Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping policies for surface water protection zones on forest land in the Nordic–Baltic region: Large differences in prescriptiveness and zone width

  • Report
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The forest landscape across the Nordic and Baltic regions hosts numerous lakes and watercourses, which must be included in forest management. In this study, national policy designs regarding protection zones for surface waters on forest land were reviewed and compared for the Nordic countries, Estonia and Latvia. The focus was how each country regulates protection zones, whether they are voluntary or mandatory, and the rationale behind adopting a low or high degree of prescriptiveness. Iceland and Denmark had a low degree of policy prescriptiveness, whereas Norway, Estonia and Latvia had a high degree of prescriptiveness. Sweden and Finland relied to a large extent on voluntary commitments. The prescribed zone widths within the region ranged from 1 m to 5 km. The results indicated that land-use distribution, forest ownership structure and historical and political legacies have influenced the varying degrees of prescriptiveness in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Cashore (1997) and McDermott et al. (2009)

References

  • Ahtiainen, M., and P. Huttunen. 1999. Long-term effects of forestry managements on water quality and loading in brooks. Boreal Environment Research 4: 101–114.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, E., M. Andersson, Y. Birkne, S. Claesson, O. Forsberg, and G. Lundh. 2013. Target goals for good environmental consideration. A part delivery from Dialog om miljöhänsyn. Swedish Forest Agency, Report 5, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).

  • Bilby, R.E., and J.T. Heffner. 2016. Factors influencing litter delivery to streams. Forest Ecology and Management 369: 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borchardt, K.D. 2010. The ABC of European Union law. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2830/13717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadmeadow, S., and T. Nisbet. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 8: 286–305. doi:10.5194/hess-8-286-2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B. 1997. Governing forestry: environmental group influence in British Columbia and the US Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. Thesis. Canada: University of Toronto.

  • Eklöf, K., R. Lidskog, and K. Bishop. 2016. Managing Swedish forestry’s impact on mercury in fish: defining the impact and mitigation measures. Ambio 45: 163–174. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0752-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esseen, P.-A., A. Glimskär, and G. Ståhl. 2004. Linear landscape elements in Sweden: estimates from the NILS-data of year 2003. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Resource Management and Geomatics, Arbetsrapport 127 (in Swedish).

  • EEA. 2016. European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/is/land-use-state-and-impacts-iceland. Accessed 8 Apr 2016.

  • FAO. 2015. FAO’s Global Forest Resource Assessment 2015. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/current-assessment/en/.

  • Forest and Nature Agency. 2010. Forest and nature in numbers 2010. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Nature Agency. http://naturstyrelsen.dk/media/nst/Attachments/SkovognaturiTal2010.pdf (in Danish).

  • FSC. 2015. FSC® International Standard, FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship, FSC-STD-01-001 V5-2 EN. Forest Stewardship Council.

  • FSC. 2016. FSC Facts & Figures March 1, 2016. Forest Stewardship Council. https://ic.fsc.org/.

  • Friberg, N. 1998. Forest and forest streams. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser (now Danish Centre for Environment and Energy), Temarapport from DMU 21/1998 (in Danish).

  • Friis-Møller, P., J. Bigler, B.O. Nielsen, I.M. Thomsen, R.M. Buttenschøn, and J. Heilmann-Clausen. 2010. Dynamics and disturbances in the forest. In Naturen i Danmark. Skovene, ed. P. Friis-Møller, 271–303. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel og Nordisk Forlag A/S. (in Danish).

  • Gundersen, P., A. Laurén, L. Finér, E. Ring, H. Koivusalo, M. Sætersdal, J.-O. Weslien, B.D. Sigurdsson, et al. 2010. Environmental services provided from riparian forests in the Nordic countries. Ambio 39: 555–566. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0073-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, T.M., X. Pinto, and J.S. Richardson. 2011. Riparian canopy type, management history, and successional stage control fluxes of plant litter to streams. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41: 1394–1404. doi:10.1139/x11-067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J. 2013. Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance: the case of forest certification in Sweden. Ph.D. Thesis. Sweden: Umeå University.

  • Joensuu, S., M. Kauppila, M. Lindén, and T. Tenhola. 2012. Guidelines for good forestry practices—water protection. Helsinki: Publications of Tapio. (in Finnish).

  • Jordan, A., R.K.W. Wurzel, and A. Zito. 2005. The rise of ‘new’ policy Instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies 53: 477–496. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00540.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzweiser, D., S. Capell, K. Good, and S. Holmes. 2009. Sediment deposition in streams adjacent to upland clearcuts and partially harvested riparian buffers in boreal forest catchments. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1578–1585. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzweiser, D.P., P.W. Hazlett, and J.M. Gunn. 2008. Logging impacts on the biogeochemistry of boreal forest soils and nutrient export to aquatic systems: a review. Environmental Reviews 16: 157–179. doi:10.1139/a08-006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuglerová, L., A. Ågren, R. Jansson, and H. Laudon. 2014. Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: ecological and biogeochemical implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 334: 74–84. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latvian Ministry of Agriculture. 1923. Instruction for forest inventory. Riga: Latvian Ministry of Agriculture. (in Latvian).

