Multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation

Multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation – institutional challenges Minna Kaljonen1, Eeva Primmer2, Geert De Blust3, Maria Nijnik4, Mart Külvik5 1 Finnish Environment Institute, Research Programme for Environmental Policy, P.O.Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: firstname.lastname@ymparisto.fi 2 Finnish Environment Institute, Research Programme for Environmental Policy, P.O. Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: firstname.lastname@ymparisto.fi 3 Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Department of Ecosystems, Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected] 4 Socio-Economic Research Group, Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, Scotland, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] 5 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected]

Summary Integrating biodiversity conservation objectives to local level practices takes place in rural areas where land and natural resources are managed for multiple functions. Institutional arrangements in these local contexts will necessarily need to adapt to respond to evolving environmental conditions as well as social expectations and opportunities. Institutional capabilities to deliberate across policy sectors and levels include open communication channels, systems of learning, facilitation of actors and technical interfaces as well as ability to communicate across borders. Cross-sectoral communication that serves the identification and integration of the multiple functions of natural resources and land is enhanced when different actors trust each other, learn and work together, and share targets. In this article, we draw on experiences from three empirical cases in which different kinds of institutional arrangements have been developed to address the challenge of multifunctionality in rural land use, agriculture and forestry. In studying these cases, we make an effort to identify the institutional contexts where the case processes developed, as well as the development and application of shared capabilities to deal with multifunctionality and biodiversity across policy sectors and levels. We conclude by making the statement that while we can identify successful trails of crossing sectoral borders and integrating biodiversity conservation to land and natural resource management, greater attention to multifunctionality is required when planning and participating in natural resource management and biodiversity conservation decisions. Keywords Multifunctionality, institutional capabilities, agriculture, forestry, land use, policy integration

54

Minna Kaljonen, Eeva Primmer, Geert de Blust, Maria Nijnik and Mart Külvik

1. Introduction In this article we argue that, for biodiversity conservation to become a meaningful niche in current natural resource management practices, the multifunctional character of rural land use must be a starting point. Rural areas are the grounds where production of food and raw material is combined with generation of a diverse range of benefits and services. Agriculture and forestry are multifunctional by their very nature. In addition to food and timber, they produce recreational opportunities, aesthetic values, local entrepreneurial opportunities, rural livelihoods and wellbeing as well as ecological integrity and biodiversity. Ecological functions do not represent a minor service but are often the crucial precondition for all other production (Folke et al. 2004, Chapin et al. 2000). A frequently cited definition of the OECD has termed the following as the key elements of multifunctional production systems: i) the existence of multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs that are jointly produced, and ii) the fact that some of the non-commodity outputs exhibit the characteristics of externalities or public goods, with the result that markets for these goods do not exist or they function poorly (OECD 2001: 13). Characterised in this way, multifunctionality is, in the first place, an economic concept capturing economic and policy characteristics of the production process. We, however, argue that multifunctionality is, in essence, a political concept. The relative societal weight of the multiple functions of agriculture or forestry and their contribution to rural livelihood evolve over time; as does the range of actors participating in defining these functions. Lately, the discussion on multifunctionality has accelerated as the European Union (EU) has adopted the notion when defending agricultural subsidies within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations concerning the liberalization of the agricultural trade (e.g. Potter & Burney 2002). EU has taken an active role in integrating environmental and rural development considerations more prominently into agricultural policy (e.g. Buller et al. 2000). The most relevant policy changes, in this respect, have been the de-coupling of agricultural support from production, and support for agri-environmental and rural development measures. In forestry, the discussion on multifunctionality has focussed on how to manage forests for multiple purposes. Integration of conservation and timber production on the one hand (Lindenmayer & Franklin 2002), and recognition of the broad range of benefits on the other (Bowes & Krutilla 1989; Hyttinen et al. 2000; Cubbage 2006), have been the main streams of development towards multifunctional forest management. This reflects a demand-driven policy with societal expectations that increase in range (Rantala & Primmer 2003; Nijnik & Mather 2006) and are expressed by an expanding number of groups in society for an ever growing area of forest concerned (Konijnendijk 2000). Multifunctional forestry has also become institutionalized in European Union policy and more specifically in, for instance, Flanders (Belgium), Finland and United Kingdom where forest legislation rests on the principle of integrated management for multiple benefits from the forests. The criteria and indicators

Multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation – institutional challenges

55

for Sustainable Forest Management (MCPFE 2002) are an important European-level formalization of the integration of economic and ecological functions of forests. The quest for multifunctional management practices has gained momentum also within nature conservation policies. The conflicts encountered in the implementation of regional ecological networks and the overarching Natura 2000 network in the European Union have forced authorities to develop more integrated and participatory approaches for the management of the protected areas (e.g. Bogaert & Gersie 2006; Ledoux et al. 2000; Hiedanpää 2005; Suskevics & Külvik 2007). Increasing interest in adaptive ecosystem management is also one indication of the emerging paradigm shift (Folke et al. 2004, EC 2006). The multiple functions of agriculture and forestry are in the focus of much academic debate (e.g. Evans et al. 2002; Marsden 2003; Mather et al. 2006; McCarthy 2005; Wilson 2004), while at the same time the governance structures in rural development and natural resource management are changing (Pierre 2000; Rhodes 1996). This political process requires sensitivity from institutions and novel institutional capabilities. The multifunctional use of resources and landscape will require a much more diverse set of skills and systems than management for a single output – e.g. nature conservation areas (Wolf & Primmer 2006). In this paper we elaborate the institutional challenges for enhancing integration of biodiversity policies into local multifunctional land use practices. We will explore institutional capabilities supporting or constraining multifunctional governance. Like Healey et al. 2003, we look at the processes which allow [or hinder] institutional capability development. We posit that institutional capabilities are continually emergent and produced in an interactive context (Hajer & Wagenaar 2003). As such they entail knowledge resources and skills, social and relational resources (including trust) as well as mobilization capabilities (Healey et al. 2003). The latter refers to resources to act collectively, capture external attention and to make difference. We argue that the full recognition of multifunctionality provides new opportunities for sectoral integration and for the development of capabilities in planning. It can also contribute to reformulation and mobilisation of interests and shift in power, as the focus reaches across policy sectors and levels. Multifunctionality entails a potential for empowerment. We draw on experiences gained from three case studies, in which different kinds of institutional arrangements have been developed in order to better acknowledge the multifunctional character of natural resource use. We will first shortly introduce the case studies and analyse how the capabilities have been produced in practice, and then proceed to comparative analysis, and further, to conclusions about the status of institutions and capabilities that support multifunctional land use and biodiversity conservation.

2. Case-studies on multifunctional governance The processes we describe are about implementing biodiversity policy. The first case focuses on the collaboration challenges confronted in the implementation of a regional ecological network and the preparation of management plans for Natura

56


2000 sites in multifunctional landscapes in Flanders, Belgium (Bogaert 2004). Our second case is about grounded general planning as a tool to overcome the gap from individual to collective action in agro-biodiversity management in Finland (Kaljonen 2007a; Härjämäki & Kaljonen 2007). Third, we analyse practices around a Collaborative Networks project which aimed at deriving multiple benefits from voluntary biodiversity conservation and local collaboration in the very traditional and institutionalised forest sector in Finland. (Primmer & Keinonen 2006).1 In studying these cases, we make an effort to identify the institutional contexts where the case processes develop, as well as the development and application of shared capabilities to deal with multifunctionality and biodiversity across policy sectors and levels. 2.1 Conditions and institutional capabilities for biodiversity action plans, learning from participatory river basin management On several occasions the closed character of nature policy arrangements has rendered it impossible to reach the agreed objectives. This has been the case in Flanders, Belgium (Bogaert and Gersie 2006). In order to ensure the successful implementation of nationwide biodiversity conservation initiatives and action plans in multifunctional regions, such as Natura 2000, and to facilitate the effective elaboration and adoption of associated management plans, such as Nature Directive Plans, an appropriate strategy that acknowledges the multi-actor setting and interests is required. A successful strategy enables the concretisation and assessment of general objectives in local circumstances. The conditions and institutional capabilities required can be exemplified through collaborative planning processes in complex situations, for instance in our case on river basin management. Planning and managing the complex interrelations between biodiversity, land use and ecosystem functions, and at the same time involving the public and stakeholders to the full, requires an integrative way of working that synthesizes a wide range of information and knowledge. Traditionally, this is achieved by involving different policy sectors that link with particular ecosystem functions and services which, at the same time, represent the interests and stakeholders related to these particular functions. In order to achieve integration in a balanced and transparent way, every decision formulated in the plan should be made with full and expressed knowledge of the consequences of that particular choice for the characteristics of the whole system and for the future development of its different functions. One way to integrate functions is through a plan elaborated along successive phases. This has been applied for instance for the management and flood control of rivers (De Blust et al. 1990). In the first phase of this case, all participating sectors defined their “general objectives”, the corresponding ‘general prior conditions’ (spatial, environmental, legal), and the conditions which were a prerequisite for reaching the stated 1

