources. However, greater importance should be made in the future on the incorporation of ecological and esthetical aspects into the planning phase of afforestation. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 35 Bibliography Braastad, H. 1983. Forholdet mellom høydebonitet og produksjonsevne for gran, furu og bjørk på samme voksested. Akt. Stat. Fagtj. Landbr. 1983(3), 50–59. Humphrey, J., Newton, A., Latham, J., Gray, H., Kirby, K., Poulsom, E. and Quine, C. (eds.). 2000. Restoration of wooded landscapes. Proceedings of a conference held at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, 14–15 September 2000. Forestry Commission. 157 pp. Lunnan, A., Nylinder, M. and Kärkkäinen, M. 2004. Forestry and economic development: Research challenges and possibilities for future interdisciplinary research in technology and economics. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 19 (5). 97–104. Opheim, T. 1997. Afforestation and local economy. Communications of Skogforsk 48 (17). 288–299. Seip, H. 1996. Forestry for human development – a global imperative. Scan. Univ. Press, Oslo. Smitt, A. 1946. Treslagskifte i Vest-Norge. Tidsskr Skogbr 54. 75–78. Westoby, JC. 1987. The purpose of forests. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Willis, KG., Garrod, G., Scarpa, R., Powe, N. etal. 2003. The social and environmental beneits of forests in Great-Britain. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Øyen, B-H. & Tveite, B. 1998. En sammenligning av høydebonitet og produksjonsevne mellom ulike treslag på samme voksested i Vest-Norge. Rapport fra Skogforsk. 15/98. 1–32. Øyen, B.-H. 1999. Regional development and forestry in North-Norway. Final report, Barents region forest sector initiative. BEAC. Working group on economic cooperation. Petrozavodsk, Russia. 53–60. Opposite page: Moss campion in Iceland. Photo Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir. Effects of afforestation on biodiversity Asrun Elmarsdottir, Arne Fjellberg, Gudmundur Halldorsson, Maria Ingimarsdottir, Olafur K. Nielsen, Per Nygaard, Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir and Bjarni D. Sigurdsson 38 Effects of afforestation on biodiversity Introduction Recently, there has been increased emphasis on conserving biodiversity, threatened habitats and ecosystems in the Nordic countries. The Nordic countries have signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, thus embracing the target of halting the decline in biodiversity by the year 2010. Therefore it is important to identify the effects that afforestation has on biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Afforestation causes fundamental changes in ecosystem structure and functioning, including changes in shading, the micro-climate, production, nutrient cycling and the water balance, all of which may affect biodiversity. It is well documented that conversion from treeless landscapes to forests can have negative impacts on organisms adapted to open habitats. In this context, most research has focussed on vascular plants and birds. Within the AFFORNORD project special attention was therefore paid to soil fauna, which constitute a group that has often been neglected in such studies. Recently, the effects of afforestation on biodiversity were studied in Iceland, the Faroes, Sweden, Denmark and Norway in research projects connected to AFFORNORD. In these projects, areas afforested with native or exotic species were compared to non-forested areas. The focus was on important functional groups in the ecosystem, i.e. vegetation, fungi, invertebrates and birds. Figure 10. Gap fraction indicates amount of light that reaches the forest loor, the higher the fraction the more light. Results from Iceland show that the number of plant species decreases when availability of light decreases. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 39 Case studies linked to AFFORNORD Vegetation It is well demonstrated that ground vegetation in forests is inluenced both by the tree species and stand density. Reduced light availability and changed nutrient cycling are the most important mechanisms which inluence the species composition of ground vegetation. Research in Iceland has shown that relatively species rich vegetation communities of open heathlands will not persist long following afforestation. The number of plant species increases during the irst years after afforestation, but eventually shade tolerant plant groups, such as horsetails, monocots and forbs, replace the original heathland communities and the number of vascular plant species is reduced. The open heathland and the young forest stands are relatively rich in species of mosses and lichens compared to the older forest stands. At the thicket stage of a coniferous forest stand, the ground vegetation is characterized by low plant cover and species diversity, but after thinning the plant cover and diversity increases slightly. In general, the cover of vascular plant species, mosses and lichens decreases following afforestation. At the same time there is a signiicant change in the relative proportions of many of the species present. These changes following afforestation were Figure 11. Plant species in young Sitka spruce stand in Iceland are common heathland species and adapted to the open habitats, e.g. viviparous fescue, northern bedstraw, heath wood-rush, shady horsetail, alpine bistort, lady’s bedstraw and wild thyme. Photo: Asrun Elmarsdottir. 40 Effects of afforestation on biodiversity Figure 12. Vegetation in a dense 45 year old lodgepole pine stand in Iceland is sparse and few plant species grow there, e.g. wavy hair-grass, shady horsetail, wood crane’s-bill, stone bramble and sheathed sedge. Photo: Asrun Elmarsdottir. mainly found to be due to decreased light at the level of the forest loor. This was also shown in a study in Denmark where the number of herbal species in oak forest increased rapidly after heavy irst thinning. Comparison of native broadleaved forests to afforested coniferous plantations shows that species richness of vascular plants is considerably higher in native broadleaved forests. Both in the Icelandic and Norwegian case studies, the highest number of vascular plant species was found in mountain birch forests, while coniferous plantations (Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, Siberian larch and lodgepole pine) contained fewer species. Also, species richness of vascular plants is affected by coniferous species. This difference is mainly due to the amount of light which reaches the forest loor. Similarly, understorey biomass is related to the amount of light. Therefore, a more open canopy leads to a greater diversity of plants and more ground vegetation biomass. Species richness of vascular plants can therefore be affected by forest management (stand density and thinning regime) and choice of tree species. Figure 13. Hallormsstadur, East Iceland. An old-growth birch forest with diverse vegetation, for example wavy hair-grass, bog bilberry, horstail and stone bramble. Photo: Asrun Elmarsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 41 Fungi Afforestation increases organic material in the ecosystem, which is eventually decomposed by bacteria and fungi via the production of a vast array of extracellular enzymes. The fungal biomass can often exceed that of other microbes, plants and animals in the ecosystem and the fungi represent a signiicant portion of the ecosystem nutrient pool. Fungi also form essential symbiotic associations with tree roots, namely, the mycorrhizas. Mycorrhizas supply the trees with water and nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, in exchange for a supply of carbon. The larger part of the fungi live underground as mycelium and many species are conined to that life form. However, some fungi form fruitbodies (i.e. mushrooms) aboveground. Research on fruitbody diversity in Icelandic forests has shown that older native forests and plantations have a higher number of fruitbody forming species than heathlands or younger and more open plantations. Higher numbers of fungal species living on decaying wood were found in older forests. However, since many species of fungi do not form fruitbodies, fungal biodiversity is therefore relected not only by the number of fruitbody forming species. Research on mycorrhizal types found on tree roots indicates that both the biodiversity and biomass of mycorrhizal fungi increase Figure 14. Fungi in forests live in various habitats. Top left is Paecilomyces farinosus, an insect pathogenic fungi, top right is the fruitbody of Chalciporus piperatusa that forms mycorrhizae with trees and bottom left is a mycorrhizal root tip of birch (Hebeloma sp). Photos: Gudridur G. Eyjolfsdottir (top) and Edda S. Oddsdottir (left). 42 Effects of afforestation on biodiversity following tree planting on open land, but as the forests grow older, the number of mycorrhizal types and the biomass of mycorrhizal fungi partly decreases. In Iceland, afforestation seems to increase fungal diversity and biomass in a similar way, whether native or exotic tree species are used. Soil invertebrates Mineralization of nutrients is governed directly by the activities of bacteria and fungi. The ability of microbes to do this, however, is affected strongly by soil animals as they fragment and mix the organic matter in the soil. In general, earthworms are considered to be good indicators of soil quality as they demand good soil conditions. An Icelandic case study showed that more earthworm species were found in young plantations and native birch stands than in open heathland, older forests or exotic coniferous stands. The case study in Iceland showed that the species richness of collembola increased as heathlands were converted to forests, irrespective of forest type. In an AFFORNORD related survey, 49 species of collembola were found in Icelandic birch forests whereas conifer plantations had 31 species and a lower proportion of habitat specialists. The AFFORNORD survey led to discovery of many new species and the total number of collembola species known in Iceland is now around 160 or almost a 100% increase from Figure 15. Parisotoma notabilis (top left), Lepidocyrtus lignorum (top right) and Protaphorura pseudovanderdrifti (bottom left) are common species in Icelandic forest soils. Photos: Arne Fjellberg. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 43 earlier numbers. Five new collembola species were found in the Faroes. In Iceland similar collembola species and species dominance are found in birch and exotic conifer forests whereas in Norway the birch forests differed strongly from coniferous forests, both in species composition and dominance. It appears that collembola from the native Icelandic birch forest soil establishes in exotic coniferous soils with only small adjustments. In Iceland, afforestation seems to increase soil faunal diversity regardless of whether native or exotic tree species are used. In Norway, in contrast, there are marked differences between the two forest types. Surface invertebrates Invertebrates living on the soil surface, such as spiders and beetles, are mainly predators on other invertebrates or soil fauna. Some take part in decomposition of organic material or feed on vegetation or fungi. The trees themselves provide habitat for many species of invertebrates, but this element of the fauna is not included in the discussions below. In the Icelandic case study, the total number of invertebrate species living on the soil surface is similar for the different habitat types, i.e. heathlands, native birch forests and exotic coniferous stands, but species composition is radically different. Figure 16. Invertebrates collected in a pine forest in Iceland. Photo: Erling Olafsson. 44 Effects of afforestation on biodiversity The surface invertebrate fauna that characterize heathlands disappear as conifers are introduced and new invertebrate species colonize the area. The changes come in certain stages. For young coniferous plantations the surface fauna is similar to a heathland fauna. Later, at the thicket stage, the surface invertebrate fauna in conifer stands is very different from both the fauna of birch forests and heathlands. Common surface species in conifer forests need humidity, which comes with the shade provided by the trees, and ind a suitable habitat in the sparse undergrowth of conifer plantations. However, the surface invertebrate fauna of Siberian larch forests retain similarities to the birch forests, probably because larch is deciduous. Avifauna The avifauna of the Icelandic heathlands is characterized by meadow pipits, rock ptarmigan and some few species of waders, the most prominent being golden plover, whimbrel and snipe, and in wetter areas godwit, dunlin and redshank are also common. In the Icelandic case study, no major changes took place with regards to the avifauna during the irst 10 years of conversion from heathlands to exotic coniferous plantations. Open country birds still dominated the scene but the irst forest birds had shown up, i.e. redwing and redpoll. By the Figure 17. Golden plover is one of the bird species that is characteristic of the open land in Iceland. Photo: Hrafn Oskarsson. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 45 time the stands were 20 years old and had reached the thicket stage, all the specialized open country birds had disappeared; golden plover, whimbrel, godwit, dunlin and redshank. The avifauna of these stands was composed of generalists, species that live both in heathland areas and forested areas such as snipe and meadow pipit, and forest birds, redwing, redpoll, wren and goldcrest. No major changes with respect to the avifauna occurred during the next 30 years in the life of the coniferous stands. This shows that the changes in the avifauna from heathland to forestdominated avian fauna takes place primarily between a plantation age of 10 and 20 years. Total densities, measured as territorial pairs per unit area, also change as the plantations mature. Common igures for heathland areas are 100 pairs per km². Breeding densities are much higher in older birch and larch forests areas with 300−500 pairs per km². However, avian species richness is similar in heathlands and older forests. Comparison of the avifauna of the non-native larch stands and the native birch forest shows that the source for settlers with respect to the larch stands is local, but not without exception. All the common birds within the larch stands are also the species characteristic of the native birch forest avifauna. The only exception is the goldcrest, which is native to coniferous forests in Europe and Asia. It was known as a vagrant in Iceland until 1995, when large numbers arrived, and subsequently goldcrests started breeding. Figure 18. The redwing is the most common forest bird in Iceland. Photo: Hrafn Oskarsson. 46 Effects of afforestation on biodiversity Within a few years the species colonized coniferous and larch stands all over Iceland and even penetrated the native birch forests. The goldcrest in Iceland is a good example of long distance dispersal and the power of exponential growth: the smallest bird species in Europe, here locating newly created pockets of habitats on an island isolated in the middle of the Atlantic and becoming within 10 years one of the most common forest birds. It is unlikely that more native bird species will settle in the forest stands; rather, any addition will be a species from abroad, as in the case of the goldcrest. General conclusions The general conclusion from the different case studies clearly indicates that afforestation affects species richness of different functional groups in different ways. • • • • The number of species of vascular plants is negatively affected by afforestation. Shade tolerant plant groups replace the original heathland communities. Fungi and soil invertebrates respond to afforestation with an increase in species richness. The total number of surface invertebrate species is similar for different habitats but species composition is radically different. The total number of bird species is similar between habitat types, but major changes take place in species composition and breeding densities. Species richness of many groups can be affected by forest management (stand density and thinning regime) and choice of tree species. Afforestation strongly affects species composition in all functional groups. Generally, some species disappear and others colonize the new habitat. These changes are also affected by the tree species and management regime selected. It is therefore very important to include strategies for conservation of biodiversity in forest planning and management in order to preserve areas that contain special habitat types or rare species. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 47 Bibliography Elmarsdottir, A. and Magnusson, B. 2007. ICEWOODS: Changes in ground vegetation following afforestation. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 92-99. Elmarsdottir, A., Sigurdsson, BD., Magnusson, B., Gudleifsson BE. et al. 2007. Age-related dynamics in biodiversity and carbon cycling of Icelandic woodlands (ICEWOODS): Experimental design and site descriptions. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 100–107. Engelmark, O., Sjoberg, K., Andersson, B., Rosvall et al. 2001. Ecological effects and management aspects of an exotic tree species: The case of lodgepole pine in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management. 141. 3–13. Eyjolfsdottir, GG. 2007. Fungi in larch and birch woodlands of different age in Eastern Iceland. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 113–118. Fjellberg, A., Nygaard, P. and Stabbetorp, OE. 2007. Structural changes in Collembola populations following replanting of birch forest with spruce in North Norway. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18-22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 119–125. Gudleifsson, BE. 2007. Earthworms in Icelandic forest soils. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 127–131. Marquiss, M. 2006. AFFORNORD ‘Summing up’ of ecosystem biodiversity sessions: The effects of afforestation on ecosystem biodiversity. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 167–169. Olafsson, E. and Ingimarsdottir, M. 2007. Changes in communities of ground living invertebrates following afforestation. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 171–176. Rune, F. and Skovsgaard JP. 2007. Afforestation with oak: Effects of pre-commercial thinning on the development of ground lora. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 203–209. Sigurdsson, BD., Magnusson, B., Elmarsdottir, A. and Bjarnadottir, B. 2005. Biomass and composition of understory vegetation and the forest loor carbon stock across Siberian larch and mountain birch chronosequences in Iceland. Annals of Forest Science. 62:1–8. Simberloff, D. 1999. The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management. 115. 101–111. Opposite page: Mogilsa, Iceland. Photo: Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir. Modelling ground vegetation changes Harald Sverdrup, Salim Belyzaid, Asrun Elmarsdottir, Borgthor Magnusson and Bjarni D. Sigurdsson 50 Modelling ground vegetation changes Introduction Ecosystem development is affected by many factors. Whenever we encounter very complex situations, one of the methods to analyse cause and effect is to carry out system analysis and construct system models. Simpliication is always required to make such predictive models. The ForSAFE-VEG model was adapted and redeveloped within the AFFORNORD project group to simulate changes in the composition of the ground vegetation and used to investigate different possible future outcomes of different policy options. The model simulates the interaction between the trees, the ground vegetation, the soil, the physical, geochemical and climatological conditions at the site, and management (thinning, harvesting, and fertilization) of the forest. A conceptual picture of the terrestrial ecosystem components, as elaborated by the AFFORNORD group, is shown in Figure 19, showing the causal chain from afforestation to the effect on ecosystem development and the quality of the human habitat and standard of living. The igure represents the general understanding of the system, and the part in black gives what is modelled in the ForSAFE-VEG model. The ground vegetation composition in the ForSAFE-VEG model is based on the occurrence of key plant groups. Each of the key groups is assumed to have a speciic response to moisture, temperature, nitrogen, chemistry and shading. Based on the speciic responses of the key groups to the conditions as simulated by ForSAFE, the VEG module calculates the relative occupancy of the key groups with respect to the others, and a fraction of the forest loor area is assigned to each group. The ForSAFE- Figure 19. Conceptual picture of the biodiversity components in a terrestrial ecosystem. Interpretation of the major expected responses according to the mental model illustrated, deined for biodiversity in the AFFORNORD project. Black indicates parts that are modelled in the ForSAFEVEG model. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 51 VEG model predicts changes in vegetation structure based on the modelled changes in the present physical environment. The responses are, however, not instantaneous but rather delayed by key group-speciic time. The case studies selected Two sites with the largest possible contrast were chosen from our AFFORNORD case studies, one in southern Sweden and one in eastern Iceland. The Söstared site is located in southern Sweden near the coast. It was originally covered by nemoral beech-oak dominated forest. In ca. 1650 it was cleared for sheep pasture and stayed treeless for approximately 300 years. The open land was repeatedly burned for heather clearance and the soils became quite denuded in mineral substrate through erosion. The area was afforested with conifers in 1920-1940. The climate is mild (average annual temperature 6.5 °C), slightly windy on open land and with little snow in the winter. Rainfall amounts to about 1100 mm per year. The Hallormsstadur site is located in eastern Iceland, an area that had mountain birch forest at the time of the Norse settlement in the late ninth century and that was gradually denuded to disappearance by ca. 1650. The land remained open and was used for sparse sheep grazing until it was afforested in 1952. The surrounding area was used for afforestation during the period 1950 to 1990. The climate is cold temperate (annual average 3.4 °C) and windy on open land (average wind speed 7 m/s). The site has episodic snow cover during the winter. Figure 20. Predicted changes in occurrence of key plant groups at Söstared. The model its reasonably with observed data and we may therefore expect it to give reasonable predictions. Grey: lichens and mosses; Blue: dwarf-bushes; Yellow: grasses; Red: brackens and ferns; Green: herbaceous plants; Brown: bushes and bushlike thickets. 52 Modelling ground vegetation changes Model outputs The sites have to a varying degree been without forest cover and the results of the model show the particularly large effect of deforestation and subsequent afforestation on the occurrence of key plant groups (Figures 20 and 21). The irst change of ground vegetation at Söstared was caused by a forest ire in the 15th century (Figure 20). The second large change was when the area was cleared and grazed. After 1900 it was afforested. However it is now under conditions of intensive forestry and increasing input of nitrogen deposition (see chapter on carbon sequestration). From now on, even small forestry changes will result in large effects on the composition of the vegetation, largely because of the considerable availability of nitrogen. Possibly also the increase in annual average temperature as caused by climate change is playing a role in making the site more dynamic in its responses. In the response for Hallormsstadur, during the period 1900–2100, the model predicts similar or increased key-species richness after afforestation in 1952, which is only partly supported by data presented in the present book (see previous chapter on biodiversity) (Figure 21). This might be attributed to improved forest climate at the exposed site and improved nutrient status due to the enhanced forest nutrient cycling. The model is also successful in predicting observed changes in the amount of ground vegetation, which decreased after the forest canopy was established (see chapter on biodiversity) (Figure 22). These model results, however, do not show the downward trend in vascular plant diversity in middle-aged stands measured in the case studies at these same sites in Iceland. This discrepancy may be explained by the time lag in the real world for new species to colonize a new suitable habitat. The shade-adapted vascular plant species found in the vicinity of the Hallormsstadur site may not have had time to colonize the afforested areas. Further development of the ForSAFE-VEG model will consider distributional patterns of vascular plants. Figure 21. Predicted changes in occurrence of key plant groups at Hallormsstadur (Iceland). Grey denotes lichens, blue-violet heather, yellow grasses and hatched ferns, other colours denote bushes and herbs. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 53 Figure 22. Comparison between measured and observed changes in the amount of ground vegetation at Hallormsstadur, Iceland. Conclusions on modelled ground vegetation changes The model showed signiicant effects of afforestation on vascular key plant group composition. The modelled effects are both positive and negative. The model showed that introduction of the tree canopy changed the ground vegetation by changing access to light and nutrients. At the nutrient-rich site (Söstared) this led to a net loss of plant groups, while at the nutrient-poor site (Hallormsstadur) more plant groups could occupy the site. Under conditions of exposure to strong winds, such as at Hallormsstadur, the introduction of a tree canopy can break the wind and provide winter shelter that allows colonization by certain plants that would not survive in an open landscape. In the south of Scandinavia, afforestation can cause more pollution (acidity, nitrogen, ozone) to reach the ecosystem, with signiicant effects on biodiversity. Such effects do not take place where high atmospheric deposition does not occur, as at the site in Iceland or in parts of northern Scandinavia. The vascular plant biodiversity reached (here based on key plant groups) may be partly directed by choosing the proper management method and appropriate tree species. Policy value judgements are needed in deciding the total beneit or loss of such actions. Many questions remain unanswered, but the ForSAFE-VEG model provides a powerful tool for studying future options in afforestation. The 54 Modelling ground vegetation changes ForSAFE-VEG is undergoing continuous development, at the moment being applied to 32 sites in Switzerland and 20 sites in Sweden as an ongoing study for assessing ground vegetation changes as affected by acid rain, nitrogen pollution, climate change and management changes within the UN/ ECE-LRTAP convention. The model is at present being used in 5 different countries in Europe for this purpose. This has further emphasized the value of having access to at least one site in Iceland where the air pollution is near to background values. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 55 Bibliography Belyazid, S., Sigurdsson, B., Haraldsson, H. and Sverdrup, H. 2007. Adapting the ForSAFE model to simulate changes in the ground vegetation after afforestation in Iceland: A feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 81-89. Sverdrup, H., Belyazid S., Nihlgård, B. and Ericson L. 2007. Modelling change in ground vegetation response to acid and nitrogen pollution, climate change and forest management in Sweden 1500–2100 AD. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. Focus 7. 163-179. Sverdrup, H., Stjernquist, I., Thelin, G., Holmqvist, J., Wallman, P. and Svensson, M. 2006. Application of natural, social, and economical sustainability limitations to forest management, based on Swedish experiences. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21. 147–176. Haraldsson, H., Sverdrup, H., Belyazid, S., Sigurdsson, BD. and Halldorsson, G. 2007. Assessment of effects of afforestation on soil properties in Iceland, using Systems Analysis and System Dynamic Methods. Icelandic Agricultural Sciences 20. 35–43. Opposite page: Skorradalur, west Iceland. Photo: Bjarni D. Sigurdsson. Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Audur Sveinsdottir, Anna Maria Palsdottir and Odd Stabbetorp “Landscape” means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors. European Landscape Convention 58 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Introduction Is there an impact of afforestation on landscape, and – if there is – what is the inluence, what are the consequences and what are the possibilities to work with? The geological history of an area constitutes the basis for the landscape to extract and discuss some of the main aspects of the interaction between landscape and afforestation. In this chapter we will discuss different views on the subject and suggest actions to improve afforestation planning in context with the concept of landscape. The deinition of landscape is variable and has various expressions in the Nordic countries. The landscape as a physical phenomenon is used in connection with nature and cultural environment, but refers also to the dynamics of the landscape and visual aspects and topography. The deinition of landscape is also variable within different cultures and societies, and even within the same society. As an example, there are at least 40 different deinitions of the concept “landscape” in Finland. The following quotation from Jala M. MakHzoumi of the University of Beirut in Lebanon is an example of different perception of landscape in different countries and cultures: The contemporary Western way of seeing landscape as view of the countryside is alien to the cultures of the Middle East for several reasons. In the hostile environment of the Middle East, comfort and security and, by association, beauty, are embodied by landscapes that are human-modiied and human-made, the agrarian landscape and the urban one respectively. It is understandable, therefore, that the focus of aesthetic appreciation is not the outlying landscape of hills and forests, but a cultural one, in which nature has been ‘tamed’, enclosed and ordered. In Iceland, the perception of landscape has changed dramatically during recent decades. Formerly it was more connected to the livelihood of people and their basic industries, not so unlike the Middle East perception. Presently, this view is changing and new concepts of landscape are becoming more common, e.g. urban, industrial and cultural landscapes. Now, most European countries have adopted the European Landscape Convention, which embodies increased understanding of the importance of the landscape. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 59 Figure 23. Naturally regenerated European larch at Tingvoll, Norway. Photo: Per H. Nygaard Why a landscape convention? The landscape ... • ... has an important public interest role in the cultural, ecological, environmental and social ields, and constitutes a resource favourable to economic activity and whose protection, management and planning can contribute to job creation; • ... contributes to the formation of local cultures and ... is a basic component of the European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human well-being and consolidation of the European identity; • ... is an important part of the quality of life for people everywhere: in urban areas and in the countryside, in degraded areas as well as in areas of high quality, in areas recognised as being of outstanding beauty as well as everyday areas; • ... is a key element of individual and social well-being and ... its protection, management and planning entail rights and responsibilities for everyone. European Landscape Convention Various methods can be used to assess the effects of afforestation on the landscape. In this project certain key aspects of the landscape were evaluated to build this assessment on. The combined evaluation is based on all those those key aspects. This method is part of landscape analysis and is used when dealing with larger areas where major changes are predictable. In this chapter we will focus on the following factors: • • • • • geodiversity cultural heritage aesthetics environmental identity recreation and health 60 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Geodiversity The geological history of an area constitutes the basis for the landscape variation we ind within the area. The term “geodiversity” has been deined as “the complex variation of bedrock, unconsolidated deposits, landforms, and processes that form landscapes”. Geodiversity affects biodiversity and provides the foundation of both natural and cultural landscapes. Protection of geodiversity is an integral part of nature protection in most countries, even if the term itself has a rather short history. Geodiversity is important in the every-day landscape in relation to education, recreation and consciousness of nature and ecological functions. Landscape planning is an important tool for protecting geodiversity, but legislation and management practices vary among the Nordic countries. With respect to afforestation, aspects of geodiversity have not been among the most important in afforestation planning. Geoconservation is important for several reasons, e.g. for preserving examples of past life forms and evolution, for biodiversity, for leisure industry and for research and training of future scientists. It is also important for historical and cultural reasons. Geology and protection of geodiversity vary within the Nordic countries. In Denmark, more than 200 national geological sites are protected and approximately 170 in Norway where few thematic conservation plans have been made for speciic geological features. However, during the afforestation of West and North Norway in the 1950’s and 1960’s, no geological or geomorphological considerations were included. In Iceland, the geology is very different from that of the other Nordic countries. Iceland’s irst Nature Conservation Act was enacted in 1956. When the Act was revised in 1971, seven of the ten existing protected areas were mainly for protecting geodiversity. Since then, more than 300 localities have been registered as valuable for nature conservation, and many of Figure 24. Many aspects in the afforrestation-geodiversity interface coincide with those of visual aspects and cultural heritage. Photo: Lars Erikstad Afforestation in the Nordic countries 61 Figure 25. Special geological formations, such as Icelandic lava ields, should not be considered for afforestation. Photo: Audur Sveinsdottir. these can be characterised as geological sites. During afforestation planning in Iceland, speciic geological sites, such as recent lava formations, are excluded from afforestation. Afforestation affects geodiversity in different ways. It may cause loss of view and landform visibility, since forests often cover vast areas, including geological formation. Afforestation may cause physical damage to small-scale landforms and stabilize dynamic landforms. Recommendations • • • Plan open spaces and maintain open views. No planting in gullies, craters, lava ields and important geosites. Geodiversity should be included in environmental impact assessment, planning and nature management at all levels. Cultural heritage /cultural landscape Figure 26. Every landscape is a cultural landscape because the inluence of man is all over the globe, in some places completely dominating (to the left) in other places hardly noticeable (to the right). Photos: Audur Sveinsdottir and Hrafnhildur Hannesdottir. 62 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Today’s landscape is to a large extent the result of human activities in the past. Our cultural heritage can be read from the landscape, partly by remnants of human structures (cultural heritage sites), but also from the structure of the landscape itself. Therefore, acknowledging landscape as a cultural heritage suggests a need for its conservation, in afforestation planning as in every other land use. The question is: what kind of landscape do we want to take care of and how? We have to come to an agreement on what is valuable for protecting and managing. Afforestation can cause irreversible changes to cultural heritage and can be a serious threat to archaeological sites. In the Nordic countries, there are different guidelines on how close to archeological sites trees may be planted. Archeological authorities in Sweden and Norway can require a certain unplanted zone around archeological sites and in Denmark planting is not allowed within 150 m from grave mounds. In Iceland, the idea of landscape as part of the cultural heritage is relected in the current antiquity legislation. It is made a part of afforestation guidelines that forests should not be planted within a certain distance from such sites, but this is not backed up by legislation or regulations. There are several dangers that threaten cultural heritage and they can cause irredeemable changes. In the future, forestry will probably be the largest threat to old relics in rural areas, since vegetation will cover remnants, making them dificult to see and also because larger machines that convert the land are being used in forest management. Niku Tema 16 Figure 27. Pasture and “salmon river” landscape in North Iceland. Photo: Audur Sveinsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 63 Figure 28. Along the coastline of western Europe, treeless heathland is the man-made cultural landscape bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Here from Heathland centre at Lygra, Norway. Photo Audur Sveinsdottir. Recommendations • • It is necessary to develop methodology that suits each place at each time and to establish consensus about protection, preservation and tending of cultural heritage. Review laws and regulations concerning cultural heritage. Aesthetics The term aesthetics comes originally from the Greek aesthenesthai” to perceive”, and aisthet ”things perceived”, in this case using our eyes. Landscape is affected by use of land, including afforestation, which determines the patterns of vegetation. There is a great contrast between forests and open ground in the landscape, and major landscape changes in our times have been brought about by the establishment of woods and forests. Figure 29. Ruins of an old sheep stall at Höfdi in East Iceland, surrounded by young larch which has been planted at a certain distance from the ruin. Photo: Thröstur Eysteinsson. 64 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Peoples´ perceptions of aesthetics are variable; depending on individuals, time, circumstances and culture: From being a controversial activity, plantation forestry has become an accepted element of the British landscape. While some of this acceptance might be accounted for by the fact that several generations of people have grown up with these forests, a considerable amount af credit is due to the role of good landscape design in helping to blend these forests into the wider landscape. Bell, 2007 In western and northern Norway afforestation was mainly performed on private ground. The plantations are therefore often restricted to the limits between properties. In most Norwegian municipalities, the effort was planned with the aid of local forest authorities, but the choice of areas was mainly based on forestry considerations. No explicit landscape considerations were included, neither in Norway nor in Iceland. The result is that the plantations are often seen as landscape elements with sharp, straight borders; similar to those described for Scotland. However, more consideration to the landscape is taken today, though further improvements are needed. In Denmark a landscape character method has been developed to recognise different landscape types, based on history, culture, space, landscape completeness and the protection of the natural environment. On basis of these characteristics large areas for afforestation are divided into three catagories; a) areas where afforestation is encouraged; b) areas where afforestation is prohibited; and c) areas where afforestation is neither encouraged nor prohibited. In the UK it is recommended that the aim of landscape design, previous to afforestation, should be to: a) relect and enhance the best natural qualities of the landscape, as seen from Figure 30. Leggjabrjotur, an ancient path between West and South Iceland: here passing through a mixture of birch and exotic conifers. Photo: Audur Sveinsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 65 Figure 31. Tumastadir, South Iceland; mixed conifers, newly planted in a square block. No effort has been made to blend the plantation into the surrounding landscape. Photo: Audur Sveinsdottir. relevant viewpoints; b) incorporate natural features and detail, eliminate visual intrusion; c) assist in development of wide range habitats; and d) meet the operational needs of eficient woodland management. Similarily, in the Scottish “Forest Landscape Design principles” there are 6 key design principles: a) shape, b) scale, d) unity, e) visual force, f) diversity and g) spirit of the place. Recommendations • • Aesthetical prerequisites should be considered when planning afforestation. Elaborate speciic methodology and a guidance of good practice concerning aesthetical view and visual effects of afforestation on landscape should be formed. Figure 32. Ölkofradalur, a historic place at Thingvellir is hidden in a spruce plantation. Photo: Audur Sveinsdottir 66 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Environmental identity According to the European Landscape Convention, each party undertakes: • to recognise landscapes in law as an essential component of people’s surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage, and a foundation of their identity; • to establish and implement landscape policies aimed at landscape protection, management and planning through the adoption of speciic measures; • to establish procedures for the participation of the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties with an interest in the deinition. European Landscape Convention Landscape identity is a part of the environmental identity, where an individual deines internal subjective and cognitive concepts of oneself in relation to the physical environment and relects the belonging one feels within that particular context. This process has its roots, beginning at early age and is a lifelong learning process, affected by people’s background and life experiences and most likely has a considerable effect on one’s affection for and identiication with the environment. Therefore landscape identity and recognisability are basic elements of the quality of living places and directly linked to the quality of life of populations and loss of the latter can often be associated with loss of landscape identity and of the feeling of belonging of local populations. Figure 33. Every place/country has its own identity and character. The identity of Mt. Hekla, South Iceland, is rooted in old legends where it was supposed to be the entrance to Hell. Photo: Audur Sveinsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 67 Figure 34. Hraunfossar; West Iceland. Artists are inspired by landscapes and in the book “A Giant Love Story” by Gudrun Helgadottir, the falls are pictured as the milk of a giant woman. Photo: Kjartan Kjartansson. The spirit of a place (genius loci) is an important part of its speciality. Legends and adventures are often rooted in the landscape and used to explain extraordinary landscape features. In Iceland, perception of the landscape often developed into strong belief in supernatural forces and extreme feelings for the unknown and this is often relected in place names. Therefore, each persons’ perception of the landscape is related to the history and culture of each society as well as personal background and feelings. Consequently, it is important to activate these skills at an early age in order to ensure that our youth develop environmental identity and a sense of nature. Recommendations • • It is important to register and preserve folk beliefs, arts and cultural history that relate to experience and perception of landscape. Laws and regulations need to be adjusted to ensure that the speciic character of each area is maintained as recommended in the European Landscape Convention. Recreation and health Nature provides us with essential resources for our survival as well as being of importance for our health and well-being. Many studies have found a relationship between nature experiences and positive effects on our social, mental and physical health. Most often, people seem to react more positively to a natural environment than to urban sites. 68 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health But, why do people feel good in natural environments? Within environmental psychology two dominating theories seek to explain the positive effects of nature on humans. One is presented by Roger Ulrich and the other by Steven and Rachel Kaplan. Ulrich’s theory, Bioilia, is based on our inherited evolutionary and genetic memory of the original environment humans used to live in. We feel safe in natural surroundings because we are adapted to these kinds of environments and they therefore reinforce positive feelings. This is a basic and universal physical response. The Kaplan’s theory is called Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and is based on the fact that the human brain has two kinds of attention: directed attention and soft fascination. The urban environment is overloaded with information that has to be sorted out and processed. For this demanding process, directed attention is used and is very energy consuming. In nature we do not have the same amount of information low that has to be processed. This allows us to use soft fascination. The process does not demand energy and our capacity is unlimited, resulting in a restorative state of mind and body. In addition to the above-mentioned theories, Searls’ relation theory argues that nature plays an important role in people’s well-being. The relation to nature and natural objects such as water, stones and plants is simple and not demanding but the relation between people is more complex and demanding. Therefore, nature offers possibilities for recreation and to relax, hence reducing the level of stress. A forest is an ideal alternative for offering varied nature experiences and reloading one’s mental and physical strength Figure 35. The water is attractive, especially to the young. Kjarnaskogur forest North Iceland. Photo: Auður Sveinsdottir. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 69 since such an environment only requires spontaneous concentration. Nature preferences seem to be very similar within the Scandinavian countries, people prefer landscape variation with natural characteristics. • • • • • • Most people prefer forests and nature with a rich variation of lora and fauna. The presence of lakes and rivers is highly favoured both in open landscape and forest sites. Many people like elevated landscape and the possibility of overviews of the surroundings. In the forest, a combination of moderate natural walking paths is wanted so the different forest areas can be easily accessed. Access is also related to the forest density; too dense forest can be both mentally and physically dificult to access. Too dark and dense a forest area with low visibility is considered by many as not a safe environment. A light and bright landscape, dominated by broadleaved trees, with open spaces, is considered safe. The distance to a park/nature site is of importance. Both Swedish and Danish studies have found a correlation between distance and frequency of visits. Those who live close to a recreation site actually visit the site more frequently. A connection was also found between the frequency of visits and one’s perceived level of stress i.e. persons frequently visiting parks and nature sites feel they are less stressed than those who visit the parks less frequently. Figure 36. Icelandic birch forests are popular for various outdoor activities. Here, a group of school children walking in the Thorsmörk, South Iceland. Photo: Þröstur Eysteinsson. 70 Effects of afforestation on landscape and public health Presently, more and more people choose to live in cities and the daily access to nature decreases, both in terms of distance and time. In the long term this can have serious consequences for the individual’s health as well as for society as a whole. Therefore, contact with nature is necessary in the ever faster growing urban society. This demands proper planning in close relation with the general public. It is also important to execute this in harmony with the surrounding landscape. Recommendations • • • More research on the effects of outdoor activities on health is needed. Based on results from such studies, it is important to elaborate speciic policy on outdoor activities, both on a district and a national scale. Outdoor activities must be considered in planning afforestation, and legislation and regulations should take account of such needs. Conclusions Afforestation has a profound effect on the landscape. It is therefore necessary to assess and analyse the landscape in relation to afforestation planning and include knowledge regarding geodiversity and aesthetics. Furthermore, it is important to assess cultural sites in landscape and establish consensus on protection of those sites. They should be considered both as speciic sites and also as part of the landscape. Forests should never be planted on geologically interesting sites, protected areas or to close to valuable archaeological sites. The need for public participation and a multi-disiplinary approach in afforestation planning processes must be acknowledged. To do so, it is suggested that speciic guidelines for use in afforestation planning, similar to those used in Denmark and Scotland, should be adopted and laws and regulations concerning afforestation need to take account of landscape effects. Even though more information on the effects of afforestation on recreation and health is needed, the knowledge already available should be included in afforestation planning. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 71 Bibliography Anon. 1994. Forest landscape design guidelines. Forestry Commission. 28 pp. Bell, S. 2007. The landscape of afforestation: From controversy to acceptance. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007:508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 47–56. Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention. European Treaty Series no. 176. Strasbourg. Binns, KS. 2005. Fortidens minner i dagens landskap. Status for automatisk fredete kulturminner i Trondheim kommune, SorTrondelag 1997. NIKU-rapport (64). 25 pp. Grahn and Stigsdotter. 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening nr.2. 1–18. Gundersen, V. 2004. Estetikk i skog og landskap. Aktuelt fra skogforskningen nr. 4/04. Skogforsk, Norge Hansen, BK. and Nielsen, TS. 2005. Natur og gronne områder forebyggger stress. Skov & Landskab. KVL, Danmark Hansen-Møller, J. 1991. Skovtilplantning I regionplanerne. Landskab 6. 122–127. Johansson, CE. 2000. Geodiversitet i nordisk naturvård. Nord 2000.8. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Ryan, RL. 1998. With people in mind. Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, Island Press. 219 pp. Searls, H. 1960. The Nonhuman Environment in Normal Development and in Schizophrenia. International Universities Press, New York. Sveinsdottir, A. 2007. The landscape of Afforestation: The perception and relation between cultural and natural landscapes. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 285–291. Ulrich, R. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: The Biophilia Hypotheses. Eds. Kellert, SR. and Wilson, EO. Washington, Island Press. 73–137. Opposite page: Rural landscape in Akershus, Norway. Photo Jon Geir Petursson. Effects of afforestation on rural development Jon Geir Petursson and Eva Ritter The rural value of forests does not arise from their simple physical presence, but from their contribution to the rural quality of life and local identity. Elands and Wiersum, 2003 74 Effects of afforestation on rural development Introduction Forests are an important natural resource in rural areas. In the more forested Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden and Finland), forests have traditionally played a key role in rural economies and social identity. In less forested Denmark, reclaimed forests have become a signiicant issue of rural livelihoods, and the almost completely deforested Iceland is undergoing a signiicant forest transition where active afforestation programmes are increasingly transforming the denuded rural landscapes. The role of forestry in the Nordic countries is subject to changes. It is no longer only about economy, but also about lifestyle and environment, both in the highly forested regions and in regions where forests are less abundant. These changes are due in part to an increase in forest cover following afforestation activities, but also to social changes among forest owners. The number of private and small-scale forest owners has increased, and many of them live in urban areas. The goals of rural forestry have been affected by the lifestyle of the new forest owners. Rural forestry today includes aspects of recreation, nature protection and other forest services that are related to the lives of the rural as well as urban populations and no longer stands primarily for timber production and environmental management. Forest policy is considered a signiicant part of future European Union Policy on rural development. Since 1980 there has been a range of policies Figure 37. Forests add signiicantly to rural identity in the Nordic countries, especially in Norway, Finland and Sweden. This art work is from Umeå in North Sweden, which claims to be “The City of Birches” (Björkarnas Stad). Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 75 throughout Europe to expand the area of woodlands. A positive effect on rural livelihoods is expected, either by counteracting the increasing migration into cities or by providing new rural services that are demanded by a growing urbanized lifestyle in rural areas. The Nordic countries provide important examples of various stages of afforestation or forest transition and their impact on rural development. Extensive parts of the Nordic countries consist of rural areas, and considerable political attention is given to the development of these areas. However, there are different experiences and opinions on how afforestation and forestry can contribute to rural development. In this chapter these issues will be discussed in the context of the Nordic countries. Rural areas and their development The difference between urban settlements and countryside has become less and less distinct in Europe. In many regions an improved infrastructure has made it possible for people to live in the countryside and work in cities, resulting in the urbanization of rural areas. The distinction between rural and urban areas has therefore become complicated, even more so within the Nordic countries where the characteristics and deinitions of rural areas are very variable. When discussing afforestation as policy measures for rural Figure 38. An increasing number of forest owners now live in urban areas. In many Nordic regions, the difference between urban and rural settlements is becoming less distinct. Denmark, being the most densely populated Nordic country, has many examples. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. 76 Effects of afforestation on rural development development, it is therefore important to address the different deinitions of the terms “rural areas” and “rurality”. The deinition of rurality can be based on different factors, involving quantitative as well as social dimensions. A pragmatic deinition is to refer only to population density and size of settlements. This would ask for a cut-off point for density and settlement size that deines when a population density is low enough to be called rural. However, this cut-off point will vary highly among countries and even regions. Hence, the term rural is understood differently in different countries and societies, contrasted in the Nordic context between densely populated Denmark and sparsely populated Iceland. Therefore, it is important to realise the dificulty of providing a single objective deinition of rurality. Three deinitions of the term rural are given by Elands and Wiersum (2001). Two of the deinitions are based on rural as space and socio-spatial or socio-cultural parameters, respectively. The deinition based on sociospatial parameters uses common spatial descriptors of rural environments such as land use, population density and employment. The problem with this approach is that these parameters are not feasible for universal use since countries will demand different cut-off points for the minimum population density or employment rate. Furthermore, this deinition does not provide much insight into the nature of the rural environments and is an attempt to it a deinition to what is already considered rural. Nevertheless, this deinition can describe changes in the spatial descriptors that relate to effects of afforestation on community beneits. When quantifying the proportion of urban versus rural dwellers, a common cut-off point in the Nordic region is set at 200 inhabitants per settlement. However, when using this deinition for the Nordic Countries, Iceland would be the most urbanized country in the Nordic group with around 94% of the population in urban settlements, contrasted with Norway which would then have the highest rural igure of around 25%. The socio-cultural deinition assumes a characteristic rural lifestyle opposed to the urban lifestyle, typically described as relaxed versus hectic or being close to or separated from the natural environment. A third deinition understands rurality as a personal perception and interpretation of everyday reality. Thus, this deinition depends on the background of the person who observes the area; i.e. personal identity with the landscape. Urban people or new citizens in rural areas may be attracted by the beauty of the landscape and a more relaxed lifestyle, while farmers consider those areas rural where primary production is possible. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 77 It is dificult to select one single deinition in the discussion of the effect of afforestation. As we will see later in this chapter, the effects that afforestation and forestry have on rural societies are connected to socio-spatial and social-cultural parameters as well as the personal perception of the area by the inhabitants. Therefore, rurality is not only about population density, employment and primary production, but also about lifestyle, well-being and recreation. Rural development The most common goal of rural development policy is to strengthen the socio-economic livability of rural areas and to reverse the migration to urban areas. Afforestation is one of the measures employed to inluence rural development and a strategy to reach the desired future state of the countryside. It is important to take into consideration perceived quality of life as well as individual perspectives on the future of rural communities. Therefore, we see development in a much wider perspective than simply economic growth or progress. Development is about enhancing individual and societal endowments and thereby increasing their capabilities and choices. When analyzing the effect of afforestation, rural development can be seen as comprising the dimensions of contents and process, respectively. The contents dimension of rural development involves a range of measures, employed to impact several factors in a given area, e.g. rural economy, quality of life, landscape identity and protection of the environment. Rural development is thereby understood as a multi-dimensional process with the aim of integrating in a sustainable way different economic, socio-cultural and environmental objectives. The process dimension deals with the question of how the involved measures are institutionally nested, invented, implemented and executed. Commonly it distinguishes between two ideal processes, the endogenous and the exogenous. The endogenous process is based on the involvement of the rural communities in their development, frequently referred to as “bottom-up” strategies. In contrast, exogenous rural development processes are results of forces originating from outside the rural areas or “top-down strategies”. New forests are seen as the content of rural development, while afforestation would represent the process of establishing new forests. How that process is executed signiicantly inluences the success of any afforestation 78 Effects of afforestation on rural development programme. As the term rural is value loaded and afforestation is in most cases carried out on land under local tenure, we believe that integration of the local populations in the execution of policies is vital for successful results. Afforestation Historically the Nordic countries have been endowed with extensive native forests. However, wide-spread deforestation has taken place in some of the Nordic countries, leaving large tracts of land denuded. The passage from deforestation or forest shrinkage to afforestation has been labelled as forest transition. This process has been described for a range of countries with a large decline in forest cover, often for a relatively long period of time. At some point the trend may reverse and forest cover again increases. This turnaround point has been labelled the “forest transition point”, identifying the net woodland cover at the time of the turn when afforestation comes into the picture. The forest transition point differs between countries and can be associated with different factors, where issues like agricultural reforms, rural exodus and urbanization, wood scarcity and evolving land use policies often play an important role. Rural development is commonly identiied as the key rationale when authorities and policy makers employ afforestation as a measure to improve rural conditions. The Nordic countries provide important examples of forest transition. Afforestation has been intitiated during different periods in all countries, although there are substantial regional differences. Currently, Sweden and Figure 39. Heradsskogar afforestation programme aims to establish 35,000 ha of new forests in East Iceland. The picture shows young Siberian larch afforestation sites, planted by the local farmers for rural development. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 79 Finland are among the most heavily forested countries in Europe where forest-based industries are key economic activities. Norway also has a substantial forest cover, but regions of the country have in recent history undergone signiicant forest transition, especially on the west coast. There, extensive areas were afforested during the post war period, with the aim of rural development. The respective plantations are now becoming mature, ready for economic exploitation. The two least forested Nordic countries have ongoing ambitious plans to expand woodland cover in lowland areas: Iceland from 1.5% to at least 5% and Denmark from 11% to 22%. Both countries became almost totally deprived of forests, but Denmark went through the forest transition point around 200 years ago, while Iceland did so only in the 1990s. Although the Nordic countries have no uniform experience to share on the effects of afforestation, many interesting examples can be discussed in a comparative perspective. Effects of afforestation on rural development Forests and forestry are interconnected with employment and the economy in our societies. Consequently, it is the actual use of forest functions and services that has to be considered as having an effect on rural development rather than the extent of forest cover. This demands a discussion of rural forestry and how different forest functions and services can contribute to the rural community. It is also inherent that afforestation is a long term Figure 40. Having lost almost all of its forest cover, Iceland has now halted deforestation. The results from ambitious afforestation schemes are now becoming signiicant in the Icelandic rural landscapes. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. 80 Effects of afforestation on rural development exercise and its effects have to be evaluated in that context. Therefore the effects on rural development can be different in different periods. As an example, rural communities might appreciate the labour income generated by the establishment phase, but as the plantations mature and mechanized harvesting starts in the woodlands, controversies might arise. It is generally assumed that forestry can increase economic vitality, social attractiveness and ecological integrity of rural areas. However, it is important to understand that afforestation can also have negative or contradictory effects. The desired effects of forestry on rural conditions are rightly assigned to four different categories: (i) community beneits, (ii) economic welfare, (iii) landscape identity and (iv) environmental/natural quality. Our focus will be on social aspects, community beneits and contributions to economic welfare. Further, we will discuss some socio-economic issues that can cause controversies in rural areas linked with afforestation. Community beneits The criterion of community beneits deals with the impact of forests on personal and communal values, changes in demography and gender issues. As an example, rural development could act as a measure to halt the exodus of young people from rural regions to urban areas. Figure 41. Forests and forestry are subject to changes, and so is their role in rural development. Forestry in the Nordic countries is no longer only about economic pursuits, but also about lifestyle and environment. The Fareoese pop diva Eivör Palsdottir performs in Hallormsstadaskógur forest in rural East Iceland. Such events can contribute signiicantly to rural development. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 81 Community beneits of forests are partly inluenced by the objectives and management practices of the forest owners. In many rural areas, a change in values and objectives of forestry can especially be attributed to an increasing number of private forest owners. Generally, the social structure of forest ownership has altered in many regions of the Nordic countries. The former agrarian lifestyle of forest owners has partly been replaced by non-farm forms of living, and a greater number of private, non-industrial forest owners are found. Private forest owners can be divided into two main typologies with their main motivation being either production or consumption. For forest owners who have consumption as the major motivation, aspects like enjoyment, nature conservation and biodiversity become more important than the production of timber and other wood products, and they may contribute positively to the rural society. Indeed, private forest owners are increasingly interested in nature conservation and amenity values. This can have an important impact on community beneits and determine lifestyle and the well-being of the people living in rural areas. Furthermore, although living in rural areas, many new forest owners have an increasingly urbanized lifestyle. This demands certain services of the rural community. Hence, forestry can be one of the driving forces in the development of rural communities in other ields than those directly related to forests and forestry. Therefore, the role of forestry in the development of rural areas should not only be discussed as the possibility to provide labour and income opportunities, but also in terms of life quality. People living in rural areas may perceive forests more in the context of nature conservation and landscape quality and less as an economic activity or carrier of services. The increase in life quality due to better recreational possibilities and access to green areas is an example of how forest services not related to wood production can have a positive effect on rural communities. This can be seen in the increasing number of urban people who prefer to live in the countryside but work in cities. However, this lifestyle demands a well developed infrastructure and other social economic services, which leads us to the next category: economic welfare. Economic welfare The criterion of economic welfare is related to the possible impact of forests on daily existence, livelihood and the well-being of the local community. It is therefore important to consider differences in forestry and socio-economic structures between regions and countries because these 82 Effects of afforestation on rural development differences make it dificult to draw generally applicable conclusions on the effect of forestry on rural economic development. A clear relationship between forest cover and regional development opportunities in many European countries has made forest resources an important factor for local employment and income in many less favoured regions. Therefore, the discussion of employment and the effect of afforestation are often directly linked to the increase in forest cover. However, forest resources as such do not create employment, although they offer possibilities for regional development. Hence, it is not necessarily the quantity of forest cover in a rural area, but the integration of forest services into the rural economy that is important. As indicated above, the role of public forestry and private forest owners in rural economic development has changed. Foresters must now collaborate with a diverse spectrum of new citizen groups and professions involved in forest planning and management. This goes hand in hand with an increasing acceptance of multifunctional forestry. Traditional forestry has evolved into more comprehensive, integrated forest ecosystem management. The contribution of forestry to the economic vitality of rural areas is no longer restricted to primary production. For many new forest owners, traditional forestry in terms of timber production makes up only a minor part of their income. In contrast, forestry comprises diverse social values and uses, and is highly interrelated with many community socio-economic and political systems. The economic effect of afforestation is thus not only restricted to employment and the income of the rural community members but includes aspects such as infrastructure, mobility, real estate prices and other general facilities. These aspects can be dificult to assign to community beneits or economic welfare, as they play an important role in both. Figure 42. Although there are multiple linkages between afforestation and rural development, wood production is still a key service of forests in rural Finland, contributing signiicantly to economic welfare. Photo: Jon Geir Petursson. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 83 Employment is still the most important factor in the discussion of rural development. In Finland, Sweden and Norway, the forest sector makes up about 3-5% of total employment. Large-scale forest industries are important to guarantee a constant low of income, help to maintain the infrastructure in rural areas, and keep forest owners interested in management activities. However, the adaptation of forestry to large-scale industrial needs makes the development of new opportunities dificult for small-scale owners as well as processors. In fact, employment in forestry and the large-scale forest industries has continued to decline, but employment within small- and medium-scale forest industries has become more important in many European countries. This includes also countries like Iceland, in which forestry and related industries are still young. Employment in sectors other than forestry can be enhanced as an indirect effect of afforestation. These are typically service sectors that are indirectly related to the forest industries, but also other sectors such as tourism. Many of these services will help to create stronger links between urban demand and rural supply. Finally, mobility is an important factor in making rural areas attractive for new settlers. Often, large-scale industries may help to maintain road systems and other infrastructure in the countryside. Nevertheless, once roads are built in connection with forest management activities, they will persist as a long-term effect of afforestation in areas that may earlier have been rather remote. Socio/economic controversies Although afforestation is often initiated to create desired outcomes in rural areas, such initiatives can cause controversy. Afforestation schemes compete for land and therefore bring constraints to traditional agricultural systems. Recently, the forest cover of many Nordic countries has expanded following agricultural reforms, namely the decrease in sheep farming in Iceland and grain farming in South Sweden. Therefore, the conversion of land to forestry can be seen as a threat to agricultural potential. The same concerns apply when abandoned agricultural land or open landscapes are afforested. From an economic point of view, it can be claimed that creating sustainable rural forest-based jobs by afforestation programmes is relatively expensive, compared to other alternatives. On the other hand, these payments can be highly appreciated by the current landowners, creating desired economic effects in rural areas. Furthermore, forestry is a long term investment, and therefore afforestation grants are usually not perceived as 84 Effects of afforestation on rural development competition, as can be the case with other governmental grants and interventions. Afforestation initiatives can cause higher land prices, which is also often the intention of the schemes. However, higher land prices can cause inancial problems during a generation change on the farms and may discourage new people from moving to the rural regions. Controversies are also found around the institutional structure of afforestation schemes. If schemes are top-down enforced in the rural areas, there are few success stories. A real contribution to rural development is much more likely to be achieved if local communities are involved in all stages of the project. This is linked with the way authorities choose to implement afforestation. Economic instruments are usually preferred, awarding grants to landowners for planting trees rather that governmental acquisition of land based on legal instruments and enforcement. Afforestation in practice The evaluation of the effect of afforestation programmes aimed at rural development is a dificult task. Any analysis of future outcomes of afforestation is complicated by the fact that it is unavoidably a long term process that stretches beyond several generations of landowners. Future social and institutional changes can easily impact the proposed outcome and make it dificult to assess. Furthermore, as the effects on rural development are so highly context dependent, it is not possible to provide an all encompassing example. However, when comparing recent afforestation programmes in Iceland with afforestation that took place in Norway many years ago, we can see some similarities. On the west coast of Norway many similar issues prevailed 60 years ago as in rural east Iceland in the 1990s: extensive deforested areas, economic decline, low property prices, emigration and scarce off-farm employment opportunities. In both countries, governments initiated afforestation to stimulate rural development, using it as a inancial instrument to channel income to the farmers. This was well received by the farmers, and extensive areas of former pasture lands have been transformed into forests. On the Norwegian west coast, the success of the tree growing exercise is hardly being debated today, as extensive, vital forest stands are now found in the region. What causes debates, however, is the issue of the actual contribution of the afforestation to the local societies. The region is still experiencing a population decline and further struggles with establishing forest-based enterprises, as a large proportion of the forest owners live outside the area and lack the incentives to engage in such rural activities. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 85 One recent afforestation project in Iceland is the Heradsskogar project in East Iceland. Started in 1989, it aims to establish 35,000 ha of new forests, mainly with the help of local farmers. So far, the Heradsskogar project has been a success. A large proportion of the local farmers have engaged in the project, and they seem to perceive a signiicant level of ownership in the project. The project has already contributed signiicantly to local employment, and rising property prices are at least partly believed to be associated with the afforestation project. It remains to be seen how the future community will use this resource and if afforestation will contribute to rural development on a sustainable base. The experience from West Norway shows well that measuring the effect of afforestation on rural development is much more complex than being just about trees. Although the trees mature well, societal beneits may not follow. Conclusion Afforestation has been shown to be a possible measure for improving the development of rural areas. The Nordic countries provide good examples of different stages of forest transition and afforestation programmes and their respective effects on local communities. It should be emphasised that a positive impact of afforestation is not directly related to the increase in forest cover and the development of forest industry as other services and forest functions that follow may be equally or even more important. Nevertheless, a prediction of future outcomes is dificult as afforestation is an undertaking that takes generations, and societal and institutional conditions change over time. Presently, a change in forest ownership towards an increasing number of small-scale private owners, often with urban roots, contributes to various new forest functions that aim for consumption rather than production. Hence, afforestation is important not only for timber production and employment within the timber industry, but also for recreation, lifestyle and other socio-economic beneits. However, it was also shown that an analysis of the effect of afforestation on rural development is complicated by the dificulty of deining rurality, especially among the Nordic countries. The effects of afforestation should therefore always be considered individually for the different societies and regions. 86 Effects of afforestation on rural development Bibliography Elands, BHM. and Wiersum, KF. 2001. Forestry and rural developoment in Europe: An exploration of socio-political discourses. Forest Policy and Economics 3. 5–16. Elands, BHM. and Wiersum KF. 2003 Forestry and rural development in Europe: Research results and policy implications of a comparative European study. Forest and nature conservation policy group. Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Elands, BHM., O’Leary, TN., Boerwinkel, HWJ. and Wiersum, KF. 2004. Forests as a mirror of rural conditions: Local views on the role of forests across Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 6. 469–482. Dhubhain, AN., Chobanova, R., Karppinen, H., Mizaraite, D., Ritter, E., Slee, B. and Wall, S. 2007. The values and objectives of forest owners and their inluence on forestry behaviour: The implications for entrepreneurship. In: Small-scale Forestry. Ed: Niskanen, A. Springer Verlag. 347–357. Hoogstra, MA., Schanz, H. and Wiersum, KF. 2004. The future of European forestry – between urbanization and rural development. Forest Policy and Economics 6. 441–445. Hyttinen, P., Ottitsch, A., Pelli, P. and Niskanen, A. 1999. Forest related resources, industries, services and know-how in the border regions of the European Union. EFI working paper 21. European Forest Institute, Joensuu. Hyttinen, P., Niskanen, A. and Ottitsch, A. 2000. New challenges for the forest sector to contribute to rural development in Europe. Land Use Policy 17. 221–232. Illeris, S. 2005. The role of services in regional and urban development: A reappraisal of our understanding. Service Industries Journal. 25. 447–460. Kennedy, JJ. and Thomas, JW. 1995. Managing natural resources as social value. In: A new century for natural resource management. Eds: Knight, R.L. and Bates, S.F. Island Press, Washington, DC. 311–322. Kennedy, JJ., Thomas, JW. and Glueck, P. 2001. Evolving forestry and rural development beliefs at midpoint and close to the 20th century. Forest Policy and Economics 3. 81–95. Madsen, LM. 2002. The Danish afforestation program and spatial planning: New challenges. Landscape and Urban Planning 58. 241–254. Rye, JF. 2006. Rural youths’ image of the rural. Journal of rural studies 22: 409–421. Moseley, MJ. 2003. Rural development–making it local. In: Rural development – principles and practices: Saga Publications, 1–4. Mather, A. and Needle, C. 1998. The forest transition: A theoretical basis. Area 30, 117–124. Schanz, H. 1999. Social changes and forestry. In: Forestry in changing societies in Europe. Eds: Pelkonen, P., Pitkanen, A., Schmidt, P., Oesten, G., Piussi, P. and Rojas, E. Joensuu: DE-METER Series, Vol. 2. 59–82. Slee, B. and Wiersum, F. 2001. New opportunities for forest related rural development in industrialized countries. Forest Policy and Economics 3. 1–4. Opposite page: Spruce canopy at Hyytiälä, Finland. Photo: Bjarni D. Sigurdsson Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle Bjarni D. Sigurdsson, Harald Sverdrup, Salim Belyazid and Brynhildur Bjarnadottir 88 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle Introduction Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases and their possible impacts on Earth’s climate are recognised as one of the main environmental problems of today. Therefore, the Nordic countries have been strong supporters of the Kyoto protocol and in their sustainable development plan, for 2001–2004, the importance of forest management and afforestation for carbon sequestration was emphasised. Carbon sequestration is an important environmental service that can be affected by afforestation of treeless lands and management of already established forests. It is only in the past few years that this has been of high focus. For example, in an earlier synthesis of afforestation in the Nordic region by Helles and Linddal in 1996, the importance of carbon sequestration was not mentioned. However, at the international conference entitled Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development in 2005 there were a number of papers presented that emphasised carbon sequestration as an important environmental service. Therefore it was considered important to summarise here how afforestation is linked to carbon sequestration and its role in the Nordic carbon budget. Where and how is carbon stored in the forest? Forests take up large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, which partly is stored as carbon in aboveground biomass (foliage, branches, stems and ground vegetation) and partly in soils as living and dead organic matter (Figure 43). The CO2 is returned to the atmosphere through respiration by the living organisms that inhabit the forest or by decomposition of soil organic matter and combustion that takes place during forest ires. Forest ecosystems contain the largest part of the carbon stored on land on Earth, both in the form of biomass and dead soil organic matter. Generally, most of the carbon stock is found in the soil, not in the tree biomass (Figure 43). The ratio between carbon in the soil and in the vegetation is often close to 2:1 in northern temperate forests and as much as 5:1 in northern boreal forests. The turnover time of carbon in different ecosystem compartments differs greatly. In aboveground compartments it can vary from seconds to centuries (photosynthates vs. wood), whereas it may vary from hours to Afforestation in the Nordic countries 89 Figure 43. Carbon stocks in a 55 year old downy birch stand in southern Iceland that had been established by direct seeding on eroded sand. Illustration by Thorbergur H. Jonsson. millennia in the soil (exudates vs. dead organic matter). This is important to bear in mind when carbon sequestration is discussed. Sequestration takes place over some given time and the time step chosen will determine which compartment seems to be most important. With shorter time steps, such as decades, the change in aboveground biomass is likely to play the most important role. However, when predictions are made for centuries to millennia, changes in the soil carbon stock will always have the largest impact. Carbon sequestration through changed forest management Forests sequester carbon from the atmosphere at a national level if their management leads to a net increase of standing volume or soil organic matter. In Finland and Sweden the net annual CO2 sequestration due to the increase in woody biomass during 1990–2000 amounted to 30 and 20 million tones CO2eq, respectively. The annual emissions of greenhouse gases from both countries were about 70 million tones CO2eq during the same period, so the forests reduced the net emissions by 30–40%. This igure clearly shows the importance of forests and forest management on national greenhouse gas balances. 90 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle The potential to further increase the annual carbon sequestration in the existing forests relates to management options such as thinning intensity, rotation length, drainage regime, tree species, and silvicultural system (e.g. selection cutting systems vs. clear-cut systems). The present management of forests in the Nordic countries has mainly been developed to optimise the production of timber, pulp and biofuel, i.e. to maximise growth rates or stemwood production with rather short rotation lengths. Implementation of changed forest management strategies to maximise carbon stocks in existing forests could involve, for example, an increase in the rotation length. Such a change would lead to carbon sequestration at a landscape or national level during the next 100 years (the usual rotation period within the Nordic region) while the effect on the changing age structure would take place. Again, there is the problem of time scale; after the initial effect of changed age structure, the forests as a whole would be less eficient in annually storing carbon in biomass because growth rates decrease with age. This management option will therefore not lead to a inal solution of the emission problem but may be useful to gain more time to direct the national energy system away from fossil fuels. The existing forests also have important roles other than wood production; they are an important habitat for many species, they are important in maintaining water quality, they are used by people for recreational purposes and they provide employment through multiple other uses. An increase in rotation length would have an impact on these other roles of forests. Maximizing carbon storage with longer rotations may favour biodiversity and some social activities (e.g. recreation), but could have a negative inluence on timber, pulp wood and bioenergy production. It is therefore important to evaluate these contrasting effects of changed forest management of the existing forests for increased carbon sequestration on timber production, biodiversity and other environmental services. There are at present currently a number of Nordic projects that are dealing with these issues. How important is afforestation for carbon sequestration? The importance of forests in the global carbon cycle is clearly seen in the impact of deforestation on the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Deforestation is considered responsible for a quarter of the global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in the past 20 years. According to FAO’s statistics, the net deforestation amounted to 8.9 million ha per year between Afforestation in the Nordic countries 91 1990 and 2000, while it was reduced to 7.3 million ha per year during 2000-2005. The main reason for reduced net global deforestation is increased forest cover in the northern hemisphere, both because of natural expansion and direct afforestation. The global afforestation amounts to 2.3 million ha each year. Within the Nordic region forest cover is expanding. This is mostly because of land conversion from agriculture and livestock grazing, but direct afforestation is also partly responsible. The effect of afforestation since 1990 on the national greenhouse gas balance is relatively largest in Iceland, the Nordic country with the least forest cover. In a paper presented at the AFFORNORD conference it was estimated that in 2005 the carbon sequestration by afforestation amounted to ca. 3% of Iceland’s 1990 CO2 emissions, and with the plans for future afforestation this could be as much as 6–11% in 2013. Both afforestation of treeless lands and changed forest management of existing forests enhance carbon sequestration in the Nordic countries for decades to centuries. Afforestation has more potential in Denmark and Iceland, where forest cover is low (<15%), while changed forest management of existing forests has more potential in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Both afforestation and changed forest management can play an important role in the Nordic countries’ greenhouse gas balance, especially as a temporary solution while the societies change their main energy source from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Gaps in our understanding of carbon sequestration by afforestation Most of the C sequestration by afforestation is an effect of an increase of woody biomass as forest is re-established (Figures 43 and 45). As stated before, soil C stocks may exceed aboveground C stocks by 2–5 times in our forest ecosystems. How soil C stock changes after afforestation is not well understood. To better understand the long-term effect of afforestation on C sequestration we need to study the soil C dynamics. Because of the large time step involved with soil processes, it is doubtful if forest soil C stocks have reached a steady state in the Nordic region since the ice retreated after the last glaciation ca. 10,000 years ago and the area was colonised by trees. Measurements have indeed shown that many forested areas are still accumulating soil C today. Therefore we suggest in 92 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle Figure 44. Schematic representation of possible changes in the ecosystem C stocks in a deforestation/afforestation cycle. After deforestation, carbon is lost from the system until it reaches the level supported by ground vegetation (red). After afforestation, carbon is sequestered until it reaches the amount supported by the forest stand (green) The whole line shows how C stocks could change if the system was unaffected by other dynamic external factors (fertility, forest type, nitrogen deposition, climate). The lower broken line indicates how the C stock could change if for example much organic matter was lost from the soil. The higher broken line indicates how C stocks might change if a more productive forest type was established. Figure 44 that the long-term ecosystem C stocks are not constant but rather gradually increase if the vegetation is not disturbed. It is also important to note that most treeless landscapes that today are used for afforestation within the Nordic region were once covered by forest, but were deforested for human land use some centuries or millennia ago. When these areas were deforestated the ecosystem C stock decreased because the treeless ecosystem contained less biomass aboveground, but also because of less C input to the soil (grazing, burning, soil erosion). The ecosystem C stock may not necessarily reach the same amount as it contained before the deforestation until after a number of rotations (Figure 44). How soil and litter C stocks change following afforestation is likely to be dependent on a number of factors, such as tree species and management strategies used. There are a number of factors that can contribute to how soil and litter C stocks change following afforestation. The Norwegian and Icelandic Figure 45. Decomposition potential in stands of different tree species, measured as tensile strengths in a cotton strip assay. Higher numbers indicate less potential. Figure from Arneberg et al. 2007. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 93 AFFORNORD teams made a special study of how tree species used for afforestation in Iceland inluenced decomposition potential in the topsoil. A clear difference in decomposition potential was found between treeless pastures and stands of different tree species (Figure 45). The tree species used for afforestation could therefore be ranked according to their increasing decomposition potential: lodgepole pine < Sitka spruce < Siberian larch < mountain birch In future afforestation activities the different properties of tree species should be taken into consideration in order to choose the most ecologically favourable species. Scaling up the effect of afforestation on carbon stocks Because of the complexity and the range of time scales involved, simulation models must be used to study the effects of afforestation on ecosystem processes such as carbon sequestration. To fully understand the effect on soil processes, such models must look at ecosystem changes for at least one century or more. To simulate the effect of afforestation on carbon sequestration under Nordic conditions, the ForSAFE model was used (Figure 46). The model simulates the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, base cations Figure 46. Flow chart showing how the ForSAFE model links environmental factors with changes in carbon stocks in soil, ground vegetation and trees. 94 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle and water in a forest ecosystem, with focus on tree growth, soil chemistry and soil organic matter build-up and decomposition. In this chapter, we focus mostly on the effects on the carbon stocks in the soil and aboveground. Table 3. Description of the two contrasting afforestation sites in Sweden and Iceland used for the present study. DR = Dystric Regosol, AN = Andosol. Site name Lat. Long. Mean temp. (°C) Mean rainfall (mm) Söstared, W Sweden 57.6°N 12.4°E 8.1 Hallormsstadur E Iceland 65.1°N 14.8°W 3.4 Soil type Forest type 850 DR Initial: Beech, Pine, Oak Afforestation: 81% Scots pine 19% Norway spruce 738 AN Initial: Mountain birch Afforestation: Siberian larch As a case study for this report we have chosen the two most contrasting conditions we had data for within our region: Söstared, West Sweden, where afforestation took place ca. 90 years ago and Hallormsstadur, East Iceland, where afforestation took place 55 years ago (Table 3). Both places were afforested with coniferous plantations after having previously been deforested in the 14th-16th centuries and gradually converted to grazed heathlands. Land history in outline: • • Hallormsstadur: o Iceland mountain birch woodland to 1650. 1650–1952 open land grazed primarily by sheep. Afforested with Siberian larch in 1952. o In the model runs, we initiated during the open land period in 1800 and ran to 2100. Söstared o Beech-Oak-Pine open forest canopy to 1650. 1650–1890 open land grazed by sheep and cattle. Afforested with Norway spruce in 1880 o In these runs, we initiated at 1800 with a closed forest canopy and ran to 2100. The biogeochemistry of both sites was simulated with the ForSAFE model. From the outputs, we have chosen to highlight the dynamics of the carbon stocks in the ecosystem. This is shown in Figure 48. It can be seen that the aboveground C sequestration was larger where Norway spruce was Afforestation in the Nordic countries 95 Figure 47. Nitrogen deposition at Söstared and at Hallormsstadur. used for afforestation in Sweden, largely because of the warmer climate, longer growing seasons and larger amounts of nitrogen inputs (Figure 47). But because of the higher production, the rotations in Sweden were also much shorter. The lower aboveground C sequestration in Iceland, however, was partly compensated by a long-term increase in soil carbon, whereas at the Swedish site the amount of soil carbon was predicted to decline. In these simulations we have chosen to show the period after 1900, when the Swedish sites had increased nitrogen inputs whereas in Iceland no substantial increases occurred. In another project closely linked to the AFFORNORD (NECC: Nordic Centre of Excellence for Studies of Ecosystem Carbon Exchange and its Interactions with the Climate System) we made direct measurements of the carbon exchange in a young Siberian larch forest in eastern Iceland in 2004-2007 (Figure 49). In 2005 the plantation sequestered 727 g of CO2 m-2 (Figure 50). The largest proportion of this was explained by an increase in soil C. These results are in line with the modelled results for Hallormsstadur presented in Figure 48, where the soil C stock in the Siberian larch forests was expected to increase after afforestation. At Söstared carbon decreased irst following the deforestation of broadleaves in ca. 1650. The loss of soil C continued even after afforestation with Norway spruce (Figure 48). The reason was mainly because the conifers set root litter into the soil at shallower depths than the original broadleaves, where decomposition was enhanced by the large nitrogen input. At Hallormsstadur there had also been a loss of soil C after deforestation around 1650. However, after afforestation in the 1950s, similar amounts 96 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle Figure 48. Comparison of the two sites modelled, Hallormsstadur in eastern Iceland and Söstared in southwestern Sweden. The diagrams show forest growth as standing biomass (top), expressed as carbon, and the topsoil carbon (bottom). Symbols indicate actual measurements in situ. were again being sequestered in the soil as in the 16th century. This was because there is little difference between the rooting depth of birch and larch and that the nitrogen input in Iceland is relatively small. As discussed earlier, the rotation length is then of major importance for the amount of carbon being stored in the forests at a national level. This can also be seen at a site level in the above example. In Söstared, clearcuts come at too frequent intervals under the present practice to store much carbon on a time scale of a century or more. Therefore the effective sequestration time there was only measured in decades. At Hallormsstadur, the effective sequestration time was much longer, but still limited in time. At Hallormsstadur the stand was approaching maturation in 2100, with less net carbon being sequestered (Figure 48). However, an increase in soil C in Hallormsstadur further ampliied its potential for long-term C storage. Recently there has been much discussion on whole-tree harvesting for bioenergy within the Nordic region. At Söstared the soil C stock sequestered in the past is still declining (Figure 48). Clearly, whole tree harvesting at such a site would aggravate this decline and thus is not a good option 97 Afforestation in the Nordic countries Figure 49. A measurement tower over a Siberian larch plantation in eastern Iceland. Micrometeorological methods can be used to study the CO2 exchange of forest ecosystems on a second to inter-annual time scale. These can be helpful to better understand the processes that mediate changes in above- and belowground C stocks. Photo: Brynhildur Bjarnadottir. from the point of view of carbon sequestration. Such management options should always consider the effect on long-term carbon sequestration. Some areas may be more suitable than others for whole-tree harvesting. From the above example it is clear that initial conditions, land-use history, current management scheme and choice of tree species for afforestation can greatly affect the amount of carbon sequestered from the atmosphere and the duration of its storage. Selecting the most productive tree species under the most favourable growing conditions may not necessarily give the most carbon sequestration over a longer period of time. Interestingly, both the net amount and the duration of carbon sequestration were higher in the cool climate of Iceland than in the nemoral climate of West Sweden. 