Future challenges for small-scale forestry – examples from the West Coast of Norway.

Prof. Jørgen Amdam, Dept. of Social Science. Volda University College.

 

Abstract

Through quantitative and qualitative research including 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 (Amdam et al 2000). In this paper I focus 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.

Keywords: local development, forestry, mobilisation

 

 

1. Introduction

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). Because of large amounts of precipitation and favourable growing conditions for spruce in Western Norway, it is possible to achieve production four times higher in raw material for a given area, compared to pine, obviously an important motive for such activity.  Since spruce is not naturally occurring, plants are imported from other parts of Europe and America which have approximately the same growing conditions as in Western Norway; this gradually causes a natural rejuvenation.

 

This process has lead to a development of organisations and work methods which focus on motivating property owners to plant spruces in appropriate areas.  Today spruce that was planted before and just after World War II is beginning to become mature and must be harvested.  The problem is that such logging is not happening to the extent necessary to avoid “old age” and reduced economic value.  What are the causes of this and what should be done in order to stimulate sustainable logging from the local economic point of view?

 

2. 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 (Amdam 1999b):

 

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.  The intensity of forest use is often quite high, while less intensive farming (livestock for slaughter) is often pursued, and often in combination with income from outside the farm — however this varies quite a bit among regions and local communities.  In areas with few possibilities for work outside of farming, there is a more common combination of active live stock raising and forestry.  Even if forestry is typically “male-dominated” in most areas, we have also found women with active interest in the forest in such “forest-active peripheral areas” such as Tingvoll municipality.  The forests in the commercially active households are often large compared to forests of other farms in the same area. 

 

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.  They often have a medium-sized milk production and the household often has an annual income from outside the farm. The income adaptation and the size of the forest are such that use of the forest will only yield a secondary income and a way to make use of “empty time” by exploiting resources that the household uses itself or which are sold to friends “grey” (outside the vat system).   Many of these can become commercially active in connection with spruce forests gradually becoming or being ready for harvesting.  But spruce is also sometimes understood as a “problem” because the old forest must be logged or it will loose its economic value — it isn’t “money at the bottom of the sack” like pine can be and which can be taken out “when appropriate” or “when needed.”

 

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.  They are seldom in the forest and find it difficult to carry out forest operations “between farm chores” even though they own usable machines and forest equipment.  As one responded: “If I have to choose between drinking a cup of coffee with the wife and driving into the forest and cutting down a tree or two before the next chore time or what has to be done on the farm, it’s usually coffee.” The threshold for these individuals becoming commercially active foresters is far higher then for the first two groups, both connected to attitudes, knowledge and the possibilities associated with available time.  But one should not ignore that collaboration with other operators both on the side of livestock and forestry operations can bring changes. 

 

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 farm is a residence and they have little knowledge and take little active action with respect to their own forests — they hardly even know “where it is.” They themselves consider it unlikely that they will one day buy machines, equipment and competent help to operate the forest — the forest is too small for that, it is too dangerous to work there, that is, outside of removing wood for private use.  Forest owners from outside of the community belong to this group. In order to set in motion activity in the forests belonging to this group, it must be done in other ways than by helping the group itself to become active.

 

3. 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. This grouping of forest owners is based on answers on two questions “I have great interest in forestry” and “Do you expect (plan) to log timber for sale the coming season?” (Scale 1 no – 6 yes). The criteria for being commercially active are high interest in forestry and plans for logging (answer 5 and 6 on both questions), while the forest active have high interested in forestry (5 and 6) but low probability for logging (1-3). The forest active with sale answered that logging was probable (4-6), but they were not highly interested in forestry (3 and 4). The group passive with potential is interested in forestry to some extent (3 and 4), but has no plans for logging for sale (1-3). The group passive with little personal potential is not interested in forestry (1 and 2). As expected the active forest owners have bigger forests then the passive. (We have reasons to believe that the group passive with little personal potential and the other passive groups are underrepresented due to not answering our questionnaire, see Amdam et al 2000).

