Boreal Forests of the Circumpolar World

Abstract

The boreal forest accounts for about one-third of all global forest resources and is found in seven of the eight Arctic countries. The boreal biome, also known as the taiga, lies south of the Arctic Circle and runs through Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the United States, and Canada (out of the eight Arctic countries), as well as Japan, Mongolia, and Scotland, making it one of the largest biomes in the world.

7.1 Introduction

The boreal forest accounts for about one-third of all global forest resources and is found in seven of the eight Arctic countries. The boreal biome, also known as the taiga, lies south of the Arctic Circle and runs through Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the United States, and Canada (out of the eight Arctic countries), as well as Japan, Mongolia, and Scotland, making it one of the largest biomes in the world.

While the word “Arctic” does not typically invoke images of lush green forests, forest resources play a critical role in sustaining economic and social development in northern regions. The boreal forest is also vital to the carbon cycle, helping to maintain the world’s carbon balance by both storing and releasing CO₂.

The resource is also critical to sustainability in its broadest sense. The literature pertains to three types of sustainability: economic, ecological, and social. The forest provides goods and services that support local and global economies and provides employment and income to society. The boreal forest also plays a critical role to society’s wellbeing, affording people recreation opportunities and natural experiences. Finally, maintaining or increasing biodiversity is essential to highly functioning ecosystems that, in turn, support economic and social well-being.

As demand for forest resources increases globally, so too will pressure to use, conserve, and protect the boreal forest, which will force people to make trade-offs. Furthermore, while the resource is largely homogeneous across the world, ownership, management regimes, and policies are not. How do such similarities and differences affect forest sustainability? Is it possible to manage forest resources in a way that addresses all aspects of sustainability? This chapter reviews the state of the boreal forest across the Circumpolar North and examines differences between the regions, including forest ownership, management, policy, and innovation in the context of social, economic, and environmental sustainability.

This chapter begins by putting the boreal forests into perspective, describing the physical resource across the Arctic countries. I then discuss variations in ownership regimes and how this affects management and sustainability. Next, I discuss forest management and governance by country. Finally, I examine global forces that have increased the pressure for resource use, and how society has responded to ensure future sustainability.

7.2 The Boreal Forest in Perspective

The boreal forest constitutes a vast eco-zone that lies below the Arctic Circle and spans the Circumpolar North. Also known as the taiga, the boreal covers approximately 16.6 million square kilometers (Runesson 2016) and accounts for approximately 33% of the world’s total forested area. Given its subarctic location, and the fact that it is the coldest terrestrial ecosystem on earth, the forest is largely a function of extremes. In general, the eco-zone is characterized by short summers that can be hot; long and dark winters with extremely low temperatures; and low moisture resulting in relatively short growing seasons.

Despite these extreme climatic conditions, the boreal is highly productive and is the source of a wide range of timber and non-timber forest products and services that support complex economies. This biome is often described as a mosaic of forest types that include species such as black and white spruce, larch, poplar, birch, and aspen, many of which are used for commercial purposes. Additionally, shrubs such as highbush cranberry, alder, and Labrador tea (Fig. 7.1) characterize the forest and provide commercial opportunities to produce medicines and energy, for example. Groundcover plants include mosses, grasses, sedges, lowbush cranberry, and lichen, the latter of which is an essential source of nutrition for caribou and reindeer. Figure 7.2 illustrates the extent of the boreal forest in green, which spans North America, northern Europe, and Asia.

Fig. 7.1

Labrador tea as depicted by William Miller (London 1817–1833)

Fig. 7.2

The global extent of the boreal forest/taiga. Mark Baldwin-Smith CC BY-SA 3.0

It is difficult to distinguish boreal forest images by location given that the forest is similar in structure and species across its range. This is an important consideration given that forests are managed differently: the implication being that sustainable forest use and management is a direct function of ownership and management.

In terms of land area, Russia is home to the largest area of the boreal forest, followed by Canada and Alaska. Additionally, Russia’s forests account for about 20% of the world’s forests, which means that sustainable management is important not only to Russia, but also to the rest of the world (FAO 2012). As a proportion of landmass, Finland (73%), Sweden (68%), and Russia (50%) have the highest percentages of forest, which means that the forest is clearly a highly important resource in terms of environmental, social, and economic sustainability in the Barents region. Although Iceland has the lowest proportion of forests, at only 1% of land area, there is a small industry in that country that makes products for niche markets. Table 7.1 describes the amount of forested area in each country by hectares and percentage of total land area categorized as forest, other wooded land, and other land. In Canada, for example, the boreal forest accounts for 38% of the total land area.