  • Latvian Ministry of Agriculture. 1937. Instruction for forest protection. Valdibas Vestnesis 260: 1–4. (in Latvian).

  • Lundin, L., and T. Nilsson. 2014. Initial effects of forest N, Ca, Mg and B large-scale fertilization on surface water chemistry and leaching from a catchment in central Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 331: 218–226. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, P.M., S.K. Jr, M.D.McCutchen Reynolds, and T.J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36: 1172–1180. doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C.L., B. Cashore, and P. Kanowski. 2009. Setting the bar: An international comparison of public and private forest policy specifications and implications for explaining policy trends. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 6: 217–237. doi:10.1080/19438150903090533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mårald, E., C. Sandström, L. Rist, O. Rosvall, L. Samuelsson, and A. Idenfors. 2015. Exploring the use of a dialogue process to tackle a complex and controversial issue in forest management. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 30: 749–756. doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1065343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCM. 2017. Nordic Council of Ministers. http://www.norden.org/en/om-samarbejdet-1/formal-nordic-co-operation. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  • Nieminen, M., E. Ahti, H. Koivusalo, T. Mattsson, S. Sarkkola, and A. Laurén. 2010. Export of suspended solids and dissolved elements from peatland areas after ditch network maintenance in South-Central Finland. Silva Fennica 44: 39–49. doi:10.14214/sf.161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Päivinen, J., N. Björkqvist, L. Karvonen, M. Kaukonen, K.-M. Korhonen, P. Kuokkanen, H. Lehtonen, and A. Tolonen. 2011. Forestry and environmental management. Vantaa: Metsähallitus Publications of Forestry 67. (in Finnish).

  • PEFC. 2010. Sustainable forest management—requirements. PEFC ST 1003:2010. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes.

  • PEFC. 2015. PEFC Global Statistics: SFM & CoC Certification, Data: December 2015. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes. http://www.pefc.org/.

  • Raatikainen, M., and E. Kuusisto. 1990. The number and surface area of the lakes in Finland. Terra 102: 97–110. (in Finnish).

  • Richardson, J.S., and S. Béraud. 2014. Effects of riparian forest harvest on streams: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1712–1721. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J.S., R.J. Naiman, and P.A. Bisson. 2012. How did fixed-width buffers become standard practice for protecting freshwaters and their riparian areas from forest harvest practices? Freshwater Science 31: 232–238. doi:10.1899/11-031.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Forest Agency. 2014. Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, B.W., and J.D. Newbold. 2014. Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50: 560–584. doi:10.1111/jawr.12203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamre, R. 2006. List of lakes in Estonia. Natural and artificial lakes. Ministry of the Environment Information Centre. http://www.keskkonnainfo.ee/publications/113_PDF.pdf (in Estonian).

  • The World Bank. 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS. Accessed 8 Apr 2016.

  • The World Bank. 2017. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GNIPC.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by the network Centre of Advanced Research on Environmental Services from Nordic Forest Ecosystems (CAR-ES), which was funded by the Nordic Forest Research Co-operation Committee (SNS). Eva Ring, Johanna Johansson and Camilla Sandström gratefully acknowledge funding from the interdisciplinary research programme Future Forests financed by MISTRA (The Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research), the Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk), the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and Umeå University. Zane Lībiete acknowledges funding from the Latvian Forest Sector Competence Centre project “Methods and technologies to increase forest value” (L-KC-11-0004). Magne Sætersdal acknowledges funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Food and Agriculture. We would also like to thank the Estonian Environmental Agency, Ministry of Environment and State Forest Management Centre (particularly K. Kohv) for providing valuable information about Estonia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Skogforsk (The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden), Uppsala Science Park, 751 83, Uppsala, Sweden

    Eva Ring

  2. Södertörn University, Alfred Nobels Allé 7, Flemingsberg, 141 89, Huddinge, Sweden

    Johanna Johansson

  3. Department of Political Science, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Camilla Sandström

  4. University of Akureyri, Sólborg v/Nordurslod, 600, Akureyri, Iceland

    Brynhildur Bjarnadóttir

  5. Natural Resources Institute Finland-Luke, Yliopistokatu 6, 80100, Joensuu, Finland

    Leena Finér

  6. LSFRI Silava, Rigas Street 111, Salaspils, 2169, Latvia

    Zane Lībiete

  7. Institute of Ecology, School of Natural Sciences and Health, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia

    Elve Lode

  8. Faculty of Forest Science, Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7014, 75007, Uppsala, Sweden

    Elve Lode

  9. University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Inge Stupak

  10. Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Pb. 115, 1431, Ås, Norway

    Magne Sætersdal

Authors
  1. Eva Ring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Camilla Sandström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brynhildur Bjarnadóttir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leena Finér
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zane Lībiete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elve Lode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Inge Stupak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Magne Sætersdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Ring.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ring, E., Johansson, J., Sandström, C. et al. Mapping policies for surface water protection zones on forest land in the Nordic–Baltic region: Large differences in prescriptiveness and zone width. Ambio 46, 878–893 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0924-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0924-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation