Strong support for restoring ash, but several obstacles remain

There is also uncertainty regarding planting material, responsibility and financial risks.

The ash tree, an important broadleaf species in Sweden, has declined dramatically since the early 2000s due to ash dieback. The ash is not only a source of high-quality timber, but also a habitat for many other species and an important symbol of our cultural heritage. Ash dieback, a fungal disease, threatens both the survival of the ash tree and the species of moss, lichen, fungi and insects that depend on it. The situation raises urgent questions about whether and how the species can be saved and restored.

For restoration to succeed, more than just biological feasibility is required. Social acceptance, institutional support and commitment from stakeholders in the forestry sector are also needed. At the same time, it remains unclear how different stakeholders view the possibility of restoring ash trees during an ongoing disease outbreak, and what consequences different policy frameworks have for restoration. In a new interview study, researchers have sought answers to how stakeholders in the forestry sector view responsibility, feasibility and risks associated with ash restoration.

‒ As researchers, we work hard and hope our findings will make a difference, but we do not always know how they are perceived outside the scientific community. That is why it is particularly encouraging to learn that there is genuine interest among stakeholders in restoring ash and that they see practical value in the work being done, says Michelle Cleary, senior lecturer in Forest Pathology and Co-leader of “Rädda asken”.

In the interviews, carried out by Markus Prag MSc student at SLU, the ash tree is described as a beloved yet endangered species that evokes both admiration and sadness. An emotional connection to the tree’s aesthetic beauty, ecological role and cultural significance also emerged. Yggdrasil – the world tree in Norse mythology – and the ash tree’s former economic importance and versatility as a timber were mentioned, for example. At the same time, the interviewees’ reflections were dominated by ash dieback. The visual decline is described as worrying and the situation as sad.

Strong support, but limited willingness to act

The outlook for ash was described as cautiously optimistic. Respondents did not perceive the situation as quite as hopeless as in the case of other diseases considered irreversible. The presence of surviving and partially resistant trees was seen as a positive sign that recovery might be possible. 

Support for ash restoration is strong in principle, whilst the willingness to act is limited. Some of the biggest obstacles relate to the reliability of the resistant planting stock, financial risks, limited planting areas and fragmented regulatory responsibility. Access to reliable planting material was highlighted as particularly important, and there was a clear demand for more evidence of survival success before stakeholders feel willing to invest resources in planting.

The greatest willingness to act was shown by forest managers and forest owners with previous experience of ash cultivation, as well as those forest owners who have sites that are ecologically suitable for ash.

‒ The study confirms what many of us have seen for years: people care deeply about the ash tree and want to see it survive. But good intentions alone will not restore ash populations. We now need long-term commitment, coordinated action, and investment in resilient planting material so that landowners and forest managers can feel confident taking part in restoration. The ash is an important part of our natural and cultural heritage, and we still have an opportunity to secure its future if we act together, says Michelle. 

‒ What surprised me in this study was not only how strongly people still value ash, despite decades of decline, but also how clearly, they expressed the conditions under which they would support restoration, says Luis Andrés Guillén Alm, forest policy researcher at SLU.

Consistent regulations and issues of responsibility 

Most respondents felt that the state bears the greatest responsibility for facilitating restoration, primarily through research funding, by supporting the development of resilient plant material, and by offering financial incentives to landowners. Others felt that there was also a shared societal responsibility, with landowners, researchers and the public all contributing to restoration. At the same time, uncertainty emerged regarding the distribution of responsibility for restoration work – particularly between the state and private forest owners. Here, the need for clearer guidance and coordination from the authorities was highlighted.

Several respondents also highlighted the need for consistency and coordination between forestry regulations, conservation objectives and restoration targets. In particular, it was pointed out that there may be a lack of consistency between guidelines for broad-leaved trees, regulations on replanting and the practical needs of restoration work.

Barriers and opportunities for restoration

A lack of reliable and sustainable planting stock, costs and the availability of suitable planting sites were the most common challenges mentioned in the interviews. However, another challenge was the difficulty, under current regulations, of reintroducing ash where areas have already been replanted with other species. 

In general, forest certification schemes (FSC and PEFC) were considered to be compatible with restoration objectives, although some respondents noted that more interventionist approaches, such as the development and potential future use of genetically modified trees, could face both certification and public acceptance challenges. Several participants expressed scepticism towards this biotechnological solution, citing regulatory barriers, ecological uncertainty and potential impacts on public confidence.

Despite the challenges they faced, respondents identified several positive factors that could facilitate restoration. Existing support for the replanting of hardwood trees was seen as a key incentive. The strategy for hardwood trees, underpinned by the Forestry Act, could potentially serve as a platform for promoting restoration, provided it is updated to reflect restoration objectives. Proposals for risk-sharing were also highlighted as a way of reducing financial uncertainty in the event of failed restoration projects.

The insights from this study point to a need for a long-term national restoration programme for ash trees that can bring together research, policy instruments and practical measures to ensure successful restoration.

‒ To me, this highlights the importance of looking at forest damage through a policy lens as well as a biological one. If we understand what forest owners, managers and other stakeholders are willing to support, we also increase the possibility of applying research into practice. Restoration is becoming an increasingly important priority, so we need to combine policy and biological research to develop solutions that are scientifically sound, socially acceptable and feasible to implement, says Luis Andrés.