Avoiding the pitfalls of adaptive management implementation in Swedish silviculture.

There is a growing demand for alternatives to Sweden's current dominant silvicultural system, driven by a desire to raise biomass production, meet environmental goals and mitigate climate change. However, moving towards diversified forest management that deviates from well established silvicultural practices carries many uncertainties and risks. Adaptive management is often suggested as an effective means of managing in the context of such complexities. Yet there has been scepticism over its appropriateness in cases characterised by large spatial extents, extended temporal scales and complex land ownership-characteristics typical of Swedish forestry. Drawing on published research, including a new paradigm for adaptive management, we indicate how common pitfalls can be avoided during implementation. We indicate the investment, infrastructure, and considerations necessary to benefit from adaptive management. In doing so, we show how this approach could offer a pragmatic operational model for managing the uncertainties, risks and obstacles associated with new silvicultural systems and the challenges facing Swedish forestry.

Ecological Knowledge Among Communities, Managers and Scientists: Bridging Divergent Perspectives to Improve Forest Management Outcomes.

Multiple actors are typically involved in forest management, namely communities, managers and researchers. In such cases, suboptimal management outcomes may, in addition to other factors, be symptomatic of a divergence in perspectives among these actors driven by fundamental differences in ecological knowledge. We examine the degree of congruence between the understandings of actors surrounding key issues of management concern in three case studies from tropical, subtropical and boreal forests. We identify commonly encountered points of divergence in ecological knowledge relating to key management processes and issues. We use these to formulate seven hypotheses about differences in the bodies of knowledge that frequently underlie communication and learning failures in forest management contexts where multiple actors are involved and outcomes are judged to be suboptimal. Finally, we present a set of propositions to acknowledge and narrow these differences. A more complete recognition of the full triangulation between all actors involved, and of the influence that fundamental differences in ecological knowledge can exert, may help lead to a more fruitful integration between local knowledge and practice, manager knowledge and practice, and contemporary science in forest management.