 

Table 1. Forest ownership on the West Coast of Norway

Type of forest ownership

% of responders

 % of forest area

Average forest area (ha) per forest owner

Passive with little personal potential

12

8

26,3

Passive with potential

30

24

33,3

Forest active

23

23

43,1

Forest active, sale

7

9

51,3

The commercially active

16

26

64,6

No answer:

12

10

35,9

Total:

100 (N=975)

100

41,4

 

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). As shown on table 2 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.

 

Table 2. Activity in agriculture and group of forest owners – West Coast of Norway.

 

Agriculture as:

No agriculture income

Sum forest owners (N)

 

Main household income

Part household income

Commercial active

63 %

23 %

14 %

100 %

164

Forest active, sale

58 %

19 %

22 %

100 %

72

Forest active

49 %

26 %

25 %

100 %

224

Passive with potential

43 %

30 %

27 %

100 %

327

Passive without potential

39 %

23 %

38 %

100 %

145

Total:

49 %

26 %

25 %

100 %

932

 

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, see table 3. Of all the responders 48% had agriculture and forestry as main income, 20% manufacturing industries, 22% services and 10% other main incomes (pensions etc).

 

Table 3. Income from forestry, number of responders.

Forestry income, % of total:

Passive without potential

Passive with potential

Forest active

Forest active, sale

Commer-cial active

Total

0 or not given

108

166

91

9

17

391

1 to 5 %

26

114

76

29

42

287

6 to 10 %

5

27

27

25

37

121

11 to 15 %

 

4

4

4

16

28

16 to 20 %

 

3

5

4

29

41

More then 20 %

2

1

8

2

16

29

Total no of responders

141

315

211

73

157

897

 

In general the division into five groups as on table 2 or 3 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.

 

 

4. 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. They have been used to highlight the need to build up individual capabilities (e.g. labour force skills, or entrepreneurial capacity), and those of public administrations. In the former case, the focus is on the institutions which help to develop such capabilities. In the latter case, the emphasis has been on the capacity of particular organisations. 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’ (Giddens 1984 p. 24), 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 1992, 1995, 2000). 

 

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


 

 


5. Knowledge recourses

Healey et al (1999) divides knowledge recourses into four criteria to enable us to identify the qualities of knowledge being deployed in partnership initiative, and specifically that which relates to conceptions of place, of process and of how to make change happen (see figure 1):

 

·        Range - that is, scientific/analytical, technical, craft-based (including the craft-skills of policy work), common-sense, and, as far as we can observe, as manifest in formal presentations and justifications, in formal events, in reflections by participants, and in routine practices.

·        Frames - that is, the underlying conceptions which shape the meanings and interpretations given to the flow of information and the 'policy theories' which are deployed.

·        Integration - this links to the criteria below with respect to relational resources. This refers to the extent to which the range and frames are seen and used as interlinked or disparate, and whether deliberate attempts are made to translate types of knowledge and frames of reference from one discussion arena or practice to another.

·        Openness and learning - this relates to the capacity to absorb new ideas, to mesh these with local 'traditions', to search for new ways of understanding and acting, and to access new sources of information and inspiration. This should indicate the permeability of the frames of reference to new stimuli and opportunities.

 

As shown on table 4 only 42% of responding forest owners are of the opinion that they have enough knowledge needed for active forestry, highest (74%) among commercially active, lowest among passive without potential (13%). Only 3% of forest owners have a formal education in forestry, 9% have formal agriculture education and training – between 74% (commercially active) and 96% (passive without potential) have no agriculture or forestry education at all! On table 5 is shown their interest in advice, 54% answered that they would like more.

 

Table 4. Question: I have enough knowledge to be active in forestry.

 

Passive without  potential

Passive with  potential

Forest active

Forest active, sale

Commer-cially active

Total West Coast

No (1,2)

48 %

23 %

7 %

9 %

4 %

18 %

Both/and (3,4)

40 %

45 %

40 %

50 %

23 %

39 %

Yes (5,6)

13 %

33 %

53 %

41 %

74 %

42 %

Total

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

 

Table 5. Question: I have no need for advice in forestry.