Table 7.1 Forested and other wooded land—2015 (source FAO 2015)

While the United States shows 34% forest cover, that figure refers to all states, including Hawaii. Alaska’s forest area is estimated to be 52 m ha, which constitutes approximately 17% of total forested area. Finally, although deforestation is a problem in many parts of the world, the boreal forest among the circumpolar countries is not in decline. Countries such as Canada and Norway show a slight decrease in forest cover, but it is insignificant given that the percentage loss is close to zero in both cases over the period from 1990 to 2015 (FAO 2015).

Iceland is interesting in that it was nearly completely deforested. When it was settled, the boreal forest covered 25% of the land, but today that figure is only slightly above 1%. According to Arnarsdóttir (2014, p. 1), “Forests in Iceland are set to increase ten times this century and cover 12% of the country’s surface—instead of the current 1.2 percent—by 2100.”

As a result of reforestation, reclamation, and forest renewal overall, statistics indicate an increase in the extent of the forest (Table 7.2). Considered as a whole, planted forest area has increased consistently from 1990 to 2015 for the entire boreal ecoregion (Fig. 7.3).

Table 7.2 Extent of the forest 1990–2015 (source FAO 2015)

Fig. 7.3

Image of the boreal forest in autumn (Photo by Phil, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.)

Forest extent is an important indicator of global sustainability in terms of providing ecological services, such as aquatic function, air filtration, biodiversity, and habitat for flora and fauna, as well as carbon sequestration. Table 7.3 provides an estimate of the carbon stock and the annual percentage change in stock between 1990 and 2015. The boreal forest plays a critical role in mitigating climate change given its role in capturing carbon in living biomass, but also in the soils and forest floor litter.

Table 7.3 Carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2015 (source FAO 2015)

The boreal forest is biologically homogeneous across the circumpolar north. The differences lie in ownership, management, policy, and use, all of which are dictated by culture and beliefs. To what extent is use of the boreal forest sustainable, and what can we learn by different management approaches? Ownership has clear implications for how resources are used and managed. Additionally, global economic pressures have influenced environmental sustainability, societies and cultures, and economic prosperity. Sustainable forest management is becoming increasingly important as populations grow and, consequently, so too do demands on forests. I now look at forest ownership and management regimes and compare the state of the forest industry in different countries.

7.3 Forest Ownership

Boreal forest ownership in the circumpolar north falls into two categories: public or private. Russia, Canada, and the United States have the highest percentage of public ownership, where federal, state, or provincial governments manage forests, whereas private ownership is prevalent in the Scandinavian countries, Iceland, and Finland (see Table 7.4).

Table 7.4 Forest ownership (source FAO 2015)

In Canada, the majority of forests are owned and managed by 10 provincial and three territorial governments. The federal government, which owns only 4% of the forestland, is responsible for managing national parks, national defense reserves, and land held in reserve for indigenous peoples. Private holdings account for 6% of total forest ownership and are made up of timber companies and small family woodlots located predominately in the eastern part of Canada and British Columbia in the west (NRCan 2016).

In the US, 76% of land is owned and managed by the government, with 24% owned by indigenous corporations and less than 1% privately owned by individual landowners. Public ownership is further divided into the federal government (51%) and a combination of state lands, university holdings, and local governments (25%) (Alaska Forest Association 2015). Russia is currently in a period of forest policy transformation and might consider reforming private ownership rights. Russia owns 100% of its forests (FAO 2012)

The predominant form of ownership in the Scandinavian¹ countries is private: in Norway, the public–private split is 86–14%, followed by Sweden (76/24), Iceland (70/30), and Finland (68/32). Private individuals make up the greatest percentage of owners in each jurisdiction, followed by corporations/businesses. This point is particularly interesting in that the number of owners is vastly greater than the number of individual forest owners in North America and Russia, and individual forest holdings are relatively small in size, making forest management and long-term access to timber supply more complex.

In terms of productive forest, the FAO reports growing stock for both commercial forestland and other wooded land. Russia’s growing stock of all commercial species is the greatest, at 81 billion m³, followed by Canada at 47.3 billion m³ (Table 7.5).

Table 7.5 Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2015 (source FAO 2015)

With the exception of Iceland, forestry and the production and sale of forestry products are relatively important to each nation in terms of its contribution to GDP.

7.4 Forestry Management and Governance

Although ownership differs by nation state, as do authorizing agencies within states, governance and policy characteristics are similar across the biome, with a strong focus on all aspects of sustainability. This section provides an overview of forest governance and how it is related to industrial development and the forest products industry. I will focus first on North America and Russia, where most forestland is owned and managed by the government. I will then focus on Scandinavia, where the predominant form of ownership is private.

7.4.1 Russia

Russian forests represent significant potential for economic development, but are highly under-utilized. The forest industry accounts for only 1.3% of GDP and 1% of the country’s employment although forest resources cover 50% of Russia’s landmass, and make up approximately 20% of the world’s forests (Ulybina 2014a, b). The forest resource is regulated and managed by the Federal Forest Agency, which has recently undergone a great degree of administrative change, reporting to the Ministry of Natural Resources up to 2008, then to the Ministry of Agriculture from 2008 to 2010, and directly to the Government of the Russian Federation from 2010 to 2012. Currently, the Federal Forestry Agency falls under the purview of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology (see Petrov and Lobovikov 2012).

Forestry policy has also undergone changes that provide new opportunities for forest stakeholders, including both industry and timber-reliant communities. Prior to 2013, forest policy was fraught with bureaucratic difficulties that hampered the development of the Russian forest economy and increased the incidence of illegal logging and forest mismanagement. Forest Stewardship Council International, in conjunction with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace, and a host of FSC-certified companies, began working together in 2011 with the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop new policies. The outcome has been a new focus on modernizing Russia’s forest policy that seeks greater stakeholder involvement in decision making, on improving forest management practices to reflect natural processes and preserve ecosystem integrity, and on harmonizing Russian forestry practices to bring them in line with international standards (FSC 2013). Sustainable forest management, as defined by the FSC, requires that forest owners and managers follow 10 principles that address all aspects of sustainability, including the environment (monitoring and assessment of the environment based on high conservation values), society (observing legislation regarding human rights and community relations), and economics (providing long-term values and benefits) (FSC 2015).

According to the Russian Government website,² the Federal Forestry Agency is currently responsible for overseeing all forestry issues with the exception of those related to specially protected nature reserves. The agency also provides forest management services (Russian Government 2016). More specifically, it oversees contracting and administrative services, forest inventory, forest pathology, forest fire protection, research, and education (Petrov and Lobovikov 2012).

As in North America, the private sector in Russia secures timber resources through contracts that specify rights to forest resources that can be secured from one to 49 years depending on use. Forest companies must follow the Forest Code of 2006, which constitutes the primary legislation governing all management and use of the forest. The Forest Code outlines key principles of forest legislation and provides guidance on a wide range of factors affecting the disposition of forest resources, including property rights, harvesting practices, and environmental management (see Russian Government 2006).

While reforms are being implemented, reports suggest that there has not been much practical change. According to Ulybina (2014a, b), who closely examined the recent forest policy reforms, the forest continues to be viewed by the government as an economic resource and is managed without sufficient consideration for society. Furthermore, despite stakeholder involvement being formally articulated, the reality is that decision-making continues to be top-down without regard for the professional foresters, timber-dependent communities, or NGOs that are affected by such decisions. Ulybina suggested that the reason for this is the continuance of informal institutions that continue to govern society at large. The WWF in Russia echoes these concerns and cautions that, without significant change in the legislation, sustainable forest management is jeopardy (WWF 2016).

7.4.2 Alaska

Forests in Alaska are governed by four entities including the federal government (USDA Forest Service), the State of Alaska and other local governments including the university system, Native corporations, and to a small degree, private landowners. Forest management and use are guided by national legislation such as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, the Alaska Division of Forestry, in the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, oversees the Forestry Strategic Plan, which protects environmental values, manages wildfire, provides access to timber resources, and engages in forest education and stewardship (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 2016).

There are three state laws that govern forest management on state lands. These laws dictate that the timber industry will (i) follow the principles of sustained yield and multiple-use; (ii) prepare forest management plans that assess commercial harvests, forest harvest practices, and industrial effects on the environment; and (iii) fully address the multiple-use aspects of the forest, including community needs and values. It is also worth noting that securing the highest economic return does not outweigh the production of non-market values. Finally, the State of Alaska has the power to regulate forest harvest regulation on private land (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 2016).

Historically, the forest industry in Alaska, as in the rest of North America, produced a wide variety of forest products and played a significant role in Alaska’s economy. As a result of rising production costs, increasing competition from lower-cost producers, and stricter environmental regulations, the pulp and paper producers closed their mills. Today, the industry is much smaller and largely produces lumber and wood products for bioenergy.

The National Forests have come under increasing pressure over the last half-century to increase forest access for multiple-use, to designate more area as wilderness and habitat for endangered species. The result has been a significant decline in the annual allowable cut (AAC), which is the annual amount of stumpage available for sale to industry. The lack of timber supply is manifested in business closures, lost jobs, and a weak timber economy.

7.4.3 Canada

Forests played a central role in the westward expansion, settlement, and economic development of Canada and the United States, providing the resources needed to build those nations. According to Natural Resources Canada, the country is second only to the US as the largest exporter of primary forest products worldwide. Domestically, the forest sector is within the top five in terms of contributions to net trade. Additionally, the Canadian forest industry is an important employer particularly in northern and remote regions.

Canada’s forest legislation is developed and enforced by provincial and territorial governments. While legislation and regulations are specific to each jurisdiction, the overarching goal is to practice sustainable forest management (SFM), which considers ecosystem and environmental functioning, community, and social well-being, and economic development (NRCan 2016).

Provincial crown forests are managed through tenure agreements that were originally designed to provide economic and social benefits. The tenure system grants access to forest companies to secure wood for commercial purposes. Tenure agreements vary in purpose and length and are defined by unique sets of rights and responsibilities. For example, Saskatchewan uses three types of tenure instruments: forest management agreements (FMAs), term supply licenses (TSLs), and forest product permits (FPPs). These vary in length, with the longest being 20 years for FMAs, and the shortest being up to one year for FPPs. Agreements specify either the volume of timber permissible to harvest, or the geographic area. The type of tenure granted has a direct effect on timber supply security.

The tenure system writ large has been criticized for its outdated disposition of rights to timber supply and to meet economic and social goals (Haley and Nelson 2007). British Columbia (BC) began a process of tenure reform in 2014 to change the nature and duration of rights to timber resources. A key concern was the duration of agreements: the timber industry wanted to secure longer tenures to provide incentives for research and development and to have more secure access to timber supply. Today, BC has 13 types of tenure, the most secure of which is issued for no less than 25 years and no more than 99 years, but replaceable every 10 years (Government of British Columbia 2012).

Tenure reform has also taken place in Ontario in response to the needs of Aboriginal people, the timber industry, and the economy in general. Tenure modernization includes new legislation to establish local forest management corporations (LFMCs) and to enhance timber supply licenses to reflect the need to respond to fluctuations in forest products markets (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2016).

The forest industry in Canada is economically significant, contributing 1.25% of the country’s GDP in 2013, which is valued at CAD19.8 billion. In terms of global production, Canada has the largest forest product trade balance (NRCan 2016). For this reason, it is imperative that the timber industry and local communities have secure access to a long-term wood supply.

7.4.4 Iceland

Forests historically covered about 25% of Iceland but were felled to clear land for agriculture. The climatic region supports growth of the boreal forest and there has been a strong push to increase afforestation, not only to restore forestlands, but also to develop a forest industry. The majority of forests are owned by private individuals and managed by forestry societies run by volunteers for the purpose of land reclamation and afforestation (see Eysteinsson 2016). Funding cuts caused by the global financial crisis have slowed afforestation significantly (Lange 2015). Today, only about 1% of Iceland is forested, but the country has the highest afforestation rate, some of which is being planted in native birch (Icelandic Forestry Association 2016).

Forest protection and legislation largely follows EU directives and focuses on ecological restoration as directed by the National Forest Programme established in 2006 (Eysteinsson 2016). Directives focus on sustainability in terms of developing a commercially valuable resource; managing the forest for ecological outcomes that maintain soil and water conservation, as well as carbon sequestration; and providing social access for recreation and well-being (Eysteinsson 2016).

The forest industry is small but is growing and serves local niche markets. The sector employs 30 people and produces fuelwood, wood products such as fence posts and lumber, as well as landscaping products from waste wood (Eysteinsson 2016).

7.4.5 Norway

Private individuals own approximately 80% of productive forests in Norway, with 43,000 of these individuals belonging to the Norwegian Forest Owners Association. Although the average property size is relatively small, given the large number of non-industrial private owners, the timber industry secures most of its wood through private individuals.

Forest policy in Norway, as in the other Scandinavian countries, promotes all aspects of sustainability, including social, economic, and ecological goals. Furthermore, Norway has committed to pursuing such goals through the ratification of international agreements such as the Rio Convention. Those who choose to use the forest for commercial purposes must comply with regulations set out in Norway’s Forest Act of 2005. While owners are free to use their forests as they see fit, if they engage in timber production they must consider environmental values and long-term sustainability as part of their harvesting practices (Nordic Timber 2016). Specific regulations apply to harvesting methods, as well as the effects of harvesting on wildlife, recreation opportunities, social values and water resources, for example.

The Forestry Act uses the “Living Forest” standard, which follows forest certification regulations set out by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Any of the private non-industrial forest owners wishing to sell timber must be certified. Because costs are shared through forest associations, nearly all of Norwegian commercial timber is certified (Håbesland et al. 2015).

To ensure private owners are compensated for providing public goods and to manage forests sustainably, a percentage of harvest income is held in reserve (between four and 40%) in the Forest Trust Fund. Forest owners are permitted to use such funds to support long-term forest planning, reforestation, improved environmental values, and to provide and maintain infrastructure such as roads (Nordic Timber 2016, Håbesland et al. 2015).

The forest products industry in Norway was also negatively affected by the global crisis, but continues to produce sawn wood, roundwood, paper products, and bioenergy. Observations from forest landowners and the timber industry suggest that the bioenergy sector has cooled considerably as a result of low oil prices. Also, concerns are rising among society about the state of the environment, thus adding pressure to increase forest use for carbon sequestration and the production of environmental goods and services (Sjølie et al. 2016).

7.4.6 Sweden

Family enterprises own approximately half of the productive forestland in Sweden. As of 2015, there were about 200,000 family enterprises, with average holdings of 50 ha. To help manage and operate forest businesses, many families work within co-operatives, thus gaining economic advantages to sales and marketing. Additionally, many family enterprises operate mills and are engaged in several aspects of forest production all along the supply chain. The second largest category is industrial private, of which there is a small number of companies that control 25% of forested land in Sweden. The state and other government owners account for the remainder (Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and forestry 2015).

Long-term sustainability is of primary importance to all forest owners, which is reflected in Sweden’s forest policy and stems from a history of heavy cutting in the 18th and 19th centuries, followed by a period of strict regulations to improve forest stewardship. Forest policy was restructured in 1994 to liberalize business using a “freedom under responsibility” philosophy while ensuring biodiversity is protected (reflecting a balance between economic development and biodiversity; see the Swedish Forestry Model 2009). Because social values are highly important to Swedish society, the government established the National Forest Programme, which enables greater public participation in decision making (Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry 2015).

The Swedish Forest Agency (SFA) oversees forest operations to ensure regulations are followed and provides support services for training, advice, and information. Additionally, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency works in conjunction with the SFA to establish nature reserves and to oversee environmental legislation. Key components of the forest act include oversight regarding harvesting methods by species and age, adherence to reforestation, and stewardship of the forest to manage socio-cultural and environmental values (Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry 2009).

The forest products industry in Sweden is highly innovative and is an important contributor to its economy, accounting for 9–12% of employment, exports, and added value. The industry contributes significantly to world demand for sawn timber (11%), paper exports (close to 9%), and pulp (about 6%) (Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry 2015). In fact, Sweden is the world’s second-largest exporter when all forest products are considered.

The vision in Sweden is to have a bio-based economy by 2035, in which the forest industry will play a substantial role, providing a renewable resource to produce building materials and energy, added value products (such as chemicals, textiles, and medical products) in a sustainable manner. To that end, the pursuit of sustainability addresses all three aspects: certified forests that are diverse and ecologically robust, the protection and development of community values and social well-being, and economic development that supports jobs and economic growth (Swedish Forest Industries Federation 2012).

7.4.7 Finland

Forests in Finland are highly important contributors to the economy, to social wellbeing, and are managed to protect the environment and biodiversity. Private families and businesses own most forestland (68%): 737,000 owners with forest land holdings greater than two hectares and average holdings of 30 ha. Of the total private owners, about 74% are families (Lier and Parviainen 2013).

The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is the primary governing body responsible for forest policy legislation and regulations. However, the Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of the Environment also play a role in terms of imports and exports of forest products, and environmental sustainability (FAO 2010a, b). Private landowners, while responsible for their own forests and free to meet their own needs, cooperate with Forest Centers that report to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, to ensure forests are managed according to forest regulations that promote socio-cultural, economic and environmental sustainability. As in the other Scandinavian countries, the Forest Centers also provide professional advice and monitoring.

In 2015 the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry announced the new National Forestry Strategy 2025 that is influenced by both strategies regarding the bioeconomy, and biodiversity. The main principle and objectives are:

The vision is “Sustainable forest management is a source of growing welfare.”

The three strategic objectives to make the vision come true are: (1) Finland is a competitive operating environment for forest-based business, (2) Forest-based business and activities and their structures are renewed and diversified and (3) Forests are in active, economically, ecologically and socially sustainable, and diverse use.

(Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2015)

Forest management and policy seeks a balance between commercial production and environmental protection. Thus, the legislation requires reforestation after harvest and that practices focus on maintaining biological diversity and natural forest processes. Additionally, about three million ha (13%) of the forest are designated for restricted use, of which 9% is strictly protected making it the highest percentage in Europe (Parviainen and Lier 2015).

Because forests are of great important to Finns, the government uses an open and transparent process to ensure public participation in all large forestry projects. This is of particular importance given increasing demand for forest resources from non-timber interests. Collaboration is further enhanced through Forest Management Associations, the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners, the Federation of Forest Owners, The Finnish Forest and Park Service, and the Finnish Reindeer Owners’ Association (FAO 2010a, b).

The forest products industry is crucial to Finland’s economy, contributing approximately 4% of the country’s GDP and employing about 65,000 people. Because of its importance, Finland is known for its forestry expertise and innovation. Modern forestry practices produce not only traditional forest products such as sawn timber and roundwood, but increasingly also produce bioproducts from wood such as cosmetics, pharmaceutical and fiber packaging. Additionally, sectors such as pulp and paper use waste products to produce increasingly more bioenergy bringing the total energy consumption of wood-based fuels up to 25% (Parviainen and Lier 2015).

7.4.8 Implications

How does management of the boreal forest compare across the Circumpolar North? There are some differences among the Arctic countries when it comes to forest policy and management. Additionally, there are differences in rights associated with ownership (public or private), management regimes, and policies that range from having a great degree of autonomy for private owners in the Nordic countries to heavy regulations that guide timber management in Russia and North America. Also, the boreal plays a relatively different role given the extent to which each country relies on the forest as an economic base. For example, the extent of the forest in Finland is 73% of land area, whereas in Iceland it is only 1% of land area.

Despite significant differences in management and ownership regimes, the similarities are greater. The resource itself is relatively homogeneous across the Circumpolar North, meaning that harvesting regimes, reforestation, wildlife habitat and ecosystem functioning, for example, are similar and that countries can collaborate to learn from each other. Additionally, timber products are somewhat homogeneous: sawn wood, round wood, pulp and paper, etc., and now the development of new wood fiber products that are used to make everything from cosmetics to clothing.

One of the most prominent similarities among nations is the focus on sustainability of the environment, communities, and economies. This view on sustainability is not only enshrined in national policies and agreements, but is also reflected by forestry practitioners in their actions to certify significant tracts of forestland. Even Russia has adopted legislation based on the principals set out by the FCS and, over time and with increasing pressure from the global communities, will be more likely to implement practices to achieve such goals.

7.5 The Global Forces of Change

The fact that the boreal forest is a vast resource might lead one to think that increasing demands can easily be met. The ability to meet demands might exist in the short run, but an increasing global population and the need for food security will result in an increase in conversion of the world’s forests, thereby displacing wood production and creating pressure for forest products derived from the boreal forest and other regions (FAO 2016). In order to achieve sustainability in the truest sense of the word, it is imperative that forest managers and owners, whether private or public, continue to reevaluate policy and promote innovation considering global changes. How have the Arctic countries dealt with such change to date?

Increasing demand for forest products will be driven primarily by demographic change, including a projected increase in the world’s population to nine billion people by 2050 and continued economic growth estimated to be US$100 trillion by 2030 (FAO 2009). This means an increase in demand for wood products, but also for other non-timber forest products and of course energy. Countries such as Sweden and Finland have been leading the global forest industry in this area with innovations in building materials using wood rather than steel (for example), the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, other wood-based fiber products, and bioenergy.

The demand for non-timber uses of the forest is also rising, as evidenced by increasing conflict among different societal groups with competing interests. For example, Saami reindeer herders in the Barents Region have long had the right for their herds to move freely over the land from the high-elevation calving grounds down through the forests to lower elevations in the winter. However, more intense forest harvesting, and expanding infrastructure such as roads, dams, and wind farms are creating increasingly more conflict, which demands innovative solutions (see Korosuo et al. 2014; Sandström et al. 2012).

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada between indigenous peoples and industry in the boreal forest, where competing interests want different benefits from the same land base, including those derived from mines, dams, and forest harvesting, which often conflicts with traditional uses, the routes of migratory species such as caribou/reindeer, and other wild food sources such as salmon. A lot of research has been conducted in this area to develop methods for resolution and mitigation, including benefit-sharing agreements, the assignation of property rights, and exploration of how to manage for multiple-use needs (see, for example, Wyatt et al. 2013, 2016; Horstkotte et al. 2014; Langston 2013).

Global impacts are unavoidable in today’s economy given the great degree of connectedness among world commodities and financial markets. As a result, many countries’ forest industries were adversely affected as a result of the global financial crisis, which negatively affected forest-dependent communities, particularly with respect to the production of traditional wood products. Additionally, increasing competition from lower-cost pulp and paper producers in nations such as Brazil and Indonesia, combined with decreasing global demand for paper and newsprint, contributed to mill closures and substantial layoffs. While many countries have recovered, the size of industry has contracted greatly in some places. The timber industry contributes approximately 4% to global GDP today, up from a low of about 3% in 2009, but significantly down from highs of over 10% in the 1980s (Parviainen and Lier 2015). Similarly, the timber industry in Canada has suffered. Between 2004 and 2014, employment in the logging industry fell by more than one-third, from over 300,000 workers to 190,000. Forest products that historically contributed three percent per year to the Canadian GDP fell to only one percent by 2013. The number of paper mills in Canada in 2000 was 50 and now is fewer than 30 (NRCan 2016).

While the economic crisis has had long-lasting effects in many areas, the downturn forced the restructuring of the industry, which resulted in the emergence of a stronger bio-economy that produces new and diverse forest products. More efficient use of forest resources led not only to innovation, but also to a level of economic diversity not seen prior to the crisis. As a result, many timber-based economies have developed new trading partners, which has helped secure long-term stability and reduce the negative effects of future economic shocks. Both the Swedish and Finnish forest industries have been leaders in this regard.

One of the greatest sources of change stems from ecological disturbance that not only transforms ecosystem dynamics, but also affects human systems. While ecological processes are natural, human intervention often creates substantial ecological change whereby forest systems move from a stable dynamic equilibrium to one that is unstable. For example, a long history of wildland fire suppression in North America, combined with climate change, is resulting in changes in fire regimes from ones that were high frequency and low intensity to those that are low frequency and high intensity and, most recently, to high frequency and high intensity. The result is increasing suppression costs and losses, a higher incidence of tragic fires where human lives and structures are lost, and where ecosystem diversity is threatened. Such consequences have long been predicted for the boreal forest (see for example Flannigan and Wagner 1991; Stocks et al. 1998; Robinne et al. 2016). The Nordic countries have also been successful in total fire suppression, yet continued climate change poses increasing risk of loss with the threat of both increased wildfire activity and drought (Lehtonen et al. 2014; Lidskog and Sjödin 2016). Additionally, deteriorating forest health has been linked to climate change; an example is the vast expanses of beetle-killed forests in the western part of Canada (Cullingham et al. 2011).

7.6 Conclusion

We live in a world where change is the only constant, meaning that we must continually adapt our use and management of forest resources to meet demand and satisfy increasingly diverse wants, in the face of economic crises and ecological disturbance. As global society becomes more environmentally conscious and resources become scarcer, there will be more pressure to use forestland for the production of non-timber forest products that range, for example, from mushrooms and medicinal products to recreation and wilderness experiences, to wind farm installations where reindeer have traditionally migrated. At the same time, forest owners and timber producers are adversely affected by external forces such as the global economic crisis that occurred between 2007 and 2009, the effects of which are still being felt in 2017. Finally, there is a vast amount of literature on the effects on the boreal forest of climate change and subsequent effects that range from vast areas of pine forests killed by the pine beetle in Canada, increasingly erratic wildlife behavior in North America and Russia, and possible drought in Scandinavia.

The response to all types of change and global effects has been extensive. Scientific research has focused on all aspects of boreal forest resiliency, from genetics and biological processes, to social vulnerability and policy effectiveness largely to increase environmental, social, and economic sustainability through adaptive change. Through scientific discovery and technological advance, forest owners and users have been successful in adapting to change to strengthen forest sustainability. If this trend persists, regardless of change, the boreal forests will continue to provide the ecological foundation that supports other human desires.

Box 7.1: The Role of the Forest Sector

The forestry sector in 1990 played a much greater role as a contributor to GDP in all of the circumpolar countries. By 2011, however, contributions to GDP had fallen by roughly half (see table below). Finland’s forest industry contributes the greatest proportion, at 4.3%, followed by Sweden at 2.9% and Canada at 1.2%. The forest sector contributes only 0.6% to the US economy, meaning that the percentage contribution to total GPD from Alaska’s forest industry would be close to zero.

Contribution of the forestry sector to total Gross Domestic Product, 1990–2011 (%)
	1990	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Canada	2.6	3.2	3	2.8	2.6	2.6	2.4	2	1.8	1.4	1.2	1.3	1.2
Finland	7.2	7.9	7.5	6.7	6.1	5.8	5.1	5.3	5.5	4.6	3.7	4.4	4.3
Iceland	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Norway	1.9	1.3	1.4	1.2	1.1	1.1	1	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6
Russia	1.4	1.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1	1	1	1	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
Sweden	4.3	4.2	4.2	3.8	3.7	3.4	2.8	3.1	3.2	2.9	3	3.1	2.9
USA	1.2	1	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.6

1. Source Data retrieved from the FAO, Lebedys and Li (2014)

The greatest contributing sectors to GDP in each country are services and manufacturing. Forestry is grouped within agriculture.

Box 7.2: A Comparison of Global Forest Value

The global financial crisis has taken a toll on forest production in the North. A look at how gross value added has changed from 1990 to 2011 reveals a general decrease in value added in the northern countries with the exception of Sweden. Value added (VA) is the value of output produced net of purchases from other sectors. It is also used to calculate GDP. The table below shows gross VA in 2011 prices, adjusted for exchange rates for the Arctic states as well as the top four forest-producing countries in the world—China, Japan, India, and Brazil.

Gross value added in the forestry sector (ISIC Rev.4 Divisions 02, 16 and 17), 1990–2011 (in million USD at 2011 prices and exchange rates)
	1990	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Canada	26,392	43,339	41,168	39,019	36,505	38,812	35,858
Sweden	13,150	15,408	15,594	14,669	14,541	13,815	11,896
Russia	19,564	12,086	11,216	12,345	12,422	12,688	13,589
Finland	10,959	14,868	14,536	13,186	12,170	11,950	10,923
Norway	4926	4714	5184	4571	4188	4273	3976
Iceland	44	35	34	35	36	32	33
USA (50 states)	110,346	135,498	119,250	118,179	114,607	119,348	117,134
China	17,434	30,834	32,595	36,236	41,877	52,719	56,898
Japan	63,397	51,356	47,301	43,508	43,197	45,041	44,197
India	18,803	22,964	23,687	23,224	23,700	22,733	24,736
Brazil	24,732	19,928	20,166	21,315	24,605	26,086	22,510
Total North America	136,740	178,840	160,419	157,201	151,115	158,163	152,994
Total Europe	203,489	190,928	190,832	185,523	179,492	180,655	173,926

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Canada	31,975	28,482	23,075	19,539	20,435	19,789
Sweden	13,469	14,753	12,919	12,657	13,967	13,841
Russia	13,724	15,278	12,486	11,992	12,789	13,075
Finland	11,830	12,997	10,943	7973	9800	9645
Norway	3856	3961	3164	2642	2755	2434
Iceland	34	32	30	30	29	29
USA (50 states)	118,119	109,329	98,367	100,138	98,697	95,664
China	64,752	79,082	88,420	96,308	112,689	124,622
Japan	40,846	39,335	39,205	37,853	39,858	39,999
India	27,640	26,180	27,330	28,744	30,129	30,958
Brazil	23,595	23,654	23,318	20,979	21,942	22,513
Total North America	150,096	137,813	121,444	119,678	119,134	115,454
Total Europe	178,659	188,646	171,540	154,587	161,799	164,147

1. The most valuable forest sector in the world in 2011 was China at US$124 trillion; that is approximately eight percent more than what is produced in North America, and approximately 75% of that produced in all of Europe. China also shows the greatest growth in VA, seemingly impervious to the global slowdown that affected most other forest producing nations. India’s VA from the forest sector has also increased in the last two decades from $18 trillion to almost $31 trillion
2. It is interesting to note that Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Norway account for almost 16% of total VA in Europe (excluding Russia). Similarly, Canada accounts for 17% of the total North American VA, which comes primarily from the boreal forest
3. Source Data retrieved from the FAO, Lebedys and Li (2014)