Afforesting Icelandic land: A promising approach for climate-smart forestry?
Publication: Canadian Journal of Forest Research
29 September 2021
Abstract
Climate-smart forestry (CSF) is considered a promising approach for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, as highlighted in several European policy documents. This paper describes a prospective approach to introducing an incentive-based scheme to facilitate the implementation of CSF through a case study in Iceland. It is argued that the payments for ecosystem services (PES) scheme allows for effective CSF management and long-term sustainability if introduced in compliance with local, cultural, and social values. In a case study of an Icelandic afforestation programme, we conducted an institutional analysis of the PES scheme and assessed its effect on the sustainable provision of forest ecosystem services for the long term. We provide preliminary findings on the application of CSF in the 30-year-old Icelandic afforestation programme scheme. The perspectives of forest and policy experts, as well as local farmers participating in the scheme, were crucial for assessing the effectiveness of PES scheme performance in Iceland.
Résumé
La foresterie intelligente face au climat (FIC) est considérée comme une approche prometteuse pour mettre en œuvre les stratégies d’adaptation et d’atténuation du changement climatique, comme le soulignent plusieurs documents de politiques en Europe. Cet article décrit une approche prospective pour introduire un plan visant à favoriser la mise en œuvre de la FIC à travers une étude de cas en Islande. On soutient que le système de paiements pour les services écosystémiques (PSE) permet une gestion efficace de la FIC et assure une durabilité à long terme s’il est introduit dans le respect des valeurs culturelles et sociales locales. Grâce à l’étude de cas du programme de boisement islandais, nous avons mené une analyse institutionnelle du système de PSE et évalué son effet sur la durabilité de l’offre de services écosystémiques forestiers à long terme. Nous présentons des résultats préliminaires sur l’application de la FIC dans le cadre du programme de boisement islandais qui dure depuis 30 ans. Les perspectives des experts forestiers et politiques ainsi que des agriculteurs locaux qui participent au programme ont été cruciales pour évaluer l’efficacité de la performance du programme de PSE en Islande. [Traduit par la Rédaction]
Introduction
Forest provides a range of ecosystem services on which the survival of humans depends (Spehn et al. 2010), including wood used for human livelihoods, air to breathe, watershed protection, prevention of soil erosion, and climate change mitigation.
Sustainable forest management (SFM) approaches have been guided by the goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015a) and the Paris Agreement (United Nations 2015b), aimed at halting forest degradation and increasing carbon sinks in forests. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places great emphasis on forests as being crucial for mitigating the impacts of climate change (IPCC 2014). The new European Union (EU) forest strategy of the European Green Deal (European Commission 2019) embraces the implementation of SFM, which ensures a balance between the provision of multiple forest ecosystem services (FES) with growing demand for raw materials. Consistency is crucial between strategies and policies at multiple levels, as well as cross-sectoral cooperation on climate change in forestry, land-use, and other key sectors. Furthermore, the streamlining of national policies and implementation of incentives (Luckert and Williamson 2005; Williamson and Nelson 2017; Kauppi et al. 2018) at local levels is essential to scale down global climate change objectives, to secure the efficiency of SFM, and to increase the provision of FES and the well-being of local people (Rowcroft et al. 2011; Härtl et al. 2016).
However, climate-smart forestry (CSF) is still falling short in achieving SFM and fulfilling climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies (Verkerk et al. 2020). To meet global afforestation goals (United Nations 2019) and to increase the adaptive capacity of local systems, policymakers must confront weak governance, recognize the role of the rural economy, and develop flexible incentives as well as clear regulations to interest local communities (Jones et al. 2010).
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been recognized as an important policy incentive that seeks to promote the sustainable provision of FES, as well as a more efficient use of available finances in existing biodiversity programmes (Karousakis 2012). The role of PES schemes has also been promoted in the European Green Deal (European Commission 2019) and the new EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 (European Commission 2020) as an approach based on a theoretically simple proposition: pay individuals or communities to undertake actions that increase the levels of desired ecosystem services (Jack et al. 2008). To date, evidence of PES schemes implemented to support the sustainable provision of climate-related services in European forestry is uncommon (weak), and different PES schemes are subjected to preliminary considerations (see e.g., Brouwer et al. 2015; Sgroi et al. 2016). Furthermore, scheme designs and detailed payment settings are usually difficult to obtain from actors. Current research about PES and (or) PES-like schemes (Wunder 2008, 2015) linked to forest ecosystems in European mountains is generally lacking, especially considering CSF.
