Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:22:47.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Community access and the culture of stewardship in Finland and Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2012

Ryan C. L. Bullock
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Kevin S. Hanna
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario, Canada
Get access

Summary

When we reflect on experiences in the North American setting, it seems that one of the more understated objectives of community forest advocates is the actual fostering of a culture of forest stewardship. Undoubtedly such visions exist in North America, but they are becoming difficult to sustain as the role of the forest industries declines and populations become increasingly urban-based. In Finland and Sweden a strong cultural attachment to forests and the resources they provide has remained in place despite similar patterns of urbanization. However, in spite of a long history of permitting community access to forested lands, neither country has always encouraged public participation in forestry policy and planning processes. But the policy setting has evolved in recent years, and in no small part as a response to rising public concern about the state of forest management. The Finnish and Swedish experience begs a different interpretation of what “community forestry” is; one that makes us think about tenure and stewardship in different ways. It also highlights the important social processes at the local level that help to shape land-use policy and facilitate successful implementation (Folke et al. 2005; Schultz et al. 2007). Ownership, while important, does not negate the potential for developing community–forest interactions or a social sense of possession and accountability. Here, we outline some of the features and recent changes in forest policy in each nation and connect these transformations to the broad notion of community expectations, an enveloping theme in the larger community forestry dialogue. By contrasting the Scandinavian case with those from North America (Chapters 3 to 7 in this book), we reflect on whether “community forestry” can be claimed in instances where a forest stewardship is engrained in national culture.