The empirical data and technical analysis are described elsewhere. Please consult the detailed case study reports, indicated in the references.


57

objectives. This information, displaying eventually also knowledge gaps, would form the basis for all further decisions as it defined the limits to be respected by a sector in order to attain its policy objectives. The original conditions and the general objectives were then operationalized as specific objectives and conditions for the project area. Then, the potential impact of river and flood control measures on the crucial ecosystem characteristics of the area and the legal aspects that determined the functioning were defined and analysed. Finally, to have a reference for the importance of the area, every sector evaluated the present characteristics of the project area in relation to the desired objectives and had to express possibilities for alternative ways to realise their goals. Building institutional capabilities with this type of planning process would only involve civil servants of relevant administrations and authorities. Further success was gained when the procedure put emphasis on equivalence of the parties involved and transparency of the rationale that had led to the decisions. Direct involvement of stakeholders in the planning and management processes required another approach. This became clear in river catchment planning where stakeholders, economic and public interest groups, government bodies and experts worked together to achieve an integrated valley development plan that could be the start for appropriate flood prevention measures and accompanying nature conservation and development (Ridder et al. 2005; Tàbara, 2005). The prerequisites to yield proposals that are endorsed by the stakeholders concern group arrangements as well as the personal skills of the participants (Craps & Prins 2004). The presence of a skilled and independent convenor, accepted by all participants and able to guide the process, is a first condition. In practice, this is not always easy to achieve. In the process studied by Craps and Prins, the convenor was also the initiator of the project, a public officer the other participants initially strongly identified with a particular interest. In such a case, it was difficult to avoid combining roles; a person could not be a convenor and an advocate of nature interests at the same time. Today, this is one of the most important constraints in the preparation of the Nature Directive Plans for Natura 2000 and comparable complex conservation sites in Flanders. Openness about and willingness to share information and basic data are important also for the legitimacy of representatives. This is possible through regular feedback to their constituencies. The latter requires a well established structure of the stakeholder organisations, adequate procedures of internal communication and punctual representatives. Collaborative and participatory planning in this project was found to be time consuming. This can be a considerable burden for people who take up this task in their free time. Hence there is a risk of withdrawal. To overcome this, authorities should provide adequate incentives to support the participation of stakeholders. Craps & Prins (2004) have found that in larger groups and in complex projects, preparatory activities often take place in separate groups. When different groups, however, function as official or as informal working groups there is a risk that the first would lag behind while in the latter the social learning process develops quickly. As a