To tackle the abovementioned issues, this study concerns the conceptual argumentation of using PES schemes for sustainable and climate-smart forestry in Iceland. The intensive afforestation that has been taking place over the last 30 years in Iceland is an interesting example of the development of a novel incentive tool with the voluntary participation of local farmers. This aims to enhance the well-being of local Icelandic people, while meeting global climate change targets by implementing a CSF approach in SFM. A PES governmental scheme has been active since 1990 under the Icelandic afforestation programme2 that concerns both regulatory and cultural FES. In this scheme, the value of climate services is fostered by cultural ecosystem services that promote pro-environmental behaviour. We argue that PES in combination with CSF can be a vital strategy for sustainable forest management and planning in the long term. CSF strategy can not only contribute to the provisioning of regulating ES but also to other categories of ES such as provisioning, cultural, supporting, and, thus, meet global strategies more efficiently.
Following this introductory section, the paper is structured as follows. First, the reader is acquainted with the theoretical concept of climate smart forestry and payments for ecosystem services. The historical background of the emergence of the Icelandic PES scheme followed by the analytical framework for PES schemes and the perception of CSF and scheme performance are then described in the Methodology section. The Results section presents an institutional analysis of the PES scheme in the first part, and an assessment of PES scheme performance and CSF implementation based on interviews and literature review in the second part. The Discussion section is focused on the findings of this study. Finally, the Concluding remarks summarize crucial key findings from the case study research.
2. Conceptual (theoretical) background
2.1. Payment for ecosystem services
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are defined as a transfer of resources between social actors, which aim to create incentives to align individual and (or) collective land use decisions with the social interest in the management of natural resources (Muradian et al. 2010) to enhance or safeguard the provision of specific or bundled ES (Gežík et al. 2021). Although PES is widely adopted at local, national, and international levels to reflect the value of FES in decision-making processes (Kemkes et al. 2010) and has been extensively analysed in terms of impacts on the poor (e.g., Randrianarison 2017; Blundo-Canto et al. 2018), little attention has been paid to the role of PES in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change (van de Sand 2012). If monetary incentive is implemented along with local social norms and aligned with cultural and interpersonal values, people trust each other and leaders are respected, and thus, collective PES can increase intrinsic motivations (Sattler and Matzdorf 2013; Brownson et al. 2019) to support long-term sustainability and climate change adaptation. According to Pirard and Karsenty (2009), afforestation PES schemes generate at least two positive impacts: (i) an increase in the financial resources available to curb deforestation, with expected positive impacts on the ecosystem services provided by these forests; and (ii) greater effectiveness of the global fight against climate change. National afforestation PES schemes implemented on a local scale are one of the strategies that countries may use to achieve the climate-neutrality goals outlined by the European Green Deal.
2.2. Climate-smart forestry
Climate-smart forestry (CSF) has recently been seen as a holistic approach that builds on sustainable forest management, with a strong focus on climate and ecosystem services, and which has a potential contribution to decarbonisation strategies (Verkerk et al. 2020). According to the Climate Smart Forestry of Mountain Regions (CLIMO) Cost Action CA 15226 project (http://climo.unimol.it/), CSF is sustainable adaptive forest management and governance to protect and enhance the potential of forests to adapt to and mitigate climate change. CSF aims to sustain ecosystem integrity and functions and to ensure the continuous delivery of ecosystem goods and services, while minimizing the impact of climate change induced changes on forests on well-being and nature’s contribution to people (Bowditch et al. 2020). The CSF aims to provide long-term benefits to locals by supporting general FES provision, while also considering regional conditions and social dimensions.
3. Methodology
3.1. Icelandic forest cover changes
The only native tree species in Iceland that forms woodlands and forests is the mountain birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.). Forest and woodland cover have been estimated at around 28% of Iceland’s land at the time of settlement in the 9th century (Aradóttir and Arnalds 2001). The first settlers, as in agrarian societies everywhere, cut down forests to create fields and grazing land for livestock. After less than 200 years, woodlands became rare and continued sheep grazing prevented birch forest regeneration after cutting. The sustained usage of birchwoods for fuelwood, building material, livestock fodder, and the production of charcoal to make iron was essential to subsistence farming but led to perpetual deforestation until the mid-20th century. Some argue that a cooling climate during a minor ice age, volcanic eruptions, and other natural disturbances played a part in forest decline. But it has been proven that such disturbances could not account for the destruction of 95% of woodland cover (Eysteinsson 2013). After many centuries of decline, it has been shown that the area of natural birch woodland has increased from 137 600 ha in 1987–1991 to 150 600 ha in 2010–2014 (Snorrason et al. 2016).