 

Passive without  potential

Passive with  potential

Forest active

Forest active, sale

Commer-cially active

Total

West Coast

Disagree

37 %

53 %

58 %

62 %

57 %

54 %

Both/and

40 %

35 %

31 %

34 %

31 %

34 %

Agree

23 %

12 %

11 %

4 %

12 %

13 %

Total

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

 

In our study we found that the commercially active forest owners had a higher degree of formal and tacit knowledge related to forestry then other groups and this knowledge were near connected to our classification as shown on table 4. Knowledge recourses are of course related to formal education, but on the West Coast formal education related to forestry is very low. Tacit knowledge learned from parents, from self-learning activity and traditions etc seams to be a lot more important. The active groups, end especially the commercially active group, is really interested in forestry, They “talk” forestry with other active forest owners, they are interested in local production based on timber, and they are interested in a cultivated forest. On the other hand there is high variation in response regarding collective activities like local traditions for forestry, organisational activities, co-operation etc. – the reason often explained as “Community X and/or farm Y have a strong tradition for forestry”.

 

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.

 

6. Relational resources

Healey et al (1999) are exploring the following four criteria to identify the qualities of the relational resources being deployed and developed in our initiative, and the way these shape attitudes to place, process and change:

 

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.

 

In local public planning agriculture is a lot more important than forestry. When forestry is on the agenda, it is mostly as an activity that is in conflict with environment and leisure interests. As shown on table 6, very few speak about forestry in local communities. 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”.

 

Table 6. Statement: Forestry is often spoken about in the local community

 

Passive without  potential

Passive with  potential

Forest active

Forest active, sale

Commerci-ally active

Total West Coast

Disagree strongly (1)

48 %

21 %

18 %

10 %

10 %

21 %

2

19 %

33 %

22 %

31 %

17 %

25 %

3

14 %

25 %

23 %

25 %

24 %

23 %

4

12 %

16 %

20 %

25 %

31 %

20 %

5

4 %

5 %

12 %

8 %

14 %

8 %

Agree strongly (6)

3 %

1 %

6 %

1 %

3 %

3 %

 

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

 

In most communities it is not usual to co-operation in forestry, see table 7, and over 75% is of the opinion that the level of co-operation is to low – but they do very little to change this situation.

 

Table 7. Question: Is it usual to co-operate in forestry where you live?

 

Passive without  potential

Passive with  potential

Forest active

Forest active, sale

Commer-cially active

Total West Coast

Yes

12 %

19 %

23 %

27 %

30 %

21 %

No

62 %

65 %

67 %

63 %

64 %

65 %

Don’t know

26 %

16 %

10 %

11 %

6 %

14 %

 

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

 

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. Why not see forestry also as a sport or leisure activity – anything that increases the focus on forestry can be of value in this situation. To talk forestry and especially positive results from forestry - is maybe the single most important activity (Storper 1997).

 

7. Mobilisation capability

Healey et al (1999) are exploring the following four criteria for identifying the qualities of the mobilisation effort being deployed in our initiative and how far it is building up capabilities for future mobilisation.

·        Opportunity structure - what perceptions of the desirability, opportunities and constraints on institutional change are held by the various stakeholders, and what issues are selected to mobilise around.

·        Arenas - what institutional loci are the targets of mobilisational efforts? What institutional ‘spaces’ are being developed by stakeholders to take advantage of opportunities? How are stakeholders considering access to them (ie through what 'routes' to power)? Is there agreement on both the arenas and the routes to reach them?

·        Repertoires - what is the array of techniques of mobilisation which are considered or are in the experience of the stakeholders?

·        Change agents - which people are critical to the mobilisation effort? How far is there agreement on who they are and the qualities they should have (network ‘brokers’ who link networks together, core agents who maintain the cores of particular webs, etc)?

 

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 tries 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.   

    

 

8. Conclusion and strategies

Small-scale forestry on the West Coast of Norway is a symbiotic activity to agriculture. Most of the forests owning households who are active foresters are also active farmers. But income from other activity than land use is often more important than income from forestry, especially in regions where there are a lot of work opportunities in manufacturing and service industries. Forest active small-scale households seams to be so more dependent on traditions and personal interests then economic reasons. In regions with few opportunities outside the farm and with long forest traditions, forest activity is usually high.