10 5 -727 g CO2 m-2 a-1 ) 0 d -5 2 m -10 NEE (g CO Figure 50. An annual carbon balance of a 13 year old Siberian larch forest in eastern Iceland. Negative numbers indicate net carbon uptake by the forest and positive numbers indicate net eflux. The annual carbon balance was 727g CO2 m-2 sequestration. Figure: Bjarnadottir etal. 2007. -15 -20 -25 jan. feb. mar. apr. maí jún. júl. ágú. Year 2005 sep. okt. nóv. des. 98 Effects of afforestation on the carbon cycle Afforestation helps in the short run to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and this may be considered an important ecosystem service. However, most of the carbon stored is not found in permanent storage. It may, however, be seen as a temporary solution while societies change their main energy sources from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Conclusions • • • • • The models show that afforestation is a possible means of counteracting increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but site conditions and choice of tree species may have a large effect, both on the amount and duration of the carbon sequestration. If the main goal of the afforestation is to store atmospheric carbon, then it is not necessarily the fastest growing tree species under the most favourable conditions for tree growth that has the most potential. The AFFORNORD study shows that integrated models are of help in interpreting past and future developments in complex systems. Only two sites were used in this part of the AFFORNORD study. In order to create a better overview picture, efforts should be taken to include more sites and in all the Nordic countries. Research on environmental services in relation to afforestation and forests is a relatively new ield, where better quantiication of the impacts of management is needed, especially in terms of the challenge of balancing forestry practices with their effects on carbon sequestration, economic and social objectives. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 99 Bibliography Akselsson, C., Westling, O., Sverdrup H. and Gundersen P. 2007. Nutrient and carbon budgets in forest soils as decision support in sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 238. 167–174. Arneberg, A., Nygaard PH., Stabbetorp, OE., Sigurdsson BD. and Oddsdottir ES. 2007. Afforestation effects on decomposition and vegetation in Iceland. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 75–80, Belyazid, S., Westling, O. and Sverdrup, H. 2006. Modelling changes in soil chemistry at 16 Swedish coniferous forest sites following deposition reduction. Environmental Pollution. 144. 596–609. Bjarnadottir, B., Sigurdsson, BD. and Lindroth A. 2007. Estimate of annual carbon balance of a young Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) plantation in Iceland. Tellus. 59B. 891–899. Czimczik, CI., Mund, M., Schulze, ED. and Wirth C. 2005. Effects of reforestation, deforestation and afforestation on carbon storage in soils. In: The carbon balance of forest biomes. Eds: H Grifiths and PG Jarvis. Taylor & Francis, London. 319–330. Freedman, B. 2007. Beneits of afforestation. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 13–23. Grace, J. 2005. Role of forest biomes in the global carbon balance. In: The carbon balance of forest biomes. Eds: Grifiths, H. and Jarvis, PG. Taylor & Francis, London, 19–45. Gundersen, P., Weslien, J., Sigurdsson, BD., Sætersdal, M., Finér, L. and Callesen I. 2007. The objectives of the research network “Centre of Advanced Research on Environmental Services” (CAR-ES). In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18-22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O.133–137. Hansen, K. and Vesterdal L. (eds) 2004. Guidelines for planning afforestation on previously managed arable land. Forest and Landscape. KVL, Denmark. 107 pp. Helles, F. and Linddal M. 1996. Afforestation experience in the Nordic countries. Nord 1996. 15. 159 pp. Jarvis, PG., Ibrom A. and Linder S. 2006. ”Carbon forestry”: Managing forests to conserve carbon. The carbon balance of forest biomes. Eds: Grifiths, H. and Jarvis, PG. Taylor & Francis, London. 331–349. Nordic Council of Ministers. 2001. Sustainable development: New bearings for the Nordic countries. Nord 2001. 3. 174 pp. Sigurdsson, BD., Snorrason A., Kjartansson, BTh. and Jonsson JA. 2007. Total area of planted forests in Iceland and their carbon stocks and luxes. In: Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005. TemaNord 2007: 508. Eds: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, ES. and Eggertsson, O. 198–205. Snorrason, A., Sigurdsson, BD., Gudbergsson, G., Svavarsdottir K. and Jónsson ThH. 2002. Carbon sequestration in forest plantations in Iceland. Icelandic Agricultural Sciences. 15. 79–91. Opposite page: Maple leaves in autumn colours. Picture: Bjarni D. Sigurdsson. Conclusions and recommendations Gudmundur Halldorsson 102 Conclusions and recommendations In the AFFORNORD project, an interdisciplinary approach was taken to evaluate effects of large-scale afforestation projects. In 2005, an international conference was held at Reykholt, Iceland, on how afforestation affects ecosystems, rural development and the landscape. This led to the publication of a proceedings book in the TemaNord series (TemaNord 2007:508) including a wealth of scientiic information relating to a wide range of afforestation aspects. However, the book lacked a comprehensive overview. In the present book the active AFFORNORD participants have aimed to summarise the information presented at the conference and produced by several additional studies and workshops during 2004–2006. At the workshops we discussed different topics in greater depth, ranging from historical reviews and effects of afforestation on wood supply, to effects on public health and geodiversity. All of these topics are important when the over-all effects of afforestation are evaluated. The hope was that, by making such an interdisciplinary study, we could give a balanced evaluation of how afforestation can be optimized in relation to various beneits, disadvantages and challenges. What can we learn from working together? The Nordic region is homogeneous in culture, lifestyle and political system. This is relected, for example, in the establishment of the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the natural environment differs greatly within the Nordic region. In prehistoric times the Nordic countries had more forest cover than today, but the dominant land-use led to large scale deforestation in some regions, while others have kept their forest cover more intact. The present forest cover ranges from 0.1% of the total land area in the Faroe Islands to 69% in Finland. Generally speaking, the southern and western part of the region initially experienced most severe deforestation, subsequently followed by large-scale afforestation efforts during the past 150 years. Large-scale afforestations were initiated already in the 19th century in Denmark, in the 1930s in West Norway and by the end of the 1980s in Iceland. The considerable time-span gives opportunities to use knowledge and experience from regions already well into the afforestation process, for the beneit of other regions that are in their primary phase. In the beginning of the afforestation phase the primary goals were production of raw materials for the forest industry. However, during this long period the main goals have shifted somewhat, from wood production to multiple-use forestry. Afforestation in the Nordic countries 103 Critical indings on the beneits of afforestation Wood production • • • • • Timber is an environmentally friendly and versatile raw material. It has a very small carbon ”footprint” and can be used as a renewable energy source. Climate change and sustainability issues are likely to make these characteristics increasingly valued in the coming decades. In some areas there is a potential for increasing the yield of timber by changing tree species. Timber is the primary source of direct revenue for many woodland owners and their main motivation for multipurpose forest management. International competition will maintain pressure on timber prices for the foreseeable future. A crucial question is how to inluence rural business activities in a constructive way to ensure a more eficient outcome of afforestation programmes. Biodiversity • • Fungi and soil invertebrates respond to afforestation with an increase in species richness. In Iceland the density of breeding birds and the density of soil fauna are signiicantly higher in native birch forests as well as exotic conifer plantations compared to heathlands. Landscape and geo-diversity • Afforestation can be used to protect speciic landscapes by halting or preventing erosion. Recreation and public health • • • Nature provides us with essential resources for our survival and which are of critical importance for human health and well-being. Many studies have found a positive relationship between human experiences of nature and our social, mental and physical health. People seem to react differently, and most often, positively, to the natural environment compared to urban sites. 104 • • Conclusions and recommendations Nature preferences seem to be very similar within the Scandinavian countries: people like landscape variation that includes characteristics of the genuine natural environment. A forest is an ideal alternative for offering varied nature experiences and for reloading ones mental and physical strength since such an environment only requires spontaneous concentration. Rural development • • • • • Afforestation can bring much needed economic activity and employment to rural areas. The Nordic countries provide good examples of different stages of forest transition and afforestation programmes, and on their effects on local communities. It can take generations, and some societal and institutional change, to fully realize the effects of afforestation on rural development. A change in forest ownership towards an increasing number of smallscale private owners contributes to various new forest management strategies. Such services and forest functions may contribute equally or even more importantly to rural development than direct effects of timber industry. An analysis is complicated by the dificulty of deining the rural context, especially across the Nordic countries. The effects of afforestation should therefore always be considered individually for the different societies and regions. Carbon sequestration • • • • Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing the world today. The main driving factor is believed to be the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Afforestation makes a net contribution to reducing atmospheric CO2 by carbon storage in growing biomass, vegetation and soils. Carefully selecting sites and species for afforestation and changing forest management practices can increase the net amount of carbon taken up and stored. If the main goal of the afforestation is to store atmospheric carbon, then it is not necessarily the fastest growing tree species under the most favourable conditions for tree growth that has the highest potential. Afforestation in the Nordic countries • • 105 A further contribution is made when wood fuel substitutes for fossil fuel, and timber and wood products substitute for more energy intensive materials such as concrete or steel. Research on environmental services of afforestation and forests is a relatively new ield, where better quantiication of the impacts of management is needed, especially in terms of the challenge of balancing forestry practices with their effects on carbon sequestration and with economic, conservation and social objectives. Critical indings on the challenges of afforestation Biodiversity • • • • The number of species of vascular plants is negatively affected by afforestation. Following afforestation on open heathland, shade tolerant plant groups replace the original plant communities. Afforestation causes signiicant changes in species composition for all functional groups, even if the total species richness is not much affected. It is therefore very important to include strategies for conservation of biodiversity in forest planning and management to preserve speciic habitat types or endangered species. The negative effect of large-scale afforestation in Iceland on open country birds, where Iceland has by far the largest breeding populations, is of signiicant concern. Countries may not always be comparable when it comes to effects of afforestation. In Iceland similar collembola species and species dominance are found in birch and exotic conifer forests, whereas in Norway the birch forests differ strongly in collembola population from coniferous forests in species composition as well as in dominance. Landscape and geo-diversity • Afforestation may cause loss of view and landform visibility, since forests often cover vast areas and geological formations. It may also cause physical damage to small-scale landforms and stabilize dynamic landforms, which may be of speciic value, such as sand dunes. 106 • • • Conclusions and recommendations There should not be any planting in gullies, craters, lava ields or important geo-sites. Geo-diversity should also be taken into account in planning and nature management at all levels. It is important to use landscape analysis and plan open spaces and maintain open views in areas for afforestation. Afforestation can cause irreversible changes to cultural heritage and can damage archaeological sites. This should be of special concern when afforestation is planned. Rural development • • Afforestation programs have not always managed to halt population decline and it has been dificult to establish forest-based enterprises, as a large proportion of the forest owners live outside the area. Afforestation programmes may compete with other land uses. The discussion on the effects of afforestation in this book has highlighted a range of changes caused by afforestation and the dificulties in making a general conclusion considering those changes. Even within speciic research ields, the effects of afforestation vary. However, the AFFORNORD project has highlighted similarities between some research ields. Forest planning and management are of critical importance for biodiversity, landscape dynamics, human health and rural development. In the planning phase the purpose of afforestation must be clear in order to properly select tree species and design the future forest landscape. At this point it must be realised that there are certain conlicts between forest mainly for wood production and forests intended mainly for other uses. Stand density is of critical importance and the use of sparser coniferous stands, selection harvesting, mixed forests or broadleaved forests can sometimes better fulil different objectives. This is for example the case for the reduction in loss of biodiversity and for rehabilitation of land for recreation or grazing. It is also imperative to consider landscape, geodiversity and the cultural heritage that are characteristic of each site when planning afforestation. In afforestation planning, care must be taken to preserve areas and sites that contain nature types, species or cultural heritage of special importance or value, either locally, regionally or globally. The effects of afforestation on biodiversity, discussed in this book, are mainly on a small spatial scale. However, the effects of biodiversity on the landscape scale are normally believed to be smaller, due to the fact that af- Afforestation in the Nordic countries 107 forestation is usually carried out only in some parts of the total landscape. Thus, even if the species are affected more or less severely within the planted stands, there may well be neighbouring areas that continue to be suitable for survival of the living species. However, afforestation may also affect biodiversity on the landscape scale through other mechanisms and small stands can have signiicant effects when landscape issues are considered. Another important point to emerge during the AFFORNORD work was that if tree planting occurs where forest use and forest industry are no longer part of the culture, it is