The history of organized forestry in Iceland is commonly linked to the first real afforestation attempts in the country in 1899 (Flensborg 1901). Iceland was a colony of Denmark at this time, and Danish officials did recognize the lack of woodland cover and constant shortage of wood for cooking and home heating. The legitimate afforestation of cultivated forest did not start until directly after the Second World War. Annual afforestation has increased considerably since the late 1980s when a PES scheme — regional afforestation programme (RAP) — was launched. In Iceland, forest land area in private ownership has increased substantially from 5600 ha in 1990 to 28 200 ha in 2015, mostly due to ongoing RAPs in the five regions of Iceland, which focus on the afforestation of private farms (Forest Europe 2015). The development of the area of natural birch forest afforestation and plantation in the period 1940 to 2018 is displayed in supplementary Fig. S13.
3.2. Methods
To examine the mechanism of the PES scheme, identify its challenges and opportunities, and discuss the preliminary findings of the CSF implementation in this PES scheme, the following research methods were employed.
3.2.1. Analytical framework of the PES scheme
To understand afforestation programme performance in terms of economic incentives and FES provision, we applied an institutional analysis of PES. This approach also allowed us to examine the durability of local institutions that enables them to persist. We adapted an analytical approach from Prokofieva and Gorriz (2013) and divided it into two analytical blocks:
(a) actor interactions and institutional interplay block — involving the identification of actors relevant for PES design and implementation, as well as an understanding of their roles, preferences, resources, and targeted ecosystem services;
(b) institutional design block — examining PES design aspects, such as the characteristics of contracts, payments, and monitoring.
The analysis was performed based on a review of existing relevant literature, reports, and discussions with professionals that are key actors in PES scheme development and modifications.
3.2.2. Perception of CSF and scheme performance
To examine PES scheme development and evaluate the degree of forestry smartness to adapt and mitigate climate change, via semi-structured interviews in May 2018, we approached actors (Table 1) that have been directly involved in the PES scheme. We opted to concentrate on thorough but fewer interviews (rather than shorter and numerous interviews) to get a deeper understanding of participants’ views and opinions.
Table 1.
We approached four experienced forest and policy experts involved in the formation and development of four RAPs4. In interviews with regional officers, we aimed to complement information from literature about the PES scheme development (Table 2) and its connection to newly developing CSF (Table 3) in Iceland.
Table 2.
Table 3.
We also contacted six local forest farmers who privately own the afforested land to record the personal experiences of locals participating in the PES scheme. The sample of farmers represents farms distributed across Iceland with various amounts of time spent afforesting land (from 6 to 37 years). Two farmers had been afforesting their land prior to the PES scheme’s establishment and subsequently joined the programme; one farmer is no longer active in the PES scheme but participated in developmental states of the afforestation programme.
The semistructured interviews were conducted either in-person or virtually (lasting 1–2 h) because of the long distances. Interviews were recorded anonymously and with the permission of participants to accompany the extensive interview notes.
Firstly, the interviews aimed to ascertain selected actors’ perceptions of the PES scheme’s development and to examine the behavioural changes (mostly) of farmers. Questions were divided into thematic blocks separately for two groups of interviewees (Table 2). These questions were based on the adapted and analytical approach of Prokofieva and Gorriz (2013) (described in section 3.2.1.).
Secondly, there was an assessment of CSF implementation in the PES scheme and FES provision in relation to Iceland. This was based on the study of Bowditch et al. (2020), in which a set of CSF indicators were identified as key for assessing the provision of FES in Europe. Although we could not assess and exhaustively discuss all CSF indicators (due to the unavailability of consistent data at the national level), we could discuss the state of chosen indicators in an environment as specific as Iceland, based on existing monitoring results, NFI data, international reports (Forest Europe 2015), and discussions with forestry and policy experts and farmers. Eight selected indicators crucial for CSF development and implementation (from Bowditch et al. (2020), see Tables 3 and 4) are considered the most appropriate for assessing FES provision in Iceland.
Table 4.
We were encouraged to use this approach to contribute to this challenging topic based on the Verkerk et al. (2020) study, which found that no current scientific publications clearly describe the effect of any monitored indicator nor the contribution of value classes to evaluate the degree of forestry smartness to adapt and mitigate climate change.