Among the challenges facing small-scale forestry in Norway is:

Reduction and concentration in agriculture, to reduce subsidies the political aim is to get fewer and bigger farms by selling or renting land.

-         This process does not include forestland, which means that growing proportions of forest owners are not active in agriculture.  Typically also is that active and big scale milk producing households are not active in forestry. As shown in appendix 1 the farm work activity have been reduced by 60% the last 30 years in Norway, and the proportion engaged in forestry have been reduced even more (from app. 6% to 4% of work on the property).

-         New work opportunities can also lead to reduction in small-scale forestry as we have seen in numerous local communities and regions. This can be due to changes in communications or labour markets changes like the oil industry. Work outside the farm have not been reduced by more then 21% the last 30 years in Norway, and not reduced at all the last 15 years. In 1998/99 farmers and their spouse worked 114800 hours on the farm (4 600 hours in forestry) and 95 500 hours outside the farm and outside activity is “winning”.

-         Changes in education and attitudes regarding work expectations. Future generations are well educated and often with expectations that does not include forestry or agriculture. Most of the passive small-scale forest owners do not sell their land – to own land (and not use it) seams to be a value in itself in the affluent society.

 

Figure 2. The development process as a learning spiral.

 


On the other hand future changes also create new possibilities. In the oil industry most are working 2 weeks and have 4 weeks free. Can this be a new opportunity to activate them in forestry? Can forest owners working in the service industry be activated in forestry as a “hobby” and a lifestyle instead of going to “fitness centres”? Can deer hunting lead to new interests in keeping forests in good shape? Or should a kind of co-operative organisation take over the land use with professional help? What kind of changes in social capital is needed to get such developments, which are very difficult to introduce by traditional economic means.    

 


The challenge for small-scale forestry can be summed up to the question: What can be done to increase activities in forestry and to mobilise forest owners? Our discussion of confidence building, participation, concentric solidarity, co-operation and mobilisation (Amdam et al 2000) lead to a description of a local, continuous process called a strategic and mobilising planning process (Amdam and Amdam 2000). This process has approximately the same stages as a strategic planning process, but instead of viewing this process as a line or a diagram with a finite start and end, the planning or development process is drawn as an infinite spiral with an increasing «radius» but with a finite start (see figure 2.).

 

This figure is, of course, a simplification of what might happen in the real world.  Processes like this may start with a lot of enthusiasm, lose energy and go slow for a while, start up again or are laid aside. A continuous mobilisation on broad issues is almost impossible. The mobilisation process might have a specific start or initiative, but also a history and a context, which are important for further development. Successful processes most often start with small ambitions and, as participants learn to trust each other, more ambitious goals are formulated and new participants are engaged in the process. Over time the process might go through many «loops», but with stages in between each «loop» that are more «slow-moving» and which maybe concentrate more on finding technical solutions or compromises for specific problems, than on participation and mobilisation on broad issues. We all know that processes like this can take on problems that are too big or too full of conflict, so that the process is destroyed or reaches a stage where most participants are satisfied with what has been achieved and pull out of the process.

 

Active and successful participation and mobilisation in planning processes like this can lead to new activities and ambitions and to «parallel» processes that are co-ordinated, but also to competing processes in the local community as regards public engagement, participation, resources etc. If we look back on figure 2, what kind of practical advice can be developed from the theoretical presentation and the situation for forestry on the West Coast of Norway with regards to stage in the mobilising planning process?

 

a. Mobilisation presupposes knowledge.

Spread knowledge about conditions, with a special emphasis on today’s faults, strengths, opportunities and threats. In particular, threats can have a very uniting force, if these are felt to threaten the existence of the community or the organisations, as they are known today. If information is produced which shows that if the present change is allowed to continue, it will result in depopulation, a gradual reduction of the community and its organisations, etc., this will lay the foundations for a common understanding of the fact that something must be done. For example, a dramatic decline in the numbers of farmers, fishermen, industrial enterprises, young people and the working population will threaten everyone who is dependent on a vigorous community. Businesses, municipal activities, voluntary organisations etc. will be diminished instead of developing, if they cannot co-operate to reverse the trend or manage in co-operation to develop new tasks and find new areas of activity. Forest and timber is for most communities a new resource that can give new local activity and income.  

