and limited tradition of forestry?

(1)

How to balance forestry and biodiversity conservation – A view across Europe

(2)

Vestland – How can we take care of biodiversity in forest areas of complex owner structure

and limited tradition of forestry?

G. Kampp Hansen

Forest advisor, Vestland County Governor, Bergen, Norway

C 24

< Fig. C 24.1. Impression of a temporary dangerous situation for the houses below the forest, cable-logging site in a typical landscape along the fjords of Vestland (Photo: Simon Rudolf Wolff).

Background

Vestland County is a new administrative region in western Norway. The county governor represent the government at the regional level. The county governor’s forest advisors are responsible for man-

aging subsidies, implementing new legislation, and providing advice on forest management.

Vestland County is located on the west coast of Norway. The area is characterised by its long fjords and steep mountains, rising from the sea to the mountain plateau of central Norway. The productive

(3)

Table C 24.1. General information on Vestland County forests.

Total forest area 553 000 ha productive forest

Main management types Clearcut (>90 %) and seed tree harvest

Total volume 150 m³/ha

Annual growth 3 m³/ha

Annual cutting rate 1.2 m³/ha

Deadwood 14 m³/ha

Ownership Private (approximately 85 %) and public

Climate 8 °C mean annual temperature, 1000–4000 mm mean annual

precipitation – depending on location and landscape

Protected area 6 % of the Norwegian forest area

Statement

“Timber production without compromising biodiversity.”

forest area covers 16 % of the land mass (fig. C 24.1).

The main species are downy birch (Betula pubes- cens), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) (fig. C 24.2). Broadleaf forest covers 50 % of the forest area and spruce plantations around 15 % (Tomter and Dalen 2018). The nature in Vestland is very diverse because of the varied landscape. Many species have their most northern distribution here. About 60 % of species in Norway are associated with forest, from which it is esti- mated that only 73 % of species are known (Elven and Sørli 2016).

Vestland has an oceanic climate with mild win- ters and mild summers. The average yearly precipitation of western Norway is 3000–4000 mm. The rain provides good growing conditions for spruce.

Norway spruce has an annual growth of around 17 m³/ha and thus a growth many times higher than that of the natural species of birch and Scots pine.

Scots pine, Norway spruce and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) are the primary commercially exploited species, and spruce harvest makes up

almost 95 % of the timber that is harvested in this region. The annual cut is around 400 000 m³ (Nor- wegian Agriculture Agency statistics). The main type of harvesting technique is clear-cut harvest followed by planting. Only about 50 % of the harvested area is planted – the rest regenerate naturally with mainly broadleaved species which has little timber quality.

The forest is owned by approximately 16 500 private forest owners. The government, the council and different other organisations also own forest, but most of this forest is managed much like the privately owned forests. The average size of a forest property is 10–25 ha (Statistics Norway 2020).

The property structure is complex. A property is often made up of many smaller patches of land.

Around 20 % of forest owners do not live on their property and very few have a significant income from the forest. The majority have little knowledge of forestry and have very seldomly decided on goals for the management of their forests.

Timber/Biomass

Non-timber products

Erosion

Protection

Biodiversity Recreation

Landscape Climate Groundwater

(4)

C 24 Vestland County, Norway

The history of the Vestland forests – deforestation and afforestation

The forest resources of western Norway have been heavily exploited to an absolute low point about 200 years ago. Better forest legislation, great changes in land use, and a massive afforestation effort has helped re-establish the forests.

Farming based on grazing animals is believed to have removed the forest along the coast already from 2500 years ago. Growing populations have harvested timber for buildings, fencing, firewood, and boat and ship building. Grazing animals (mainly sheep and goats, but also cattle and horses) in the mountains have, over a period of many hun- dreds of years, slowly pushed the treeline down- wards. In the period 1500–1800 the market for pine lumber export led to deforestation at a scale that eventually put an end to the export and resulted in the closure of many sawmills. Rising populations around the industrial revolution led to an even greater pressure on the forest resources, and by the end of the nineteenth century even firewood was scarce in some areas (Øyen and Nygård 2007).