Type
Chapter
Information
Community Forestry
Local Values, Conflict and Forest Governance
, pp. 147 - 172
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, J. 1993 Management of forests resources as common propertyCommonwealth Forestry Review 72 157Google Scholar
Bäckström, P.-O. 2001 Några erfarenheter av svensk skogspolitikEkelund, H.Hamilton, G.Skogspolitisk historia. Rapport 8aJönköpingSkogsstyrelsenGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, B. 2004 Allemansrätten – Vad säger lagen?StockholmNaturvårdsverketGoogle Scholar
Berg, A.Östlund, L.Mowen, J.Olofsson, J. 2008 A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer herding area in northern SwedenForest Ecology and Management 256 1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boström, M. 2002 Skogen märks – Hur svensk skogscertifiering kom till och dess konsekvenser. SCORE reportStockholm Universitywww.score.su.se/pdfs/2002-3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Boström, M. 2003 How state-dependent is a non-state-driven rule-making project? The case of forest certification in SwedenJournal of Environmental Policy and Planning 5 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J.Gochfield, M. 1998 The tragedy of the commons 30 years laterEnvironment 40 4Google Scholar
Carlsson, L. 2001 Keeping away from the leviathan: The case of the Swedish Forest Commons. Research paper prepared for the MOST Project on Circumpolar Coping ProcessesLuleaLulea University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Donner-Amnell, J. 2011 New factors challenging the character and legitimacy of forest use in FinlandConference presentation, Yhteiskuntatieteellisen ympäristötutkimuksen seura ry Fall 2011 ColloquiumJoensuuUniversity of Eastern FinlandGoogle Scholar
Folke, C.Hahn, T.Olsson, P.Norberg, J. 2005 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systemsAnnual Review of Environment and Resources 30 441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisén, R. 2001 Skogsbruk och naturvård under ett halvt sekel, 1950–2000JönköpingSkogsstyrelsenGoogle Scholar
Hanna, K. 2010 Transition and the need for innovation in Canada's forest sectorMitchell, B.Resource and Environmental Management in Canada: Addressing Conflict and UncertaintyToronto, ONOxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hanna, K.Pölönen, I.Raitio, K. 2011 A potential role for EIA in Finnish forest planning: Learning from experiences in Ontario, CanadaImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellström, E. 2001 Conflict Cultures: Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Environmental Conflicts in ForestryHelsinkiFinnish Society of Forest ScienceGoogle Scholar
Hysing, E. 2009 Governing without government? The private governance of forest certification in SwedenPublic Administration 87 312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, D. 1999 Certification and community forestry: current trends and challenges and potentialWashingtonWorld Bank/WWF Alliance on Independent CertificationGoogle Scholar
Keskitalo, E.C.H.Sandström, C.Tysiachniouk, M.Johansson, J. 2009 Local consequences of applying international norms: Differences in the application of forest certification in northern Sweden, northern Finland, and northwest RussiaEcology and Society 14 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art1/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiser, L.Ostrom, E. 1982 The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approachesOstrom, E.Strategies of Political InquiryBeverly Hills, CASageGoogle Scholar
Kittredge, D. 2003 Private forestland owners in Sweden, large-scale cooperation inactionJournal of Forestry 101 41Google Scholar
Kokko, K. 2009 A legal method and tools for evaluation the effectiveness of regulation: Safeguarding forest biodiversity in FinlandNordic Environmental Law Journal 2009 57Google Scholar
Lawrence, A.Anglezarke, B.Frost, B.Nolan, P.Owen, R. 2009 What does community forestry mean in a devolved Great Britain?International Forestry Review 11 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leskinen, L. 2004 Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in FinlandForest Policy and Economics 6 605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockie, S.Higgins, V. 2007 Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian Agri-Environmental GovernanceJournal of Rural Studies 23 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. 2005 Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalismEnvironment and Planning A 37 995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. 2006 Neoliberalism and the politics of alternatives: Community forestry in British Columbia and the United StatesAnnals of the Association of American Geographers 96 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
METLA (Finnish Forest Research Institute) 2001 Forest Finland in Brief, 2001JoensuuMETLAGoogle Scholar
METLA (Finnish Forest Research Institute) 2009 Forest Finland in Brief, 2009JoensuuMETLAGoogle Scholar
METLA (Finnish Forest Research Institute) 2010 Metsätilastollinen vuosikirja (Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry)SastamalaVammalan Kirjapaino OyGoogle Scholar
Naturvårdsverket 2011 http://www.naturvardsverket.se
Nylund, J.-E. 2010 Swedish Forest Policy since 1990 – Reforms and ConsequencesUppsalaSLU Department of Forest ProductsGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective ActionCambridgeCambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappila, M. 2011 Metsäsääntely Suomessa ja Venäjällä: Näkökulmia kestävään metsätalouteenTurkuTurku UniversityGoogle Scholar
Pinkerton, E.Heaslip, R.Silver, J.Furman, K. 2008 Finding “space” for comanagement of forests within the neoliberal paradigm: Rights, strategies, and tools for asserting a local agendaHuman Ecology 36 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pölönen, I. 2007 Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettely. Tutkimus YVA-menettelyn oikeudellisesta asemasta ja kehittämistarpeista ympäristöllisen vaikuttavuuden näkökulmasta. [Environmental impact assessment.]A-sarja No280JyväskyläSuomalaisen Lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisujaGoogle Scholar
Primmer, E.Kyllönen, S. 2006 Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest ProgrammeForest Policy and Economics 8 838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pykälä, J. 2007 Implementation of forest act in Finland: Does it protect the right habitats for threatened species?Forest Ecology and Management 242 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raitio, K. 2008 “You Can't Please Everyone” – Conflict Management Practices, Frames, and Institutions in Finnish State Forests86JoensuuUniversity of JoensuuGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, A.Stjerquist, I.Bäckstrand, K. 2009 Not seeing the forest for the trees? The environmental effectiveness of forest certification in SwedenForest Policy and Economics 11 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, L.Folke, C.Olsson, P. 2007 Enhancing ecosystem management through social–ecological inventories: Lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, SwedenEnvironmental Conservation 34 140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogsstyrelsen, 2010 Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2010. [Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2010.]JönköpingSkogsstyrelsen.Google Scholar
St Martin, K. 2001 Making space for community resource management in fisheriesAnnals of the Association of American Geographers 91 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sveaskog, 2011 http://www.sveaskog.se/Om-Sveaskog/Skogsinnehav/
Swyngedouw, E. 2005 Governance, innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-stateUrban Studies 42 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tikkanen, J. 2006
Tikkanen, J.Kurttila, M. 2007 Participatory and regional approach in forest planning. Present state and an ideal model for private land in FinlandReports of Finnish Environmental Institute 26 112Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×