 

b. Mobilisation requires acceptance of the facts.

Knowledge alone is not enough. The facts must be accepted and comprehended, it must be recognised that this concerns us and that it concerns me. While the development of knowledge can be done analytically, such an acceptance of the facts must be created through active processes where all the participants themselves discover that this applies to them. There is, for example, little understanding of any crisis in many communities today, in spite of considerable unemployment or underemployment, because this affects school-leavers and weak groups like those without much formal education. These do not have the strength and are not organised for mobilisation. Acceptance involves getting as many as possible to understand that the crisis will also affect him or her, no one can escape it. This again makes it necessary to run an extensive education program to convey information about the crisis and its effects, combined with active processes where the participants together and, preferably integrated with those from other co-operating organisations, learn to accept the consequences for themselves and their organisation. Only when such an acceptance has been built, have the foundations been laid for a participation or mobilisation strategy in the development process. In our development work related to local planning, we have very positive experience with well-organised mass meetings.  Facts are first presented; afterwards the participants, in integrated groups with representatives from different organisations and interests, discuss faults, strengths, opportunities and threats, before finally recommending a course of action (Amdam and Amdam 2000, Amdam J. 1992, 1995). The areas of priority are the large and important areas in which action must be taken in order to effect great changes. Such changes may be to direct negative trends in a more positive direction or to change a community’s methods, and co-operate in working towards objectives other than those previously identified.

 

c. Mobilisation requires common/joint visions.

Knowledge and acceptance are not enough; the path ahead must also be mapped out. When the facts have been accepted, it is important to work on describing what conditions ought to be like and what the future should be like. In private industry this is known as a business idea. In public planning we refer to long-term guidelines or objectives. I prefer to call such uniting pictures of the future a vision. A common vision must be developed together in specific networks, between networks etc. in the community. The best thing is if all the members «discover» the vision themselves, that the vision is built up from the areas of priority that the members themselves have identified (see point b). What is primarily required is that everyone becomes conscious of this common vision. Ideally it must be imprinted in everyone’s consciousness, as many as possible must believe in it and spontaneously act so as to fulfil it. If forestry cannot be included in the visions of all members of a community, it must at least be a part of the vision of active and potentially active forest owners – and forest-based organisations and networks. 

 

d. Mobilisation requires strategies.

The next step is to translate the vision into plans of action or strategies. What is necessary in order to make the vision a reality?  This will be part-plans for each of the co-operating organisations or communities, part-plans that integrate/cut across all them. The first group of strategies should be left to the appropriate organisation/community itself after having arrived together at what must be done and what responsibility this particular organisation/community has towards the common cause/fellowship. If necessary, guidelines for these partial processes concerning possible products can be jointly established, should a co-ordinated strategic plan be desirable.

Great emphasis must be placed on the challenges that are inter-organisational - which break down the barriers between them. After such areas of priority have been identified, mandates for the work must be agreed upon and great effort should be put into the makeup of the inter-organisational working groups. These not only have to find solutions; they must also provide opportunities where the learning in the organisations or communities is to take place. Similarly it must be stressed that such working groups must work openly and present their interim results in hearings, etc., so that the results «belong» to everyone. The worst things that can happen is that these groups «dig themselves in» with their work and attach prestige to the solutions they arrive at. Of vital importance in this sort of processes is the use of creative methods.

The basic knowledge, acceptance of the facts, the vision and the main strategies must be combined in a long-term development program that clearly shows what one is heading for and how the responsibility is shared between the parties in a fair and honest way. Such development programs can be prepared for an organisation, a local community, for the commune as a community and an organisation, for regional co-operation etc. These programs must be revised systematically on the basis of new knowledge, new goals, new strategies, new partners etc. On the West Coast an example of an important barrier to break down is the institutional division between forestry and agriculture.

