In recent decades, collaboration has become a common policy instrument in public administration, both internationally and in Sweden. Inspired by scholarly literature on collaborative governance, the aim of this study is to analyze the crucial role of public administration in the design and implementation of collaborative governance. Drawing on several years of research on Swedish forest policy and governance, our work is based on extensive empirical material, including 88 semi-structured interviews, observations, written comments from open public consultations and actors, enacted policy documents, open public hearings and a survey. Our results confirm that factors related to process design strongly affect the outputs and outcomes of collaboration in public administration. We assert that public officials should meticulously design and adapt the collaborative process during its initiation and progress, according to the policy problem and actors' incentives and motivations to participate. However, despite good intentions by public officials, the overarching priorities and contextual factors governing the policy area must be set by elected decision makers at an early stage to establish democratic accountability and high levels of policy legitimacy and acceptance. A major implication for public administration is that the increasing use of collaborative governance may be highly inefficient if it is difficult for participants to draft shared objectives and provide intended outputs because of low levels of trust, and different interpretations of knowledge and norms. Finally, in contentious policy areas, such as forest policy, political priorities must sometimes be set by elected decision makers rather than through collaborative processes.

Biodiversity conservation and economic profit from forests can be combined by various land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Using a semi-structured survey, we evaluated support for scenarios representing contrasting conservation strategies in a managed boreal forest landscape. Land-sparing approaches were supported by the conservation organisation, regional administrations and the forest company, mainly motivated by the benefit for biodiversity based on ecological theory. Land-sharing approaches were supported by one recreational organisation, some municipalities and the forest owners’ association, mainly motivated by the delivery of ecosystem services. Stakeholder groups using certain ecosystem services had motivations that we related to an anthropocentric mindset, while others focused more on species conservation, which can be related both to an anthropocentric or an ecocentric mindsets. Forest conservation planning should consider stakeholders’ preferences to handle land-use conflicts. Since reaching consensus among multiple stakeholders seems unfeasible, a combination of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches is probably the best compromise.

The forest is attributed a key role in a green societal transition. Even though the climate benefits of the forest are already significant, the forest's contribution must further increase according to the Paris Agreement. In the interdisciplinary project Route to Paris, we investigate the potential of Swedish forests to contribute to a climate-neutral society. The research program is based on close collaboration with stakeholders who want to participate in developing innovative concepts that can stimulate climate-smart forestry. This work is intended to provide an initial overview of the research that the project will encompass and lay the groundwork for dialogue among stakeholders.

Inspired by collaborative governance theory, this study analyzes the process dynamics, outputs, and perceived impacts of a collaborative initiative launched by the Swedish government in 2014. It draws on extensive empirical sources related to the Swedish government's efforts to develop and implement a National Forest Programme (NFP) from 2014 to 2021. These sources include semistructured interviews, observations, public consultation comments, records of meetings and public hearings, reports from dialogues, and enacted policy documents. The results show that the collaboration initially provided a space for joint deliberation and capacity building on complex and contentious issues related to current land use. However, the final programme endorsed by the government in 2018 failed to initiate ambitious proposals on several key issues raised by participating actors, offering little indication of priorities and policy instruments to address fundamental gaps in current policy goals and their implementation. Consequently, the case reveals that it was not sufficient, and perhaps not even desirable, to address existing conflicts and policy problems in a comprehensive collaborative setting run by the Government Offices. The paper concludes with key insights for research on collaboration and suggests ways to move forward with policy designs that integrate multiple and competing policy goals in contested areas.

Konflikter, meningsskiljaktigheter och motstånd. Ofta framträder debatten om skogen som en svårlöst kamp med skilda värderingar om vad som är ett långsiktigt hållbart skogsbruk, vem som har tolkningsföreträde över nyttjandet, samt vilken kunskapssyn som ligger till grund för skogspolitiska beslut och praxis. Ibland är debatten även ett uttryck för skilda erfarenheter av att leva och bo på landsbygden respektive i urbana stadsmiljöer. De senaste åren har förhandlingar om nya strategier och lagförslag om skogen arbetats fram, inte bara i Sverige utan även i Europeiska unionen inom ramen för klimat- och miljöpolitiken. Förväntningarna på hur skogen bör brukas och vad den ska leverera till samhället, vilken roll skogen har i klimatomställningen och vem som ska bestämma vilken skog som är mest skyddsvärd, är frågor som i allt större utsträckning tycks avgöras utanför Sveriges gränser. Samtidigt fortsätter den skogspolitiska debatten i Sverige. Allt oftare hörs röster som kräver att politiken ska dra en tydlig gräns för när skogen är en privat eller en gemensam resurs; Stärk äganderätten! eller Låt skogen stå! Det pågår en intensiv diskussion gällande skogspolitikens jämställda mål om produktion och miljö, inte minst om målen uppnås främst genom frivillighet eller lagstiftning, eller om målen ens är möjliga att uppnå på samma mark. Vem eller vilka bestämmer egentligen om och hur skogen ska brukas och bevaras? Hur går det till när olika aktörer samverkar om mål, medel och framtiden för skogens nyttjande? Och varför är det så svårt att komma överens, ibland till och med om vad som är en skog?

This study investigates how and by whom the Swedish (forest) bioeconomy has been shaped so far. We unpack emerging bioeconomies as discursive constructs and use the ‘apparatus of capture’ as a conceptual framework to understand and rethink the Swedish bioeconomy. Based on analysis of empirical data from multiple sources (e.g., online surveys, in-depth interviews, participatory observations), we identify a closed bioeconomy network structure that includes forest industries, major forest owner associations, regional councils and research institutes/universities. The network (re)produces three key storylines that appeal to the majority of parties in the national parliament, defines the boundaries of relevant expertise, and discredits environmental regulation and expertise. Through these storylines the Swedish bioeconomy is turned into an issue of innovation governance, which blurs the boundaries between public and private interests in forests. To counteract future capture, different types of knowledges and forest perspectives need further exploration in Swedish bioeconomy and forest governance.

Understanding and promoting sustainability is one of the key concerns across research, policy-making and everyday lifestyle choices. At the same time, there is growing acknowledgement that responding to sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate justice and decarbonisation, among others, is rife with differences about what sustainability transformation means and implies across different settings, including the Baltic. The multifaceted character of the sustainability conundrum highlights a range of interrelated questions. For example, what repercussions the promotion of local solutions may have for long-term sustainability paths at national, regional and global levels? How to value ethical, political, social and scientific views on which problems to prioritise and whose knowledge counts? In response, universities are increasingly partnering with stakeholders in solution-oriented sustainability research projects. We understand sustainability transformations as fundamental to how societal, institutional, and technological domains interact towards just, legitimate and enduring arrangements. This perspective provides opportunities to reflect on the complexities of societal change towards sustainability, including who should be involved in partnering for change, what constitutes positive change in particular contexts, how change could come about as well as who benefits and who loses. We relate to these questions with illustrations from research projects undertaken in the Baltic and beyond.

Policy brief: Samverkan kan leda till högre tillit mellan myndigheter och medborgare, ökad legitimitet för politiska beslut samt bättre förutsättningar för att nå gemensamma mål i förvaltningen. Men det finns flera fallgropar som bör undvikas om processerna ska bli effektiva. Det visar en rapport om samverkan utifrån ett skogligt perspektiv.