4. Results
4.1. Institutional analysis of the PES scheme
4.1.1. Organizational setup (scheme history)
In 1970, the idea for the Fljótdalsáætlun project in East Iceland was inspired by the example of the Örsta plan from Norway. Fljótdalsáætlun was the first well-organized attempt to afforest privately owned or managed farms through direct governmental support (e.g., assistance with land fencing). In the 1980s and 1990s, increasing public interest in forestry was also influenced by the enthusiasm of the President of Iceland, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, who planted trees at every presidential event and encouraged visiting heads of state to do likewise. In 1990, the new Héraðsskógar project (the first RAP) was launched, which was the first scheme where farmers received government incentives to afforest their land. The main aim was to address the problem of rural migration from Fljótsdalshérað county. In the 1990s, RAPs also subsequently identified the important goal of increasing carbon stocks. The Héraðsskógar project drew positive attention and encouraged farmers to support Icelandic afforestation through innovative PES schemes (Gíslason and Gunnarsson 1995). In 1997, the Icelandic Forest Owners Association (IFOA) was established by farmers. In 1999, new legislation was adopted that supported the establishment of projects similar to Héraðsskógar in other Icelandic regions (Alþingi 1999). As a consequence, another four RAPs were established in the country’s other regions (supplementary Fig. S23).
RAPs’ peak development was around 2010 (Fig. 1A), as governmental support for them declined over subsequent years. The planting of introduced tree species in natural birch forests was relatively common in the 1950s to 1970s, but stopped in later decades due to a new nature conservation law (Alþingi 2013) aimed at protecting virgin birch woods.
Fig. 1.
Between 1990 and 2016, the PES scheme was managed as RAPs (directly by the Ministry of the Environment) independent of the Icelandic Forest Service5. In 2016, RAPs came under the scope of the Icelandic Forest Service, and the nationwide “Forestry on Farms” afforestation programme was created to facilitate more effective project management. The PES scheme’s institutional structure development and financial support is shown in Figs. 1B, 1C.
4.1.2. Actor interactions and institutional interplay
The afforestation programme is a typical government-financed PES scheme in which the Ministry of Environment and Resources holds the decision-making power and allocates payments for afforestation to private farmers. The government is placed in the position of FES buyer, acting on behalf of FES users (beneficiaries) (Engel and Palmer 2008). Farmers across the country, as FES providers (sellers), can apply for a grant. The Icelandic Forest Service (IFS), the state forestry authority under the Ministry of Environment and Resources, serves as an intermediary between the government and private landowners. The IFS was established according to the Forestry and Soil Conservation Act of 1907 (Blöndal and Gunnarsson 1999), and is responsible for contract negotiation, collection and administration of payments, and monitoring afforested land, i.e., also monitoring FES provision. In 1997, farmers established the IFOA — the main goals of which were to facilitate the development of the forest industry for forest owners and to advocate for the benefit of foresters. IFOA members visit each other’s forest sites to share experience and knowledge; some farmers even borrow equipment from neighbouring farms to make growing forests more cost-efficient.
According to a multivariate classification of PES (Sattler and Matzdorf 2013), the scheme is partly involuntary on the demand side (being government-financed and ecosystem services are voluntarily provided). Public PES schemes through which the government pays landowners in return for afforestation are dominant in practice (e.g., Wunder 2013). In general, public bodies can support schemes through increased and more stable access to funding (in comparison with small-scale user-financed schemes). On the other hand, they can face issues of trust and diminished flexibility (Suich et al. 2017). This was also confirmed in the afforestation programme, where farmers’ trust of the government decreased when the budget was reduced due to the financial crisis in 2008.
With respect to the scheme’s market role, it represents a polypoly, where payments are made by a representative of many users (by the government) to many ecosystem services providers (Lawton 2013). The PES scheme has approximately 650 enrolled ES providers (farmers in the PES scheme in 2018) with land covering 20 760 ha (2018), most providers’ PES scheme area is 70 ha.
4.1.3. Institutional design of the scheme
Eligibility criterion for PES scheme participation is that the landowner must own a legal farm (although there are some exceptions related to previous participation in the scheme), with minimum plantation size of 10 ha. Farmers receive compensation that covers 97% of the costs for establishing the forest, including planting, fencing, fertilizers, administration, transportation, site preparation, and precommercial thinning in the plantation category. They also receive in-kind contributions — advice and organization, and plants for free.
After applying, a professional forester then visits a farm and determines the most suitable area. If the application is approved, a contract is offered and work begins on forest site mapping and preparing a forest plan. Contracts are long-term (40 years), signed between IFS and a farmer, and linked to the property rather than the landowner. Afforestation plans are made for each participating farm. Finally, a farmer is required to attend basic forestry training courses before the implementation phase can begin. Seedlings are provided for free at the beginning of the process. After implementation and a successful land inspection by forest professionals, the farmer receives compensation for completed work based on invoiced fees.
Incentives are paid to farmers in cash as a one-time payment after planting trees and are aimed at providing positive externalities. The scheme is output-based, as it assumes the FES provider is the most familiar with the particularities of his/her specific situation and will find the best (lowest-cost) way to provide the contracted FES. Output-based schemes imply a higher risk for the contracted FES provider due to the complexity of FES generation, as well as uncontrollable factors such as weather (Sattler and Matzdorf 2013).
