FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY � EXAMPLES FROM THE WEST COAST OF NORWAY

 

Jorgen Amdam (Dept. of Social Science, Volda University College, Norway)

 

��������������� �������, ���������� �������� �����������. ���� ������� ������������� ���� �� �������� ��������� ��������.

 

Can active confidence building and co-operation actually lead to better local and regional use of forest recourses? My example is from the West Coast of Norway, where we have studied reasons for low logging activity, especially that of planted spruce (Amdam et al 2000). Through quantitative and qualitative research including, among other things, interviews with forest owners, we have found that the causes for lack of timbering are complex and connected to the property owners themselves, to economic conditions, but also to a lack of tradition and knowledge of timbering and sale of that type of lumber. We focused on status and development of knowledge recourses, relational recourses and mobilisation related to forestry. Because forestry usually is only the third most important income for forest owning households on the West Coast of Norway, a lot of mobilisation activity is needed to increase activity.

Forest ownership

In our study we found big differences in forest activity between local communities and farms with approximately the same natural conditions today (Amdam et al 2000). Understanding the situation and adaptation of households which own forests is in our opinion decisive for understanding causes for lack of logging and for being able to increase the level of logging.� Through personal interviews with over 90 forest owners in 7 municipalities in Møre og Romsdal and Sogn og Fjordane, we have found that operators and households can be divided into four main groups:

The commercially active. This includes households and farms where income from logging of forests means a good deal for the total household income; the household is actively interested in the forest, pursues active conservation and active logging, making sales in general through the forest owners� association.

Forest-active. These are farmers and households which are actively interested in their forests, active with both conservation and with harvesting some of the forest � but mostly for their own use and for �friends� and acquaintances.� They are often active users of local sawmills, but not very �commercially active� through the usual system of sales.� Their forests are often not among the largest.

The passive with potential. This is a large group comprising active farmers with often more than one work-year of milk production and with medium-sized and larger forests.� Younger households also often have income from outside the farm in the amount of at least one half work-year.� What distinguishes this group from the first two is that they do not have an active attitude toward the forest.

The passive with little personal potential. This is the largest group we have studied in terms of the number of households in the rural communities and is also a strongly variable group.� One sub-group is the early-retired, often older bachelors on small and medium-sized farms who have little meat production or milk on a small scale, enough to obtain sufficient income to �get by.� It also includes households that own a small farm with little forest and get the most of their income from outside of the farm.

The situation and challenges on the West Coast

In our quantitative study based on a questionnaire to 15% of all forest owners on West Coast who have sold timber the last 20 years (52% answered see Amdam et al 2000) we found the situation on table 1. The group �Forest active� is divided into two since some of them have some timber sale.

 

Table 1 - Forest ownership on the West Coast of Norway

 

Very little of the forest on the West Coast of Norway are owned by people not living in the local community (under 10% of our responders). Activity in forestry is near connected to activity in agriculture and the majority of foresters selling timber commercially are also active in agriculture. But very few have forestry as a major income.

Only 3% of all forest owners on the West Coast earn more then 20% of household income from forestry, 7% between 11 and 20% and 12% between 6 and 10%. 78% earns less than 5% of household incomes from forestry. Of all the responders 48% had agriculture and forestry as main income, 20% manufacturing industries, 22% services and 10% other main incomes (pensions etc).

In general the division into five groups as on table 1 also functioned as a ranging of forest activity where the commercially active forest owner had highest activity and the passive without potential had lowest regarding; own forest work, plan for forest use and activity, equipment for forestry, planting and cultivation, sale of timber and wood, public support for forest activities like road building and participation in local forest owner organisations.

Institutional capacity-building

These challenges regarding development of forestry on the West Coast of Norway can be compared to the concept of institutional capacity building (Healey et al 1999:4):�

�The notion of �capacity-building� and �institutional capacity building� are not new concepts. .. The new thinking about institutional capacity focuses on the webs of relations involved in urban governance, which interlink government organisations, those in private sector and voluntary organisations and those who in any way get involved in governance, that is, in collective action. The term �institution� is given a sociological meaning as a �enduring feature� of social life giving �solidity across time and space�� .. , that is, it extends beyond formal organisations, to encompass cultural patterns (such as kinship relations, religious life, other �moral communities� and informal civic associations of all kinds).�

To avoid the currently confused and broad use of the term �social capital�, Healey et al (1999) use the term �institutional capital� (see figure 1) which include knowledge resources (K), relational resources (R) and mobilisation capacity (M), the two first leading to the third. This model describes in a structured way the challenges discussed above facing local planning and development processes that tries both to develop local confidence and also to find local solutions on planning and development problems. In this paper I will present some of our results when we used this model to analyse challenges facing forestry on the West Coast of Norway (Amdam et al 2000). We also used perspectives from confidence building, local planning and institutional capacity building to develop strategies for change (Amdam).�

Figure 1. Specific qualities of the dimensions of institutional capital (Healey et al 1999)

