The land on which we live can be used for a lot, and, seen over time, land use has changed. In Sweden we have a lot of land in relation to the population. Nevertheless, there is lively discussion as to what the land should be used for. Should we grow food on the land? Or perhaps we should use the land to produce energy crops? Or is it wiser to keep the land as it is, so that future generations may themselves decide on its use? The answer to this question depends on the person asked, and almost regardless of who this is, the reply is justified by saying that land use must contribute to "sustainable development".
Energy forests and habitats for birds
The energy producer who considers that we should produce more energy crops and energy forests asserts that this is necessary in view of the fact that we must have a "sustainable" or "renewable" energy system. The sawmill owner thinks that we should plant forests on the land in order to increase production of timber products which he believes are necessary in the change to a sustainable society.
If we ask an ornithologist or a tourist firm, they say that we should manage land so that its natural values are preserved. Obviously, all these are right – all these areas of application produce benefits for society. The problem is that the amount of land is limited, which means that a balance must be struck. We cannot all have everything.
Material welfare
Forest land must contribute to our material welfare, and at the same time it must provide space for recreation, outdoor activities and nature conservancy.
A quick retrospect shows, however, that this discussion is far from new. In connection with his journey to Lappland, Carl von Linné suggested that forest land that was not managed or used for material things was largely valueless: "Large forests of pine are desolate and idle, fall down and rot away, since nobody needs the timber. Qaeritur, if it would not be profitable to make tar and pitch from this?" On the other hand, natural philosophers such as Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) believed that every community should be able to indulge in a wood "where not one branch should be broken", for the benefit of education and recreation.
The value of forest for Linné was the "forest products" it gave; timber, pitch, tar, while Thoreau obviously believed that the forest had a value merely by being there, untouched. If we ask people today about the value of forest land, we will probably get similar answers, i.e. that the value of the forest is associated with the subjective benefit to the individual. Which of Linné's and Thoreau's alternatives is preferable in macroeconomic terms is an empirical question, which demands measurement of the social benefit of these two alternatives.
Profitable exports – and recreation
The export revenue of Sweden from forest related products is in the region of BSEK 110 annually. But this does not mean that the macroeconomic value of forest land is equal to this amount. The macroeconomic value is determined by how forest land contributes to our total "welfare". Even commodities that are not directly sold in a market and are therefore not recorded must be included. The value of e.g. developing one hectare of forest land is therefore not necessarily included in the market price of timber, seen from a macroeconomic perspective.
Studies show, for example, that the recreational value of one hectare of land may be as high as one half of the production value of timber. This implies that if we change land use in a certain direction, for instance with the aim to produce more timber, we must pay for this in the form of the loss of other benefits which the land provides, such as recreation. In other words, there are inbuilt conflicts in the fact that land is limited and it can be used in different ways.
Reinvigorates. A forest to enjoy and to learn from. For a long time, market economic values have been set against conservation values and other non-market economic values associated with letting the forest remain untouched. Photographer: Stefan Rosengren.
90 million cubic metres are felled
As a source of energy, the forest and forest land have at all times been important, not least during World Wars 1 and 2 when the supply of imported energy was reduced. The decrease in the price of oil during the 1950s and the development of hydroelectric power in the 1950s and 1960s meant that the forest and forest land had less and less importance for the supply of energy.
Since the middle of the 1970s and the oil crisis, the forest has again become more important as a source of energy, and extraction of firewood is increasing. Today, almost 90 million cubic metres of forest are felled, compared with about 50 million annually at the beginning of the 1940s, and at the same time an increasing proportion of the logging residues are put to use.
Environmental objectives are in competition
In spite of this, it may be said that the conflicts between objectives concerning land use were relatively limited until quite recently. The productivity of the land has steeply increased, i.e. forest production per hectare has risen, and the area that had so far been exempt from intensive silviculture was on land of very low productivity. However, we can now see a relatively large change. The logging residues of forestry are already utilised to a great extent, and future allocations of land for conservation and biodiversity will have to be on forest land that is productive. The national environmental objectives adopted by the Riksdag, in particular, will result in conflicts between exploitation and conservation. One example of such objectives is "thriving forests" which shall protect the value of the forest for biological production, preserve biodiversity, and safeguard cultural, environmental and social values.
To achieve the objective "reduced climate impact", the use of forest fuel for energy purposes can be increased, for example via higher taxes on fossil fuels or direct subsidies for forest fuel. This will increase the demand for biomass. But if "thriving forests" are to be achieved, some kind of restriction must be imposed on the way forest land is used, for example by increasing the allocation of forest lands for nature reserves. This reduces the opportunities for extracting biomass. Competition for raw materials increases, which creates a shortage of raw materials, which, in turn, drives up the price of biomass.
In the ultimate, this will also mean that the Swedish forestry industry will be adversely affected. It is possible to alleviate the consequences, for instance through intensively managing forests or increasing the productivity of the land by fertilisation and timber processing. But such inputs require political decisions, either through relaxation of the existing environmental requirements, or the use of some form of economic instrument which may, in turn, impact on the opportunities of achieving other societal objectives.
The future dilemma
One, not too daring, guess is that land use conflicts of this type will become increasingly evident in future. Can we have "thriving forests" and at the same time achieve the "climate objective"? Can we have a flourishing countryside at the same time as "thriving forests"? Or are these objectives incompatible in view of the resources we have?
In the foregoing, we have discussed the value of land and the various conflicts which arise between objectives without any direct couplig to the outside world. The political objectives are associated with the global ones, especially with respect to the environment and climate. A Swedish policy that is based on ambitious climate and preservation objectives thus creates conflicts between objectives as to how land and forest are to be used in Sweden.
In the same way, a global policy that has the aim, for example, of replacing fossil fuels by biofuels will create conflicts of similar types between the objectives, but on a global level.