Monitoring, as a critical component of PES schemes (Lawton 2013), is performed by IFS. After the planting season, an IFS forest professional completes a checklist for each farm. These quality audits aim to evaluate planting success and provide professional advice on how to alter anything the farmer may be doing incorrectly. The afforestation performance of land in a PES scheme is monitored periodically, and the results provide vital evidence for adjusting the amount for future payments.
4.2. Perception of CSF and PES scheme performance
4.2.1. Perception of PES scheme performance
Enabling factors for PES scheme development
The trust observed between farmers and governmental institutions (IFS and Ministry of Environment and Resources) enabled a relatively easy beginning for the afforestation programme and recruitment of farmers. This trust relied on a friendly approach by both regional government and forestry experts. Farmers’ environmental awareness and enthusiasm were sufficient to trigger voluntary participation in the programme and were crucial for the successful inception of the PES scheme. Farmers did not recognize payments for land reclamation and restoration as significant income. Furthermore, forest management in Iceland is a significant challenge due to climatic and physical conditions (e.g., strong winds, snowstorms, ice crystals, infertile soil, and short growing seasons). Nonetheless, farmers already identified several benefits that contributed to their well-being after a few years of participating in the programme.
Benefits resulting from PES scheme participation
Farmers have identified the benefits of forests that are experiencing microclimate changes (weaker winds, reduced climatic extremes) around forested farms, whereby the changed climate offers better conditions for animals and growing plants, as well as energy savings. Afforestation offers farmers an opportunity to return to historical family forestland use, extends possibilities for spending time actively relaxing in nature with family members (caring for the forest, harvesting mushrooms, picking berries), and gives future generations forest to enjoy. In addition, new tourism opportunities have been identified and developed, e.g., bubble hotels in forests as an attractive experience for tourists alongside outdoor activities. Lands are conscientiously afforested to protect certain areas (e.g., wetlands, cliffs), to emphasize the preservation of traditional sheep farming, and to maintain beautiful vistas for tourists. While these efforts protect the country’s cultural and aesthetic values, returning forests to Iceland has not met with universal approval. Overall, farmers have recognized the positive impact of afforestation on various regulating, cultural, and provisioning ES.
Participation, communication, and knowledge sharing as key approaches for effective PES schemes
Forest experts and governmental institutions recognize the importance of local farmers in effective land management within the afforestation programme, and consider that forestry is not only about afforested land but also about other uses required by farmers (agricultural activities). Hence, collaboration between farmers and forest experts is strongly supported to keep the PES scheme functioning and to convince inexperienced farmers to continue forest management practices as they confront their negative experiences and uncertainty. Key steps for successful afforestation have been recognised: proper planning for particular sites according to quality maps (developed by professionals), providing education and advisory service to farmers, and building and maintaining fences to protect seedlings from sheep grazing.
In the context of Icelandic forest management practices, mixed evidence of the accuracy of expert advice was identified. The reason for this potential inaccuracy is a recognizable knowledge gap. Iceland had previously been naturally covered by birch woods, but natural conditions (soil properties, weather conditions, tree species composition) have changed over time. This has made the establishment of cultivated forests on private land a challenging and exploratory endeavour. Previously, forest experts had no experience with commercial forestry and little attention was paid to either the link between FES provision and the well-being of local farmers or to CSF implementation.
Monitoring of forest management
Farmers identified inconsistent monitoring and control of afforested land, as well as a lack of professional advice for managing older forests, as the consultants are predominantly trained and experienced with newly grown forests. To improve monitoring and mapping of afforested land and to allow farmers to map their completed work more easily, an innovative smartphone app was introduced in 2017. This mobile application Avenza Maps™ allows the downloading of maps for offline use on smartphones and tablets. Its use is not obligatory while in the testing phase but will be mandatory in the future. Most farmers are already using the app, and it seems to be working effectively.
Economic issues to manage afforestation
Another challenge for afforestation programme’s successful future identified during interviews is insufficient seedling production in nurseries, which is caused by fluctuations in annual seedling orders due to inconsistent financial support from the government. At the opposite end of the forest life cycle, another challenge is causing uncertainty for farmers when harvesting mature forests (rotation age is from 50 to 90 years, depending on species and yield class on site). An insufficiently developed wood usage chain (sawmills, developed wood trade, etc.) makes selling round wood difficult. Some forest farmers have already started to produce economically valuable products, but do not see sufficient governmental support to establish the timber industry and timber market within Iceland.
4.2.2. CSF implementation in the Icelandic PES scheme
The existing PES scheme in Iceland integrates CSF characteristics; thus, we assessed CSF implementation in the active PES scheme. We observed that Iceland is often unique when comparing indicators for CSF with the rest of Europe, so the country would be considered a European outlier when applying CSF evaluation at the international level.
5. Discussion
Based on our research results, it is evident that the afforestation programme as a voluntary incentive base mechanism has a considerable and immediate impact on increasing forest cover and thus increasing multiple FES provision and successful CSF implementation. The enthusiasm and interest of farmers to afforest their farms is quite high, although their trust seems to be waning over time as the financial crisis affects the governmental institutions responsible for setting afforestation programme spending. The effective integration of social elements has recently been recognized as a key component for the successful development of PES schemes (Hiedanpää and Borgström 2014; Hiedanpää and Bromley 2012), as well as for the implementation of CSF (Bowditch et al. 2020). Support for social elements in forest management will increase adaptive capacity, resilience, the well-being of local communities, and subsequently FES provision (Webster 2013; Curtin 2014; Lawrence 2017). In this context, during interviews locals acknowledged that the ability to follow key elements from both the social and forestry perspectives would ensure the PES scheme’s effectiveness, whereas the lack of this balance would threaten its long-term success.
Future opportunities for PES scheme expansion in Iceland is to convince non-participating farmers and those owning environmentally suitable land to join the scheme. Forest and policy experts are concerned about maintaining long-term interest in afforestation programme participation. The scheme’s future depends on gaining experience in afforestation, filling knowledge gaps with research focused on the relationship between afforestation and FES provision, stable financial support, and job opportunities in forestry and the timber market.
Our assessment of Icelandic PES scheme performance within CSF implementation demonstrates that their combination and mutual complementing has the potential to build an effective and vital strategy for SFM. To achieve FES provision and land use planning in the long-term, it is necessary to bridge the gap between policy and practice with the effective engagement of forest professionals and the forest farmers’ community. Trust building and the durability of local institutions are also key elements to achieve such a strategy.
Conclusion
This case study provides clear evidence that the 30-year afforestation programme in Iceland significantly contributes to FES provision and the well-being of local farmers, while strongly supporting global climate change goals. The role and interest of forest farmers involved in the programme — who highly value the culture and the environment of Iceland and have legitimate and trustworthy relations within the scheme community — is recognized as crucial for sustainable FES provision and long-term PES scheme success.
Communication, trust, and supportive collaboration are advancing the implementation of CSF processes. This paper evidences the potential implementation of CSF in Europe. Further research would benefit from linking indicators for managing comprehensive resilience with an emphasis on the adaptive capabilities of communities.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the CLIMO project for enabling us to conduct this case study research. We are also thankful for the support of the VEGA project 2/0170/21 — Management of global change in vulnerable areas and to Czech Mountain Forests Climate-Smart Forestry — CZECLIMO LTC17007. Our special thanks go to Johanna Ólafsdóttir for accompanying us and translating interviews into Icelandic language, to Björn Traustason for helping create the map showing the geographical division of the five afforestation programmes in Iceland, and to our two internal reviewers Larus Heiðarsson and Veronika Gezik for their valuable comments.
Footnotes
2
The Icelandic Afforestation Programme schemes was named the Regional Afforestation Programmes (RAPs) from 1990. Since 2016, the merged national programme has been designated Forestry on Farms (FoF).
3
Supplementary data are available with the article at https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0312.
4
RAPs in Iceland were initially divided into five regions with own regional offices, in 2016 West region and Westfjords regions were grouped into one West region and thus we approached the main regional officers from each four region to interview.
5
The Icelandic Forest Service (IFS), a state forestry authority in Iceland governed by the Ministry of Environment and Resources, was established in 1907 and carries out a National Forest Inventory (NFI) consisting of systematic plot samples. Sampled data are used to estimate the area of cultivated forest consisting of plantations of both native and introduced tree species (Snorrason 2010).
References
Alþingi. 1999. Lög um landshlutabundin skógræktarverkefni. [Act on afforestation programme.] Available from https://www.althingi.is/lagas/132a/1999056.html.
Alþingi. 2013. Lög um náttúruvernd. Available from https://www.althingi.is/lagas/141b/2013060.html.
Aradóttir, Á.L., and Arnalds, O. 2001. Ecosystem degradation of birch woodlands in Iceland. In Nordic Mountain Birch Ecosystems. Edited by F.E. Wielgolaski. UNESCO and Parthenon Publishing, Paris and Carnforth. pp. 293–306.
Björnsson, H., Sigurðsson, B.D., Davíðsdóttir, B., Ólafsson, J., Ástþórssson, Ó.S., Ólafsdóttir, S., et al. 2018. Loftslagsbreytingar og áhrif þeirra á Íslandi, Veðurstofa Íslands, Reykjavík.
Blöndal, S., and Gunnarsson, S.B. 1999. Íslandsskógar hundrað ára saga. Mál og menning, Reykjavík.
Blundo-Canto G., Bax V., Quintero M., Cruz-Garcia G.S., Groeneveld R.A., and Marulanda L.P. 2018. The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) schemes: a systematic review. Ecol. Econ. 149: 160–183.
Bowditch E., Santopuoli G., Binder F., del Río M., La Portag M., Kluvankova T., et al. 2020. What is Climate-Smart Forestry? A definition from a multinational collaborative process focused on mountain regions of Europe. Ecosyst. Serv. 43: 101113.
Brouwer R., Lienhoop N., and Oosterhuis F. 2015. Incentivizing afforestation agreements: Institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers. J. For. Econ. 21: 205–222.
Brownson K., Guinessey E., Carranza M., Esquivel M., Hesselbach H., Ramirez L.M., and Villa L. 2019. Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): implications of community involvement for program outcomes. Ecosyst. Serv. 39: 100974.
Curtin C.G. 2014. Resilience design: toward a synthesis of cognition, learning, and collaboration for adaptive problem solving in conservation and natural resource stewardship. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2): 15.
Engel S. and Palmer C. 2008. Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecol. Econ. 65(4): 799–809.
European Commission. 2019. The European Green Deal.
European Commission. 2020. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.
Eysteinsson, T. 2013. Forestry in a treeless land. 4th ed. Icelandic Forest Service, Iceland.
Flensborg, C.E. 1901. Skovrester og Nyanlæg af Skov paa Island. Tidskrift for Skovvæsen Bd. XIII, B. København 1901. [In Danish].
Forest Europe. 2015. State of Europe’s Forests 2015.
Gežík, V., Baštáková, V., Brnkaľáková, S., and Kluvánková, T. 2021. Economic and social perspective of climate smart forestry: incentives for behavioral change to climate smart practices in a long term. In Climate-smart forestry in mountain regions. Edited by R. Tognetti, M. Smith, and P. Panzacchi. Springer Nature, Switzerland AG.
Gíslason H. and Gunnarsson S.B. 1995. Náttúruauðlind nýrra tíma. Héraðsprent, Egilsstaðir.
Härtl F.H., Barka I., Hahn W.A., Hlásny T., Irauschek F., Knoke T., et al. 2016. Multifunctionality in European mountain forests — an optimization under changing climatic conditions. Can. J. For. Res. 46(2): 163–171.
Hiedanpää J. and Borgström S. 2014. Why do some institutional arrangements succeed? Voluntary protection of forest biodiversity in Southwestern Finland and of the Golden Eagle in Finnish Lapland. Nat. Conserv. 7: 29–50.
Hiedanpää J. and Bromley D.W. 2012. Contestations Over Biodiversity Protection: Considering Peircean Semiosis. Environ. Values, 21: 357–378.
Hillebrand H. 2004. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163(2): 192–211.
IPCC. 2014. AR5 Fifth Assessment Report. Synthesis Report.
Jack B.K., Kousky C., and Sims K.R.E. 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105(28): 9465–9470.
Jones, L., Ludi, E., and Levine, S. 2010. Towards a characterisation of adaptive capacity: a framework for analysing adaptive capacity at the local level. Overseas Development Institute. December 20, 2010. Available from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2782323.
Karousakis, K. 2012. Enhancing the effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Thematic Issue. Editorial. Science for Environmental Policy. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/30si_en.pdf.
Kauppi, P., Hanewinkel, M., Lundmark, T., Nabuurs, GJ., Peltola, H., Trasobares, A., and Hetemäki, L. 2018. Climate Smart Forestry in Europe. European Forest Institute.
Keller, N., Stefani, M., Einarsdóttir, S.R., Helgadóttir, Á.K., Helgason, R., Guðlaugsdóttir, H., et al. 2021. National Inventory Report Emissions of greenhouse gases in Iceland from 1990 to 2019. The Environment Agency of Iceland.
Kemkes R.J., Farley J., and Koliba C.H.J. 2010. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ. 69(11): 2069–2207.
Lawrence A. 2017. Adapting through practice: silviculture, innovation and forest governance for the age of extreme uncertainty. For. Pol. Econ. 79: 50–60.
Lawton, J. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a best practice guide. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). [May.].
Luckert M.K. and Williamson T.B. 2005. Should sustained yield be part of sustainable forest management? Can. J. For. Res. 35(2): 356–364.
Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., and May P. 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6): 1202–1208.