58


consequence, the information and mutually agreed decisions that are passed from the informal to the formal groups might not always translate well. 2.2 Regional agro-biodiversity management planning The agri-environmental schemes of the European Union have significantly changed the Finnish agri-environmental policy through offering novel policy measures and a significant amount of resources for enhancing the multifunctional character of agriculture. The European policy is based on the idea that farmers should be paid for providing environmental services. The Finnish model consists of general and special protection schemes (GPS and SPS) (MAF 2006; EC 2005). The GPS was built to compensate for the decline in farm income caused by EU membership since 1995. Largely due to the importance to farm income, some 90% of Finnish farms are contracted to GPS (MAF 2004). The SPS was built to address particular environmental protection needs and it consists of more focused actions for e.g. biodiversity management. The agricultural and environmental administrations are together in charge of the implementation of the policy. Also advisors take part in the practical guidance and planning. The policy implementation has established a co-operational routine between the two sectors and helped to create a shared understanding of the agri-environmental problems and their possible solutions (Kaljonen 2007b; Kröger 2006). In terms of biodiversity conservation, the implementation of the schemes has, however, encountered a two-fold institutional ambiguity (Hajer 2003). Firstly, the main emphasis of the Finnish programme has been on water protection, and biodiversity is only slowly gaining more attention (Jokinen 2000; Yliskylä-Peuralahti 2003). Secondly, the biodiversity management contract areas have been sporadically distributed in an otherwise intensively farmed landscape. This has not allowed conditions for the dispersion of populations from one area to next (Kuussaari et al. 2004), which is a key condition for the recovery of biodiversity. The contracts should be allocated to ecologically valuable areas and to a large enough group of farms. Resolving these ambiguities calls for collective action and re-assessment of scale in the implementation of policy. As a response to these problems, more than fifty regional biodiversity management plans have been carried out throughout Finland (Härjämäki & Kaljonen 2007). The goal of the planning has been to increase the amount of SPS contracts, to allocate them to the most valuable areas, to enhance co-operation and to build a relationship of trust with farmers. The Regional Environmental Centres have mainly been in charge of the planning. In practice, planning consists of field and map work as well as participatory meetings. In Vehmaa, in south-western Finland, for example, intense field work and farm visits formed a central part of the planning (Kaljonen 2007a). During the farm visits, the planners not only surveyed the plant species and potential management sites but also had a talk with the landowners, heard about the land use history and discussed available management options. The farm visits had a strong guiding role. In Vehmaa, there were also attempts to involve additional stakeholders in the planning in various ways. The planning relied on a large advisory board, where


59

all relevant local actors and interest groups were represented. Two general meetings were also organized for the farmers, where they could ask questions, comment on the plan and bring up their own ideas about potential sites. As environmental officials hold a marginal position in the farming community, they are compelled to create good arguments to justify their actions and to develop tools that enable co-operation between different actors. The regional biodiversity management planning proved to be a powerful tool for this, the results of which could be directly seen in the numbers of SPS contracts made in the planning areas (Härjämäki & Kaljonen 2007). According to our analysis, the planning offered conditions for local learning. It managed to take into account the locally varying environmental conditions and to use the farmers’ experience-based local knowledge which has been central to their relationship with nature (see also Kaljonen 2006). It managed to do even more: it enabled a flexible interchange between the different scales. It allowed a thorough exchange of detailed ideas of how one particular site could be managed and funded, together with a broader perspective on the rural environment. Despite the potential for local learning, the room of manoeuvre offered for farmers was still rather limited. The ways in which the sites are associated with farming activities is critical to the farmers’ ability to manage the sites and to help the biodiversity recover. Through planning, the societal effects of changes in agricultural production come back to farms as ecologically valuable or potentially restorable sites. As a meadow gains a status of an ecologically valuable site, the farmer should accordingly change his/her practices, and to comply with the scheme conditions, clear the thicket, mow the grass and let the animals graze the pasture. The farmer must rearrange his/ her farming practices and create a new set of associations that enable the management of the meadow in a traditional way. Active farmers, who are investing intensively in production, have difficulties in associating the management of valuable ecological sites and traditional practices with their farming activities. By contrast, those farmers who have been able to associate biodiversity with bringing direct added value to their businesses have succeeded better with the management. These farms include e.g. meadow meat producers, tourist farms or small part-time farms that gather their livelihood from many different sources. Regional planning has supported these farms in starting up with biodiversity management and diversifying their livelihood. Paradoxically, the more biodiversity is subject to management, the more it is demarcated from the sphere of agricultural production. Regional biodiversity management planning has not been able to challenge the boundary between productive space and nature created by the modern intensive agricultural systems. Although the primary goal was the opposite, the associations built around ecologically valuable sites have perhaps even strengthened this boundary. Biodiversity might be considered a feature of the past and be protected on the ecologically valuable sites, while agricultural production continues to intensify elsewhere. Although the aim of the planning was to blaze a trail for biodiversity management in agriculture, it has ended up enforcing the current rather limited interpretation of biodiversity management and the identity of an environmental manager as provided by the agri-environmental schemes. In this