Inspired by afforestation programmes in northern Europe, the Norwegian government initiated an afforestation programme. After World War II this was implemented on a large scale, and 390 000 ha of Norway spruce and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) forest was planted in Norway (Tomter and Dalen 2018). About 25 % of the afforestation effort was planting forest where there was no forest before (fig. C 24.3) – and the remaining 75 % has involved change in forest species, from natural species with low production to highly productive Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, or larch (Larix spp.). At the same time there have been major changes in society and in farming technology. Large areas that were formerly used for grazing or firewood have regenerated with natural broadleaf species or pine forest. Together with changes in the climate, this has led to the treeline moving up. It is not known how low a percentage of the west coast that was covered with forest at the lowest point 200 years ago – but from the 1950s and until today we know that the forested area has doubled, and the standing volume has almost quadrupled in our region.

Fig. C 24.2. Typical forest landscape with a mix of monoculture stands of spruce, pine, and birch. In the middle to the left is a key-habitat with old aspen in yellow autumn colours (Photo: Gro Kampp Hansen).

(5)

In many ways the afforestation project has been a success. The people who initiated it would most likely consider it to be so. However, as the area of spruce forest started to rise, many people criticised the plantations for being too dense and for ruining the landscape. Later, the growing knowledge of the ecosystem we live in and how we affect it, has led people to question the whole afforestation project. Many environmental organisations promote the removal of foreign species from Norwegian forestry. Despite its name, Norway spruce is not naturally distributed along most of the western coast of Norway. It forms natural forest stands on a very few locations. It is expected that it will establish itself as a natural forest type here over time – but has not yet reached this stage after the last ice age and is therefore considered an introduced species in most locations on the west coast of Norway.

The recent history of afforestation is one of the main reasons that forest owners have little knowledge of forestry. There has not been time to establish a tradition for forestry in the region.

The main management strategies and the economy of the forests

The majority of the forests of Vestland County are not managed according to a particular management scheme and only few forest owners have specified goals or aims for their management. The

main goal behind most of the activity is timber production. Some forests are harvested by the forest owner themselves, but most (80–90 %) harvests are organised by timber buyers and the harvesting is carried out by professional entrepreneurs.

High levels of salary, challenging terrain, and high petrol prices mean that harvesting costs are high. High stock per hectare compensates for some of the cost. High rainfall means that extra work with a digger is often required to repair terrain damage after harvest. About 30 % of the forest area is classified as cable-logging terrain. Harvest- ing on another 20 % of the forested area is expected to be ‘uneconomic’ because the terrain is too challenging with the current costs and technology (Granhus et al. 2011). Transportation from harvest sites and to the customer is also more costly than the rest of the country because of the poor condi- tion of the road network.

The average stock in a harvest-mature spruce stand is normally around 500 m³/ha, and the timber is generally of good quality. The average price paid to the forest owner is 300–400 kr/m³ (25–35 €). The average harvesting cost lies between 150–250 kr/m³ (14–23 €) but varies a lot. The average harvest is 400 m³ per forest owner. In 2019 there were 1400 forest owners who reported revenues from forestry, this accounted for 4 % of their total income.

The income from forestry amounted to only 0.4 % of the income of all forest owners in the region (Statistics Norway 2020).

Fig. C 24.3. Afforestation with Sitka spruce and larch in an agricultural landscape along the coastline. In this picture there are four different properties (Photo: Gro Kampp Hansen).

(6)

Other important services and values from the forests

The forest of Vestland provides the local society with many different services, but very little is val- ued and consciously managed for these services.

There is a large and growing population of deer (Cervus elaphus) in the forests. Damage to for- ests from deer has been identified but the cost has not yet influenced the management of the deer populations significantly.

Outdoor recreation is very popular in Norway.

Forest roads provide access to recreational areas and are also much used for hiking, biking, and horse riding. According to the Outdoor Recreation Act the public must be allowed access to privately owned forests.

The combination of the geology and the climate result in many areas with risk of avalanches, rockfalls, and mudslides. These natural hazards cause damage on infrastructure every year and sometime also cost lives. The forest has a known role in limiting the risk of natural disasters, but this has not yet been incorporated into the active management of the Vestland forests.

Biodiversity in the forests and how to identify and protect it

Just as forest owners have little knowledge and tradition of forestry, the same is true for ecosystem thinking and knowledge of how to manage the forest for biodiversity. When the forests were planted there was little consideration given to how to extract the timber. Therefore, timber harvest often includes forest road building and logging roads through natural forest. Harvesting of pine forest or establishing logging roads can have a negative impact on the biodiversity at a local level.

Because of a growing concern of the negative impact from forestry on biodiversity in the 1980s and 1990s almost the entire Norwegian forest sec- tor became certified through PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification). To protect the biodiversity of the forest, the PEFC standard demands habitat protection on different scales. On a small scale, forest owners must leave deadwood and trees for old growth in the forest after a harvest and they are not allowed to make clear-cuts along bogs, lakes, or rivers. Areas that cannot be

clear-cut covers 7 % of the productive forest area in Norway (Tomter and Dalen 2018). On a larger scale, natural reserves are used to protect small and large areas of high conservation value. Between the two scales is habitat protection:

Many of the locally threatened species are fungi and lichen that can only be identified by a few specialists. 12 types of habitats have been identified to be of great importance to the biodiversity in the Norwegian forests. These habitats are likely to contain the threatened species (Baumann et al.

2002). Examples of the 12 habitats are: high con- centrations of standing or lying deadwood, groups of old trees, a ravine, several trees with ‘lung lichen’

(Lobaria pulmonaria) (fig. C 24.4) or a forest-fire site (fig. C 24.5).

The habitats are identified in the forest using a method called Miljøregistreringer i Skog (MiS; Envi- ronmental Inventories in Forests). The MiS-method use indicators that are easy to learn to identify and the method can be applied relatively easily. The environmental inventories are carried out in con- nection with forest inventories on a county level.

The mapping is subsidised by the state. After the inventory the most valuable habitats are selected as key-habitats and a management plan for the habitat is described. In most of the key-habitats, human activity must be kept to a minimum; however, in some cases grazing and some types of harvesting is allowed, if those activities are considered to improve the habitat conditions, or if the activities do not significantly affect the habitat.

In order to sell timber as PEFC-certified (which is required by >90 % of timber buyers), all certified forest owners must take care of the key-habitats in their forest. The MiS-inventories and the selection of key-habitats is dynamic and should be revised every 15 years. If a forest-fire site has become covered with forest – then it is no longer a key-habitat.

If a storm cause windfall and many new habitats of lying deadwood, then only the most valuable ones should be selected as key-habitats. If a selected habitat is in conflict with, for example, the building of a road, it is possible for the forest owner to set aside another area of equal value and then get per- mission to build a road anyway. This flexibility of the system means that most forest owners accept the habitat registration and protection more easily than if the area was proposed as a natural reserve.

All registered habitats are collected in a national and public database. When a harvest is

(7)

being planned, the forest owner or planner will consult the database beforehand. Logging roads and harvesting of forest near a key-habitat must be planned in a way, so that the harvest activity does not affect the habitat conditions. In Vestland there are many areas that have not yet been mapped.

When a timber buyer organises a harvest in a natural forest, the key-habitats must have been mapped beforehand. When logging roads for spruce stands pass through natural forest, the planner must first check if the area contains some of the easily identified habitat elements using the MiS-method.