 

On a general basis the study showed that the knowledge recourse related to forestry was very low among forest owners. Forestry is an activity for the highly motivated few. Most communities have low range, integration and openness regarding forestry � the forest doesn�t �exist� as a proper income activity � it is not included in their frame. Information is not meaningful and does not lead to comprehension of possibilities. To increase activity fundamentally the mentality (i.e. the knowledge recourses) of all forest owners must be changed into a more proactive attitude. On the other hand forestry is a marginal activity. The few forestry based knowledge recourses � mostly tacit - are challenged by higher formal education level outside forestry and agriculture in the communities, and the number of forest owners that are active in agriculture are steadily reduced as more and more find work in manufacturing industries and services. The possibility for increased knowledge resources in forestry is highest in communities and regions where forest resources are high, with long and strong tradition for forestry and few job alternatives outside agriculture.

Our findings are that the relational capital of the West Coast Forestry is very low (Amdam et al 2000). There are active networks between the commercially active forest owners, public forest advisers and forest owner organisations but these networks are not integrated into other local networks � they are regional or national �Clubs of special interests�. Since most of active foresters also are active in agriculture production, one should expect an integration of these networks � but this is very seldom the situation. The public organisations and institutions regarding forestry were mostly imported from the eastern part of Norway where forestry is important and where properties are rather big. Activities like advice, agriculture and forest planning etc are not integrated and education are separated an almost all levels. Agriculture are seldom spoken about in forest networks, and the opposite � in spite of being populated by the same owners. What we learned was that forest owners that had high income from forestry seldom spoke about their experience, while �amateurs� with bad experience from sale etc. spread this like �fire in dry grass�. The few forest-based networks are also under strong pressure. A lot of alternative work, public rationalisation that reduce the number of forest advisers, reduction of active farmers, increasing age among forest owners etc reduces the possibility to increase activity in existing networks. To change this situation other networks must be activated � forestry must try to �occupy� and mobilise existing and to establish new networks that can mobilise new groups. To talk forestry and especially positive results from forestry - is maybe the single most important activity (Storper 1997).

Low knowledge and relational capital leads to a situation where mobilisation capability is low � or rather that the energy needed for mobilisation to a certain level is high. Only 40% of forest owners know that there is change agents locally that try to increase forest activity � public agents included (and all communes have employees working to increase forest activities). On the other hand, our qualitative studies have shown that activities can increase a lot if active forest owners work proactively to motivate other interested but not active forest owners and if the public advice system can co-ordinate and give support to forest activities like forest road building, stimulate co-operation of logging between owners etc.

Our recommendations to increase forest activities are to give maximum support to active forest owners and to proactive public employees and give them the role of change agents (Healey 1997, Stöhr 1990). But mobilisation activities must build on these facts:

1.   Mobilisation activities must respect that most forest owners on the West Coast are �hobby forest owners� � forestry are not an important part of family income and can be so for very few. On the other hand there are still, in most communities, forest owners that are genuinely interested in their forest; that it is cultivated and/or who can be activated in forestry as leisure and sport etc.

2.   Mobilisation activities must be accepted and respected as a natural and important part of activities in public and other forest organisations. Change agents must be respected and stimulated and forest organisations must recruit persons that have personal abilities and interests needed to be change agents.���

����

Bibliography

Amdam, J. (1992) Local Planning and Mobilization: Experiences from the Norwegian Fringe, in M. Tykkyläinen (Ed) Development Issues and Strategies in the New Europe, pp. 21-40. Aldershot: Avebury.

Amdam, J. (1995) Mobilization, Participation and Partnership Building in Local Development Planning: Experience from Local Planning on Women�s Conditions in Six Norwegian Communes. European Planning Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 305-332.

Amdam, J. (1999): Forestry Resources and Local Sustainable Development. In Byron, E. and J. Hutson (eds.): Local Enterprise on the North Atlantic. Margin. P. 295-316. Ashgate. Aldershot. ISBN 1 84014 932 9

Amdam. J. (2000): Confidence Building in Local Planning and Development. Some experience from Norway. European Planning Studies, Vol. 8, No. 5.

Amdam, J., J. Barstad and G. Matland Olsen (2000): Kvifor skal vi avverke skog? Om årsaker til manglande skogavverking på Vestlandet. Forskingsrapport nr. 40. Høgskulen i Volda og Møreforsking Volda.

Healey, P. (1997): Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.

Healey, P., A. Madanapour and C. Magalhaes (1999): Institutional Capasity‑building, Urban Planning and Urban Regeneration Projects. In M. Sotarauta (ed.) Urban Futures: A Loss of Shadows in the Flowing Spaces? Futura vol. 18. No. 3/1999. p. 117 ‑ 137.

Storper, M. (1997): The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. The Guilford Press. New York. London.

Stöhr, W. (Ed) (1990) Global Challange and Local Response. Initiatives for Economic Regeneration in Contemporary Europe. London/New York: The United Nations University. Mansell.