60


respect, the multifunctional character of agriculture still faces the challenge of translation from policy rhetoric to daily practice and basis of livelihood. 2.3 Collaboration for biodiversity conservation in a network project Finnish forest sector has ambitiously developed multifunctional forestry, and particularly conservation practices in commercially managed forests, through the inclusion of biodiversity conservation in norms, guidelines, planning and extension. This is partly a response to the proportion of forest area conserved in Southern Finland being extremely low, ranging between less than one percent and two percent in different regions. In addition to the conservation void, the growing demand that has emerged for increased conservation is due to changes in citizens’ values (Horne et al. 2004), consumer values reflected through markets (Kärnä 2003; Halme 2002), and international biodiversity conservation commitments. As a majority of the productive forest area is owned by several hundred thousand non-industrial private forest owners, legitimacy of conservation is a significant challenge for relevant policy design. The legitimacy crisis is rooted in a practice where forestry administration has a close connection with land owners due to shared preferences and objectives focussing on timber production, while environmental administration carries out conservation programme implementation through negotiation and land takings. These differing practices have led to a steep polarisation between the two positions in the society (Hiedanpää 2002; Rantala & Primmer 2003). As a response to coinciding urgent needs to increase forest conservation in Southern Finland, and to identify new conservation mechanisms, the Finnish Government passed a Decision-in-Principle on the so-called Southern Finland Forest Biodiversity Programme in 2002 (METSO). This Programme has initiated new conservation instruments in the form of pilot projects which have further been considered for nationwide application (Horne et al. 2007). One of the pilots was the so called Collaborative Networks. The four network projects were chosen through a two-round competitive selection process. The network organisations included forest and environmental authorities, educational organisations, forest owners’ organisations and nature NGOs in varying combinations. The network projects varied in terms of socio-ecological contexts: forest nature, socioeconomic ties to forests, and the histories that framed the forest and nature conservation discourse in the areas. The pilot project objective, shared by all networks, was forest biodiversity conservation at a local level, based on voluntary, landownerdriven principles, where authorities, NGOs and other collaborating actors could participate. Landowner collaboration was emphasised. We found that all the networks were based on long-term inter-organisational collaboration, with only a couple of actors having entered the network for this particular project. Hence, the pilot did not establish new connections. The organisations were also connected with a large set of other actors (external to the network project)


61

through ties of information input and output. The ties within the networks and with other actors tightened only slightly during the project when measured by frequency of contacts, but the value placed on communication grew. Participants in the network organisations appreciated the collaboration within their network and found the ties to other actors increasingly useful as the project progressed. Learning from and about each other generated the highest added value. There was a better understanding of different interests, which allowed the gap between the two positions – the conservation oriented and the forestry oriented – to grow smaller. As the inter-organizational communication deepened and the organizations’ mutual acceptance increased, the different compositions of organizations in the four projects gathered experiences on collaboration and information exchange to accumulate knowledge. The strengths of the different actors were successfully utilized in the networking. Biological knowledge about nature in the environmental organizations was a key in evaluating ecological merits of the sites and in training forestry professionals. On the other hand, existing ties between the forestry organizations and landowners made initial contact and negotiation easy, as there was mutual trust among the negotiating parties. These competencies were mutually developed through training and through social learning in operational work. The collaborative network projects made 51 conservation contracts, covering an area of 265 hectares, during the first two project years. There was a clear connection between these conservation results and information dissemination. While informative activities such as training and consultation produced conservation results in the short time span, investment in development work limited resource allocation to these activities. This suggests that communication efforts were required for reaching the large group of forest owners. Research and development work, on the other hand, did not contribute to rapid contracting. Its value was in that it promoted the pilot work at a general level, through furthering information management, evaluation, and incentive systems, as well as broadening the network. The network projects could conserve such sites that the forest owners had been willing to set outside economic use; or the ownership of which the forest owners were prepared to give up. In this system, the regional forestry and environment authorities carried out the administration. This created no or few costs to national level administration. A political cost saving was generated through avoidance of conflicts. The participating organizations placed high value on the learning and development of new modes of collaboration. In the historically polarized institutional environment of forest biodiversity conservation, the development of acceptance and trust was certainly valuable. But, how does a project form of activity support this integration process further? Conservation of biodiversity got a boost through pilot projects, and the learning experiences will be valuable when policy is further developed. However, the projectification of conservation ran a risk of establishing a “status of exception” for these efforts. The organizations involved expected compensation for their networking efforts, and the networks established clear boundaries between the implementing network organizations on the one hand and “other local collaborators” on the other.

