Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies (CCAMS) are changes to the management of production forests motivated by the need to mitigate climate change, or adapt production forests to climate change risks. Sweden is employing CCAMS with unclear implications for biodiversity and forest ecosystem services (ES). Here, we synthesized evidence from 51 published scientific reviews, to evaluate the potential implications for biodiversity and a range of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ES, from the adoption of CCAMS relative to standard forestry practice. The CCAMS assessed were the adoption of (i) mixed-species stands, (ii) continuous cover forestry, (iii) altered rotation lengths, (iv) conversion to introduced tree species, (v) logging residue extraction, (vi) stand fertilization, and (vii) altered ditching/draining practices. We highlight the complexity of biodiversity and ES outcomes, identify knowledge gaps, and emphasize the importance of evidence-based decision making and landscape-scale planning when navigating choices involving the widespread adoption of CCAMS.

This study examines which kinds of social benefits derived from forests are emphasised by Swedish stakeholders and what governance modes and management tools they accept. Our study shows that there exists a great variety among stakeholders’ perceptions of forests’ social values, where tourism and recreation is the most common reference. There are also differences in preferred governance modes and management where biomass and bioenergy sectors advocate business as usual (i.e. framework regulations and voluntarism) and other stakeholders demand rigid tools (i.e. coercion and targeting) and improved landscape planning. This divide will have implications for future policy orientations and require deliberative policy processes and improved dialogue among stakeholders and authorities. We suggest that there is a potential for these improvements, since actors from almost all stakeholder groups support local influence on governance and management, acknowledged and maintained either by the authorities, i.e. targeting, or by the stakeholders themselves, i.e. voluntarism.

Changing and competing land use, where we make use of a growing share of resources, potentially undermines the capacity of forests to provide multiple functions such as timber, biodiversity, recreation and pasture lands. The governance challenge is thus to manage trade-offs between human needs and, at the same time, maintain the capacities of forests to provide us with these needs. Sweden provides a clear example of this kind of challenge. Traditionally, timber has been the most apparent contribution of the forest to Swedish national interests. However, due to competing land use, the identification of the wider role of forests in terms of multifunctionality has been recognized. Today, a number of functions, such as water quality and biodiversity together with cultural and social activities related to forests, are increasingly included as potential demands on forests in competition with traditional functions such as timber production. The challenge is thus related to trade-offs between different functions. How to balance the relationship and guide trade-offs between different functions of forests is, to a large extent, a matter of policy choice and the design of appropriate governance institutions and pro-active management activities. Based on perceptions among stakeholders on future competing demands and a literature review, the paper explore the multifunctionality of the Swedish forests and how it is affected by competing demands for land use; how multifunctionality is currently governed; and concludes by suggesting promising decision support methods to manage trade-offs between different functions.

Long-term forest management planning often involves several stakeholders with conflicting objectives, creating a complex decision process. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) presents a promising framework for finding solutions in terms of suitable trade-offs among the objectives. However, many of the MCDA methods that have been implemented in forest management planning can only be used to compare and evaluate a limited number of management plans, which increases the risk that the most suitable plan is not included in the decision process. The aim of this study is to test whether the combination of two MCDA methods can facilitate the evaluation of a large number of strategic forest management plans in a situation with multiple objectives and several stakeholders. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to set weights for objectives based on stakeholder preferences and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used to produce an overall ranking of alternatives. This approach was applied to a case study of the Vilhelmina municipality, northern Sweden. The results show that the combination of AHP and TOPSIS is easy to implement in participatory forest planning and takes advantage of the capacity of forest decision support systems to create a wide array of management plans. This increases the possibility that the most suitable plan for all stakeholders will be identified.

Conflicting perspectives on forests has for a long time challenged forest policy development in Sweden. Disagreements about forest futures create intractable deadlocks when stakeholders talk past each other. The purpose of this study is to move beyond this situation through the application of participatory backcasting. By comparing visions of the future forest among stakeholder groups, we highlight contemporary trajectories and identify changes that were conceived as desirable. We worked with four groups: the Biomass and Bioenergy group, the Conservation group, the Sami Livelihood group and the Recreation and Rural Development group; in total representatives from 40 organizations participated in workshops articulating the groups’ visions. Our results show well-known tensions such as intrinsic versus instrumental values but also new ones concerning forests’ social values. Identified synergies include prioritization of rural development, new valued-added forest products and diversified forest management. The results may feed directly into forest policy processes facilitating the process and break current deadlocks.