important to gradually educate the local population on how to manage and utilize the new resource. Proper forest management is vital to maintain the original plan of forest use or to adapt to new or changing goals. For example, heavy thinning of plantation forests can make them more attractive or suitable habitats for humans as well as other organisms. In this context, a variation in thinning practices, across age classes and forest types as well as spatially throughout the forest may also contribute positively to a range of multiple-use objectives. Nevertheless, timber is still the primary source of direct revenue for most woodland owners and their main motivation for multipurpose forest management. If other ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, would create an income for the forest owners this could possibly enhance their interest in alternative management practices. The way forward There is no doubt that afforestation affects ecosystems, landscapes and rural development in several ways, positively as well as negatively. No land-use, whether it be afforestation or other uses, meets all environmental goals simultaneously. Some negative impacts are inevitable, even if the most conscientious management is employed. Generally, a trade-off must be made between the desire for a more-or-less pristine environment and the need for a working and operational landscape for the beneit of society at large. It is also important to note that some will always consider afforestation negative and harmful, even in treeless landscapes. We believe that the best way forward is to strengthen the planning process of afforestation, so as to take multiple effects into account and simultaneously to put strong emphasis on extension work to stimulate the use of the new emerging renewable resource for the direct beneit of local communities. Dansk sammendrag AFFORNORD er et samarbejds- og forskningsprojekt under Nordisk Ministerråd. Projektet har til formål at give en sammenfattende vurdering af den indlydelse, som skovrejsning har på økosystemer, landskab og regionaludvikling. I denne bog diskuterer vi indlydelsen af skovrejsning i forhold til vedproduktion, biodiversitet, landskab, offentlig sundhed, regionaludvikling og kulstofbinding. De vigtigste konklusioner fra projektet er følgende: Vedproduktion: • • • • Vedproduktionen afhænger først og fremmest af træarten i forhold til klima og jordbund. Træartsvalget er derfor meget afgørende. Tømmer og brænde er den primære kilde til direkte indkomst for mange skovejere og deres primære motivation for lersidig skovdrift. International konkurrence vil formodentlig fastholde lave priser på traditionella vedprodukter længe endnu. Forøget brug af vedprodukter til opvarmning og biobrænde for at modvirke væksthuseffekten kan dog muligvis forhøje priserne i fremtiden. Der er en direkte sammenhæng mellem det regionale erhvervslivs udvikling og det privat- og samfundsøkonomiske potentiale ved skovrejsning. Biodiversitet: • Skovrejsning medfører øget artsdiversitet for svampe og jordinvertibrater, hvilket delvis (eller helt) opvejer tab af artsrigdom for planter og fugle. 110 • • • Dansk sammendrag Skovrejsning kan give anledning til en markant ændring i artssammensætning for alle funktionelle grupper af organismer, selvom artsrigdommen samlet set kan være uændret. Skovrejsning på områder eller habitater som er af særlig stor betydning for bestemte arter, for eksempel visse fuglearter, giver anledning til særlig bekymring. Skovrejsningens indlydelse på biodiversiteten kan variere fra land til land og fra region til region. Landskab og offentlig sundhed: • • • • • Skovrejsning kan resultere i tab af udsigt over landskabet og dermed ændre indtryk af landskabets form og opbygning. Nye skove bør designes således, at de passer til de øvrige landskabselementer og landskabets karakter, og således at skarpe, lige kanter undgås. Det er også vigtigt at bevare åbne partier i skoven med udsigt over landskabet. Skovrejsning kan medføre uoprettelige skader på kulturminder. Dette bør så vidt muligt undgås ved omhyggelig planlægning og udførelse af nye tilplantninger. Skovrejsning kan være et effektivt værn mod erosion og derved medvirke til at bevare visse landskabsformer og fysiske installationer i landskabet. Der indes en positiv sammenhæng mellem menneskers naturoplevelser og deres sundhedstilstand. Mennesker reagerer anderledes, i de leste tilfælde positivt, over for naturlige omgivelser sammenlignet med storbymiljøer. En skov er et ideelt sted for en varieret naturoplevelse og for at genopfriske ens mentale og fysiske styrke. Regionaludvikling: • • • Skovrejsing kan bidrage positivt til landområders økonomiske udvikling og beskæftigelse, men makter ikke altid at stoppe en negative populationsudvikling Det kan tage meget lang tid før skovrejsningens indlydelse på den regionale udvikling er fuldt realiseret. En forøgelse af antallet af små skovejere bidrager med nye skovfunktioner som sigter mere mod forbrug end vedproduktion. Afforestation in the Nordic countries • • 111 Effekten af skovrejsning er forskellig for forskellige Nordiska samfund og regioner. Skovrejsning kan konkurrere med andre muligheder for anvendelse af det åbne land. Kulstofbinding: • • • Skovrejsning bevirker en nettoreduktion i atmosfærens inhold af kultveilte ved at lagre kulstof i biomasse og jord. Lokalitetsoptimalt valg af træart og skovdriftsmetoder kan medvirke til en nettoforøgelse af kulstofoptagelsen og kulstolagringen. Det er ikke nødvendigvis de hurtigst voksende træarter, som på en given lokalitet har det højeste potentiale for kulstofbinding. Skovrejsning har uden tvivl lere effekter på økosystemer, landskab og regionaludvikling, positive som negative. Ingen anvendelse af det åbne land, uanset om det er til skovdyrkning eller andre formål, kan imødekomme alle miljømål på én gang. Nogle af de negative effekter er uundgåelige, uanset om man bestræber sig på en miljørigtig skovdyrkning. Skovrejsning indebærer nødvendigvis en balancegang mellem det ønskelige, mere eller mindre oprindelige miljø og behovet for et arbejdsorienteret og operationelt landskab til gavn og glæde for samfundet som helhed. Appendix 1: Participants in the AFFORNORD project Icelandic Forest Research, Mogilsa Gudmundur Halldorsson, project leader Edda Sigurdis Oddsdottir, project secretary Brynhildur Bjarnadottir Olafur Eggertsson Karl Gunnarsson Brynja Hrafnkelsdottir Jon Geir Petursson Agricultural University of Iceland Bjarni E. Gudleifsson Eva Ritter Bjarni Didrik Sigurdsson Audur Sveinsdottir The Icelandic Institute of Natural History Asrun Elmarsdottir Gudridur Gyda Eyjolfsdottir Maria Ingimarsdottir Borgthor Magnusson Olafur K. Nielsen Erling Olafsson The Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute Per Holm Nygaard Odd Stabbetorp Bernt-Håvard Øyen Entomological Research, Tjöme, Norway Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Arne Fjellberg Anna Maria Palsdottir Lund University, Sweden – Department of Chemical Engineering Torshavn kommune, the Faroe Islands Salim Belyazid Hördur Haraldsson Harald Sverdrup Tori i Höyvik Møre Research, Volda, Norway Johan Barstad Paul Mitchell-Banks The Forestry Service of the Faroe Islands Janus Hansen Trondur Leivsson University of Copenhagen Jørgen Eilenberg Susanne Harding Flemming Rune Jens Peter Skovsgaard Frank Søndergaard Jensen Appendix 2: Projects linked to AFFORNORD Denmark Pre-commercial thinning of oak 2002-2005 Project leader: Jens Peter Skovsgaard Participating institutes: Forest & Landscape, KU, Denmark Bregentved Estate Aarhus City Haderslev National Forest Supported by: The Danish Forest and Nature Agency’s Fund for experimental silviculture 2002-04 and 2005-07 SNS-Carbon 2003-2006 Project leader: Karin Hansen Participating institutes: Forest & Landscape, KU, Denmark IFRE-EAU, Estonia METLA, Finland Icelandic Forest Research, Iceland SILAVA, Latvia LFRI, Lithuania Skogforsk, Norway UMB, Norway Skogforsk, Sweden SLU, Sweden Supported by: Samnordisk Skogforskning (SNS) Centre of Advanced Forest Research on Environmental Services CAR-ES 2004-2009; http://www.nordicforestry-cares.org/ Project leader: Per Gundersen Participating institutes: Forest & Landscape, KU, Denmark Skogforsk, Sweden Icelandic Forest Research, Iceland Agricultural University of Iceland SkogForsk, Norway METLA, Finland Lithuanian Forest Research Institute, Lithuania Silava, Latvia SLU, Sweden Supported by: Samnordisk Skogforskning (SNS) Nature-oriented afforestation 2003 Project leader: Jens Peter Skovsgaard Participating institutes: Forest and Landscape Denmark Danish Forestry Extension, District North-East Jutland Supported by: The Danish Forest and Nature Agency’s Fund for experimental silviculture 2003-07 116 Afforestation in the Nordic countries Analyses of silvicultural afforestation experiments on former heathland 2004 Project leader: Jens Peter Skovsgaard Participating institutes: Forest & Landscape, KU, Denmark Supported by: Jutlandish Land Reclamation Fund 2004-06 Iceland ICEWOODS 2003-2006 Project leader: Bjarni Didrik Sigurdsson Participating institutes: Agricultural University of Iceland Icelandic Forest Research The Icelandic Institute of Natural History Supported by: Rannís – Icelandic Research Council Succession of ectomycorrhiza and nutrient status in forests 2005-2008 Project leader: Gudmundur Halldorsson Participating institutes: Icelandic Forest Research Agricultural University of Iceland Supported by: Rannís – Icelandic Research Council FORSTREAM 2007-2009 www.forstreams.is Project leader: Bjarni Didrik Sigurdsson Participating institutes: Agricultural University of Iceland Hekluskogar Icelandic Food Research - MATÍS Icelandic Forest Research Soil Conservation Service of Iceland Institute of Freshwater Fisheries in Iceland Queen Mary, University of London The Macauley Institute, Aberdeen University of Iceland Supported by: Environmental and Energy Research Fund Centre for Advanced Forest Research on Ecosystem Services (CAR-ES) Effects of forest fertilization and precommercial thinning on carbon sequestration in a Kyoto forest 2003-2005 Project leader: Bjarni Didrik Sigurdsson Participating institutes: Icelandic Forest Research Agricultural University of Iceland University of Iceland SLU, Sweden Supported by: Rannís – Icelandic Research Council Norway Ecological effects of non-native tree species Project leader: Per Holm Nygaard Participating institutes: Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Supported by: Ministry of Agriculture and Food Non-native silvicultural tree species in coastal areas: Effects on landscape and biodiversity Project leader: Odd E. Stabbetorp Participating institutes: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Afforestation in the Nordic countries Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute Supported by: Ministry of Agriculture and Food The Reseach Council of Norway Sweden ASTA Phase I 1999-2003, Phase II 2004-2007 Project leader: Per Inge Grennfelt Participating institutions: Swedish Environmental Institute, Göteborg Institute of Ecology and Genetics, Umeå University ITM, Stockholm University Political Science, Göteborg University Supported by MISTRA SUFOR Phase I 1996-1999, Phase II 2000-2004. Project leaders Bengt Nihlgård 1999-2003 Ola Salnäs Participating institutions: Chemical Engineering, Lund University South Swedish Forestry, Swedish University of Agriculture, Alnarp Swedish School of Forestry, Swedish University of Agriculture, Umeå Supported by MISTRA CLIMAITE 2004-2008 Project leader: Claus Beier, Participating institutions: Copenhagen University Risö National Laboratory, Denmark Lund University Supported by VELUX 117 NECC: Nordic Centre of Excellence 2003-2008; www.necc.nu Project leader: Anders Lindroth Participating institutes: Dept. of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Analysis, Lund University Dept. of Production Ecology, SLU, Uppsala Dept. of Forest Ecology and Manegement, SLU, Umeå Dept. of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University Dept. of Botany, Göteborg University Dept. of Physical Sciences, University of Helsinki Lammi Biological Station, University of Helsinki Dept of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Kuopio Finish Meteorological Institute Icelandic Forest Research, Mogilsa Agricultural University of Iceland Risø National Laboratory, Denmark Inst. of Geography, University of Copenhagen Supported by: NOS-N and NordForsk Environmental effects of shorter forest rotation in a landscape perspective Project leader: Jan-Erik Weslien Participating institutes: Skogforsk, Sweden Agricultural University of Iceland METLA, Finland Supported by: Samnordisk Skogforskning (SNS) 118 Afforestation in the Nordic countries The Swiss Air Pollution and Critical loads programme: 2000-2008 Project leader Beat Ackermann Participating institutions: BUWAL, Bern, Schweiz Institut für Angewandte Planzenökologie Basel, Schweiz EKG, Bern, Schweiz Ökologie und Umweltwissenschaften, ETH-Z, Zürich, Schweiz Lund University Appendix 3: Species names English names Latin names Danske navne Íslensk heiti Alder Alnus glutinosa Rødel Rauðölur Alpine bistort Polygonum viviparum Topspirende pileurt Kornsúra Ash Fraxinus excelsior Ask Evrópuaskur Beech Fagus Bøg Beyki Birch Betula Birk Birki Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera Poppel Alaskaösp Bog bilberry Vaccinium uliginosum Mosebølle Bláberjalyng Downy birch Betula pubescens Birk Birki Dunlin Calidris alpina Almindelig ryle Lóuþræll Elm Ulmus Elm Álmur European larch Larix decidua Lærk Lerki Fir Abies Ædelgran Þinur Godwit Limosa limosa Stor kobber-sneppe Jaðraka Goldcrest Regulus regulus Fuglekonge Glókollur Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria Hjejle Heiðlóa Grey alder Alnus incana Gråel Gráölur Hazel Corylus avellana Hassel Hesliviður Heath wood-rush Luzula multilora Mangeblomstret frytle Vallhæra Japanese larch Larix kaempferi Japansk lærk Juniper Juniperus communis Enebær Einir Lady’s bedstraw Galium verum Gul snerre Gulmaðra Larch Larix Lærk Lerki Lime Tilia Lind Lind Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Murrays fyr Stafafura Japanslerki 120 Afforestation in the Nordic countries English names Latin names Danske navne Íslensk heiti Lutzi spruce Picea x lutzii Lutzi gran Sitkabastarður Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis Engpiber Þúfutittlingur Moss campion Silene acaulis Tue-limurt Lambagras Northern bed-straw Galium boreale Trenervet snerre Krossmaðra Norway spruce Picea abies Rødgran Rauðgreni Oak Quercus Eg Eik Redpoll Carduelis carduelis Gråsisken Auðnutittlingur Redshank Tringa totanus Rødben Stelkur Redwing Turdus iliacus Røddrossel Skógarþröstur Rock ptarmigan Lagopus muta Rype Rjúpa Rowan Sorbus aucuparia Rønnebærtræ Reyniviður Scots pine Pinus sylvestris Skovfyr Skógarfura Shady horsetail Equisetum pratense Lund-padderok Vallelfting Sheathed sedge Carex vagninata Fåkapslet-star Slíðrastör Siberian larch Larix sibirica Sibirisk lærk Síberíulerki Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Sitkagran Sitkagreni Snipe Gallinago gallinago Bekkasin Hrossagaukur Stone bramble Rubus saxatilis Fruebær Hrútaber fescue Festuca vivipara Topspirende svingel Blávingull Wavy hair-grass Deschampsia lexuosa Bølget bunke Bugðupuntur Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Lille regnspove Fjöruspói Wild thyme Thymus praecox Skotsk timian Blóðberg Wood crane’s bill Geranium sylvatiucum Skov-storkenæb Blágresi Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Gærdesmutte Músarrindill Fungi Paecilomyces farinosus Fungi Chalciporus piperatusa Fungi Hebeloma Viviparous Collembola Parisotoma notabilis Collembola Lepidocyrtus lignorum Collembola Protaphorura pseudovanderdrifti Store Strandstræde 18 DK-1255 Copenhagen K www.norden.org The Nordic project AFFORNORD studied the effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development in the years 2004–2006. Forests play a major role in the environment and economy of the Nordic countries. In historical times, extensive areas in the southern and western part of the Nordic region were deforestated, followed by afforestation in the past two centuries. There is no doubt that afforestation affects biodiversity, landscape dynamics, rural development and human health in several ways, positive as well as negative. Therefore, the purpose of afforestation must be clear in the planning phase. Proper forest management is also of critical importance. No land-use meets all environmental goals simultaneously. Some negative impacts are inevitable, even if the most conscientious management is employed. Generally, a trade-off must be made between the desire for a pristine environment and the need for a working and operational landscape for the benefit of society at large. TemaNord 2008:562 978-92-893-1718-4