62


These challenges of creating institutional adaptability and sustainability remain with the Southern Finland forest biodiversity conservation process. The conclusion can be drawn that local adaptation is important in bridging resource use and conservation interests. Vertical guidance does not resolve the polarisation with similar success as does a common effort at the local level. The different actors can relax their sometimes opposite positions through shared targets, and a shared project. 3. Institutional capabilities for multifunctional governance The three case studies highlight the institutional challenges of horizontal and vertical co-operation in multifunctional governance. Facing these challenges requires novel cognitive, social and relational as well as mobilization capabilities from the participating actors (Healey et al. 2003). In the following we will discuss those capabilities which we have identified as crucial, either due to their apparent positive influence in the process, or due to a lack of capabilities that has led to limitations in integrating biodiversity conservation in natural resource management. We will then compare the identified institutional capabilities and discuss their relevance in a wider policy setting. We have summarized the dimensions of institutional capabilities in Table 1. Tab. 1. Dimensions of institutional capabilities for multifunctional governance (modified from Healey et al. 2003, 65)

Cognitive capabilities

The range of knowledge resources, explicit and tacit, systemized and experiential The capacity to absorb new ideas and learn from them Flexible and mutable tools enabling different interpretations and spatial manifestations of multifunctionality

Social and relational capabilities

The range of stakeholders involved in the policy process Thickness and scope of the networks

Mobilization capabilities

Room of manoeuvre; institutional inheritance Horizontal and vertical policy structures and resources available

3.1 Horizontal co-operation Our case studies exemplify the ways in which different sectoral organisations have made significant investments in the development of new skills, cognitive resources, and planning tools or hardware for multifunctional governance. These, together with experiential learning, depict paramount investments and development in cognitive capabilities. Conscious investment in human capital and organizational resources reflects strategic thinking where future successes are expected to depend on learning now (Wolf & Primmer 2006). But as our case studies have shown, learning is not only strategic; it takes place in negotiations and through routines (Simon 1997). Experiential learning, social learning, and learning through conflicts contribute to legitimacy,


63

and are therefore highlighted by those who have participated in projects where new situations with various stakeholders are faced, and where new collaborative practices are developed. Social learning is dependent on the presence of multiple actors with variation in backgrounds. Favourable development in interpersonal relationships and trust contribute to social learning. Social learning in multifunctional governance implies horizontal co-operation between different policy sectors and actors. In all our case studies the institutional development was characterized by an apparent shift from a rather polarized or sectorally divergent situation to actively promoted horizontal co-operation. Collaborative planning was developed and eventually appreciated by the different administrative sectors. The actors from environmental, agricultural and forestry sectors learned that they needed to exchange resources [money, expertise and information] in order to achieve their objectives in the policy generating process. Here we can witness the form of governance Rhodes (1997, 660) has introduced: organisations are interdependent, they take part in game-like interactions, the interactions are ongoing and there is some autonomy from the formal state. The achievement of policy goals through the practice of governance requires specific resources for networking and development of social capabilities. The increased understanding and shared definitions were built on an integrated (or at least integrating) cognitive base which could be rather purposefully developed or technically facilitated through, for example, physical tools or training. In collaborating to gain concrete utility, the representatives of different sectors would apply a narrow rationale but as their positive experiences went beyond gaining benefits, towards shared definitions and objectives, the collaboration led to collective reformulation of institutions (Vatn 2005). While the cases included positive experiences of overcoming sectoral or institutional boundaries, these were dependent on connections between actors who trusted each other initially, or on facilitators or convenors that could support communication between traditionally distant actors. This finding is very common in collaborative natural resource management studies (Forester 1999; Hiedanpää 2002; Healey et al. 2003; Schusler et al. 2003). The risk with this kind of a governance model is that it may lead to co-operation only in those fields where agreement already exists and issues of conflict are left aside. Open discussion on conflicts is easily seen as a risk for the trustworthy relationship that has been developed between the different sectors. This is evident also in our case studies. The practice of consensus seeking is especially typical for the implementation phase and conveys incremental changes (Kyllönen & Raitio 2004; Kaljonen 2007b). Reaching practical results implies co-operation and compromises. The practice of consensus seeking raises questions about power relationships between the different actors and their ways of framing the problem. This relates to mobilization capacity. Our case studies indicate severe imbalance in the problem framing. The notion of multifunctionality would imply a much more thorough horizontal integration than what was witnessed in our case studies. Biodiversity management issues are still to a great degree dealt with disjointedly between sectors and,

64


at the same time, economic activities undermining ecological integrity and natural resource-dependent livelihoods are handled in segregated processes. In the forest biodiversity conservation networks, the high expectations for business and livelihood development have not realised due to a lack of actors with this type of focus. The projects have focussed their technical solutions around conserving sites, learning about biodiversity conservation, and developing strategies that serve these ends, possibly due to the professional division of labour. The experiences gained from regional agro-biodiversity planning in Finland indicate the same problem. Capability to mobilize a new policy frame is closely related to cognitive resources and ways in which different forms of knowledge are utilised in policy practice. Just like the perceptions of ideal status of nature, also changes in landscape generate difficulties for policy makers because the natural living environment is distanced and objectified when transferred to policy processes. This tends to produce abstract space and nature and purify the associated norms in such a manner that science focussing on biodiversity conservation gains the privilege of dictating how natural resource management should be modified, e.g. which period of history with a particular impact of land use on biodiversity should be taken as a reference. This association can distance the practitioners from their experience-based knowledge. While biodiversity experts are assigned to deal with conservation, those holding other knowledge will adhere to their territory, and sectoral boundaries are reinforced. 3.2 Vertical co-operation and empowerment Resources allocated to local processes frame the outcome of the processes (see also Bruce 2006). As resources come with policies and guidelines, this involves a lot of institutional framing from top to bottom. Learning and transferring institutional capabilities from the local level to higher policy levels are also of importance for policy learning and for the outcome of the processes. The case studies revealed considerable gaps in vertical co-operation and learning. The co-operative modes of action created conditions for local learning and in so doing supported the social conditions for biodiversity management. While the local collaboration in our cases was very much adapted to the particular context, it is obvious that generalising from local to e.g. national level was not straightforward. Sectoral policies are even more divergent at the state-political level. In our case studies, on the other hand, the organisations explicitly employed some tools in order to facilitate the interpretation of local experiences upwards. Biodiversity conservation was illustrated and transferred between policy actors and levels through maps, planning tools and evaluations. The experiences from Finnish agrienvironmental policy, for example, show that although the regional planning practice has helped the environmental sector to gain more resonance to their policy goals at the local level, it has not been able to proceed with reframing at the national level. At the national level the interests of safeguarding the continuation of Finnish agricultural production have been so strong that a discussion on environmentally based


65

allocation of the resources and a re-scaling of policy could really take off (Kaljonen 2007b). The mobilisation capability is restrained by the institutional inheritance of the particular governance model. For local communities to gain more autonomy and initiative in developing solutions for sectoral integration and multifunctional natural resource management, they would either require some level of a political mandate to do so or, alternatively, they should accumulate a will and an organised attempt towards that end. In the case of forest biodiversity conservation networks, there has been an identifiable tendency to frame the collaboration patterns right from the outset. Some of the framing has been done at the national level, which limits local initiatives. For mobilisation capability to develop, space for locally embedded solutions is paramount. While all our cases contain some elements of local initiatives and solutions in combining existing economic activities with new conservation efforts, these are very strongly limited by the centrally led problem framing. Vertical gaps are perhaps most critical in nature conservation policy: the strict conservation targets of Natura 2000 which are set out at the European level lay down a rather strict framework for establishing management options at the local level.

4. Discussion The traditional approach to nature conservation, i.e. the setting aside and exclusive management of specially designated sites can no longer be the solely applied methods in biodiversity conservation. Large managed areas that provide multiple benefits to society are essential for ecological integrity. The coverage of these areas where biodiversity has to be maintained forces authorities to adapt policies and procedures and to take multifunctional land use seriously. When traditional monofunctional concepts of countryside fade and the importance of multifunctional land use is embraced, the externalities and uncertainties pose numerous challenges to policy makers and practitioners. Multifunctionality reinforces a need to develop planning and collaboration. Adaptive institutions with active public involvement in controlling the tenure, management and production of multiple public goods become increasingly influential. The traditional division of labour and responsibilities between the policy sectors and levels is ineffective in addressing the issues put forward in the integration of environmental protection and production concerns. The need for cross-sectoral co-operation and participative planning arises expressly from the necessity of simultaneously dealing with multiple objectives and multiple framings. This type of change requires innovation, learning and new capabilities. Also the deliberating context of mutable and flexible policy measures, planning tools and technologies need to be given special attention. Politics and policy making are not simply about finding solutions to pressing problems but are as much about finding arrangements that generate trust among mutually interdependent actors. If problems cannot be solved within the preconceived scales and sectors of governing, new practices of policy making will be needed to secure