 

e. Mobilisation requires common priorities and/or sharing of labour in the implementation of action.

In such an active process of involvement with these strategies, a whole host of ideas and courses of action will be suggested. It is not possible to put all of these into effect. They must therefore be sorted on the basis of criteria such as: demands made on resources - available resources, consequences, responsibility, enthusiasts, bottlenecks, priority in time and agreements between participants.  

On the question of joint projects and the need for financing from several sources, agreement must be reached on the contribution of each partner, where relative benefit should be an important criterion for the size of the contribution. If regulations etc. prevent the participation of some of the parties who would benefit from doing so, then «larger» agreements should be established where this is compensated for in other areas, so that all the parties involved find it acceptable. In all project work there is a great danger of misunderstandings that can cause unnecessary conflicts. Make sure that agreements are drawn up between the parties, which in the clearest possible terms describe what is to be done, by whom and when, how and why - note down what there is agreement on and where disagreements exist - and how agreement is to be reached.

For most projects there exist obstacles to their success that are either outside the local communities/organisations themselves or within them. Identify these bottlenecks as early as possible and find how they can be removed and by whom. If possible, form special «action groups» or «guerrilla groups» with enthusiasts to get rid of such bottlenecks.

The strategies and projects that have been given priority must be jointly described in a plan of action that clearly shows what is going to happen where, when, how and why, and where the responsibility for planning and carrying out the program is defined. The responsibility for the implementation of action is given to certain partners who are made responsible through contracts and agreements.

 

f. Experience - reporting and evaluation.

All the co-operating organisations/communities ought to present an annual report on the work for change, in which they discuss their area of responsibility in relation to the long-term plans and the plan of action. This annual report must describe what has been achieved in relation to the program and in addition to the program, what has been partly completed and why, and what has not been done and why. Likewise the combined project must present a similar report. Separate communicative processes to discuss the content must be associated with this evaluation of the results. The plans of action should be revised frequently to incorporate new knowledge, remove what has already been accomplished and add new projects/activities.

 

The evaluation process is an important activity for producing new knowledge and new goals for further planning and action, a new «loop», see figure 2. If strategies and action plans function properly, the implementation process will function as a series of co-ordinated implementation «loops». Changes in challenges and situation, evaluations that show that strategies and actions that are not working properly as far as visions and goals etc. are concerned, will eventually lead to the necessity for a new strategic «loop» with high participation and communication where existing beliefs are challenged. 

 

 

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. and Amdam, R. (2000) Kommunikativ planlegging. Regional planlegging som reiskap for organisasjons- og samfunnsutvikling. Oslo: Samlaget.

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.

 

 

Appendix 1. Farm work activity in Norway, hours of work per year.

 

On the property

Outside the farm for farmer and spouse

 

In all

In agriculture

In forestry

In other occupa-tions

 

In all

Done by the farmer and spouse

Done by others

 

1 000 hours

Per cent

1 000 hours

1968/692

402 866

95

74

21

5

..

121 300

1979/80

261 629

94

75

18

6

..

106 100

1982/83

244 933

94

74

20

6

..

  99 300

1983/84

230 464

95

72

23

5

..

108 905

1989/90

195 161

95

74

21

6

..

112 976

1992/93

180 633

95

73

23

5

..

112 200

1994/95

179 106

95

73

22

5

..

107 204

1998/99*

164 200

90

70

20

4

6

  95 500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998/99*. Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Akershus and Oslo

5 900

88

68

22

5

7

  6 300

Hedmark and Oppland

28 700

91

70

21

4

6

17 700

Sør-Østlandet

23 800

83

60

24

7

10

19 800

Agder and Rogaland

24 800

92

71

21

4

5

10 900

Vestlandet (West Coast)

37 100

92

75

18

3

5

22 500

Trøndelag

26 900

91

70

21

4

5

11 400

Nord-Norge

(North-N.)

17 000

94

76

17

2

4

  6 800

Statistical yearbook, Norway 2000 (web).