Environmental organisations accept the method to a certain degree, but are critical to the level of training and method of the staff that does the inventories. They also question if the protection work in practice as clear-cuts in key-habitats have been discovered. In Vestland the discovered clear- cuts were due to non-forestry activities such as expansion of farming land and public road building.

The MiS-system has turned out to be a simple and effective way of registering forest with high biodiversity. The system is now incorporated in both the PEFC standard and the national forest legislation.

The future of forestry in Vestland County

The forestry in Vestland is currently focused on harvesting the first-generation forest that was planted during the ‘afforestation’ period. During the next 10–40 years, most of the spruce stands (85 % Nor- way spruce and 15 % Sitka spruce) will reach maturity and harvest of these stands will probably dom- inate harvesting and increase the forest activity in this region.

Large areas of pine forest will also reach bio- logical maturity. The current market for round- wood of pine is not very good. A change in the market could lead to growing activity in these forests of natural species.

The habitat protection system within the PEFC standard is dynamic and a rise in harvesting should not change the level of protection of biodiversity – as long as the habitats are mapped properly. Grow- ing activity should lead to an increase in environmental inventories.

Fig. C 24.4. Tree lungwort or lung lichen is an easily identifiable indicator of an important habitat as the lung lichen most often grow on old broadleaf trees and are sensitive to pollution and disturbance (Photo: Gro Kampp Hansen).

(8)

Conclusion

The habitat protection on different scales through the Norwegian PEFC-certification standard has been easy to implement in Vestland. It serves as a good example of how to secure the biodiversity in forests that are managed primarily for timber production. It is also a good example of how one can achieve multifunctional management through a set of general guidelines in areas with complex owner structure and limited tradition of forestry.

References

Baumann, C.; Gjerde, I.; Blom, H.; Sætersdal, M.; Ørnelund Nielsen, J.A.; Løken, B.; Ekanger, I., 2002: Håndbok i registrering av livsmiljøer i Norge. Miljøregistrering i skog – biologisk mangfold. Norsk Institut for Skog og Landskap.

http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2501062

Elven, H.; Søli, G. (eds), 2016: Kunnskapsstatus for arts- mangfoldet i Norge 2015. Utredning for Artsdatabanken 1/2016. Artsdatabanken, Norge.

Granhus, A.; Andreassen, K.; Tomter, S.; Eriksen, R.; Astrup, R., 2011: Skogressursene langs kysten. Tilgjengelighet, utnyttelse og pronoser for fremtidig tilgang. Rapport fra Skog og landskap 11/2011. Norsk Institut for Skog og Landskap. 35 p.

Statistics Norway, 2020: Agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing – Statistics on forestry. Viewed 25.06.2020.

https://www.ssb.no/en/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri

Norwegian Agricultural Agency, 2020: Timber felling and prices – Statistics on forestry. Viewed 25.06.2020.

https://www.landbruksdirektoratet.no/no/statistikk/

skogbruk/tommeravvirkning

Øyen, B-H.; Nygård, P.H., 2007: Afforestation in Norway – effects on wood resources, forest yield and local economy. In: Halldorsson, G.; Oddsdottir, E.S.; Eggertsson, O.

(eds) Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development. Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005.

TemaNord 2007/508. 333–342.

Tomter, S.M.; Dalen, L.S. (eds), 2018: Bærekraftig skogbruk i Norge [Sustainable forestry in Norway]. Norsk institutt for bioøkonomi. 241 p.

http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2440117 Links

Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO) – website on environmental inventories: https://www.

nibio.no/en/subjects/forest/mis-environmental-inventories-in-forests

Geonorge. Map data produced by Norwegian Mapping Authority, Mapping and Cadastre. Data downloaded 26.06.2020: https://www.geonorge.no/en

Norwegian PEFC standard: https://www.pefc.no/

in-english/our-standards

Vestland County Governor website: https://www.

fylkesmannen.no/en/Agriculture-and-food/Forestry Fig. C 24.5. Forest fire site left for natural succession (Photo: Gro Kampp Hansen).