Pirard R. and Karsenty A. 2009. Climate change mitigation: should “avoided deforestation” be rewarded? J. Sustainable For. 28: 434–455.
Prokofieva I. and Gorriz E. 2013. Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: an assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain). For. Pol. Econ. 37: 104–114.
Randrianarison H., Ramiaramanana J., and Wätzold F. 2017. When to pay? adjusting the timing of payments in PES design to the needs of poor land-users. Ecol. Econ. 138: 168–177.
Rowcroft, P, Smith, S, Clarke, L, Thomson, K, and Reed, M. 2011. Barriers and opportunities to the use of payments for ecosystem services. URS Scott Wilson. Final report to DEFRA.
Sattler C. and Matzdorf B. 2013. PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice-Approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosyst. Serv. 6: 2–11.
Sgroi F., Foderà M., Dana L.P., Mangiapane G., Tudisca S., Di Trapani A.M., and Testa R. 2016. Evaluation of payment for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forest: An empirical survey. Ecol. Eng. 90: 399–404.
Snorrason, A. 2010. National Forest Inventories reports: Iceland. In National Forest Inventories - Pathways for common reporting. Edited by E. Tomppo, T. Gschwantner, M. Lawrence, and R.E. McRoberts. Springer. pp. 277–289.
Snorrason A., Traustason B., Eggertsson Ó., Kjartansson B.Þ., Heiðarsson L., and Ísleifsson R. 2016. Náttúrulegt birki á Íslandi – ný úttekt á útbreiðslu þess og ástandi. [Natural birch woodland in Iceland – a new assessment on distribution and state.] Náttúrufræðingurinn, 86: 97–111. [In Icelandic with extended English summary, figure and table texts in English.]
Spehn, E.M., Rudmann-Maurer, K., Körner, CH., and Maselli, D. 2010. Mountain biodiversity and global change. GMBA-DIVERSITAS. file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/mountain_biodiversity_2010-WEB.pdf.
Suich H., Lugina M., Muttaqin M.Z., Alviya I., and Sari G.K. 2017. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Indonesia. Oryx, 51(3): 489–497.
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., and Mosseler, A. 2009. Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43.
United Nations. 2015a. Transforming our word: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.
United Nations. 2015b. Adaptation of the Paris Agreement. Available from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.
United Nations. 2019. Global forest goals and targets of the un strategic plan for forests 2030. Available from https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Global-Forest-Goals-booklet-Apr-2019.pdf.
van de Sand I. 2012. Payments for ecosystem services in the context of adaptation to climate. Ecol. Soc. 17(1): 11.
Verkerk P.J., Costanza R., Hetemäki L., Kubiszewski I., Leskinen P., Nabuurs G.J., et al. 2020. Climate-Smart Forestry: the missing link. For. Pol. Econ. 115: 102164.
Webster, R. 2013. The dimensions of social capital. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. University of Central Florida. Available from https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/2592/.
Williamson T.B. and Nelson H.W. 2017. Barriers to enhanced and integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest management. Can. J. For. Res. 47(12): 1567–1576.
Wunder S. 2008. Necessary conditions for ecosystem service payments. In Economics and Conservation in the Tropics: A Strategic Dialogue.
Wunder S. 2013. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 6(4): 230–237.
Wunder S. 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 117: 234–243.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary data (cjfr-2020-0312suppla.zip)
- Download
- 112.57 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Volume 51 • Number 12 • December 2021
Pages: 1781 - 1790
History
Received: 30 June 2020
Accepted: 25 September 2021
Accepted manuscript online: 29 September 2021
Version of record online: 29 September 2021
Notes
This Article is part of a collection of papers presented at the CLImate-Smart Forestry in MOuntain Regions (CLIMO) workshop held in Stará Lesná, Slovakia, 9–11 September 2019.
Copyright
© 2021 The Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Key Words
Mots-clés
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Stanislava Brnkalakova, Jan Světlík, Sigríður Júlía Brynleifsdóttir, Arnór Snorrason, Viera Baštáková, and Tatiana Kluvankova. 2021. Afforesting Icelandic land: A promising approach for climate-smart forestry?. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
51(12): 1781-1790. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0312
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
1. Striving for sustainability: Climate-Smart Forestry measures in Türkiye
2. Striving for Sustainability CSF Measures in Türkiye's Forest Management
3. Factors affecting governance innovations for ecosystem services provision: Insights from two self-organized forest communities in Czechia and Slovakia
4. Classification of Tree Composition in the Forest Using Images from SENTINEL-2: A Case Study of Geomunoreum Forests Using NDVI Images
5. Some options for Climate-Smart Forestry in Europe’s mountain regions
View Options
View options
Login options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.