66


problem solving without the back up of a shared constitution. In this case, politics is also about defining what a legitimate political institution is (Hajer 2003). In developing institutional capabilities for multifunctional governance, this latter notion deserves careful elaboration both from policy and research practice.

Acknowledgements This article was launched at the AlterNet workshop ‘institutional capabilities for translating biodiversity goals’ held in Helsinki in February 2006. We wish to thank all the workshop participatns for stimulating discussions, and in particular Eeva Furman for encouraging and supporting us in compiling this work. In addition, thanks go to Hanne Nurminen for literature search and Susan Heiskanen for checking and improving the language

References Bogaert D. 2004. Nature policy in Flanders. Nature development and public support as discursive renewals? (in Dutch) Instituut voor Natuurbehoud; Brussel. Bogaert D., Gersie J. 2006. High Noon in the Low Countries: Recent nature policy dynamics in the Netherlands and in Flanders. In: Arts B & Leroy P. (eds.). Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance. Environment & Policy, Vol. 47, Springer, p. 115-138. Bowes M.D., Krutilla J.V. 1989. Multiple-Use Management: The Economics of Public Forestlands. Resources for the Future; Washington DC. Buller H., Wilson G.A. and Höll A. [eds] 2000. Agri-environmental policy in the European Union Countries. Ashgate Publishing Limited; Aldershot. Chapin F. Stuart III, Zavaleta E.S., Eviner V.T., Naylor R.L., Vitousek P.M., Reynolds H.L., Hooper D.U., Lavorel S., Sala O.E., Hobbie S.E., Mack M.C.,Díaz S. 2000. Consequences of changing bio-diversity. Nature; 405:236-242. Craps M. and S. Prins. 2004. Participation and Social Learning in the Development Planning of a Flemish River Valley. Case study report produced under Work package 5. HarmoniCOP project, EC EVK1-CT-2002-00120. Centre for Organizational and Personnel Psychology; K.U.Leuven. Cubbage F., Harou P., Sills E. 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics. 9,7: 833-851 De Blust G.,Gielis R., Verhaert E. 1990. The Special Water Control Plan. Towards a new policy regarding water control in Flanders? (in Dutch) Planologisch nieuws; 10: 37 48. EC, European Commission 2005. Agri-environmental Measures – Overview of General Principles, Types of Measures, and Application. DG Agriculture and Rural development. EC 2006. European Commission Communication. Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond: Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. COM (2006) 216. Evans N., Morris C.,Winter M. 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography; 26:313-332.


67

Folke C. Carpenter S., Walker B., Scheffer M., Elmqvist T., Gunderson L., Holling C.S. 2004. Annual Review of Ecology. Evolution and Systematics; 35:557-81. Forester J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner. Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. The MIT Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hajer M. 2003. Policy without Polity. Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences; 36:175-195. Hajer M., Wagenaar H. [eds.] 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. Halme M. 2002. Corporate Environmental Paradigms in Shift: Learning During the Course of Action at UPM-Kymmene. Journal of Management Studies; 39:1087-1109. Härjämäki K., Kaljonen M. 2007. From meadows to a map and then to practice - Impacts of regional planning for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes in Finland. (in Finnish) Reports of Finnish Envi-ronment Institute 6/2007. Healey P., de Magalhaes C., Madanipour A., Pendlebury J. 2003. Place, identity and local politics: analysing initiatives in deliberative governance [in]: Hajer M., Wagenaar, H., eds., Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press; Cam-bridge: 60-87. Hiedanpää J. 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being – the reception of Natura 2000 reserve network in Karvia, SW Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning; 61:113-123. Hiedanpää J. 2005. The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecological Economics; 55:485-498. Horne P., Koskela T., Ovaskainen V. [eds.] 2004. Safeguarding forest biodiversity in Finland - Citizens’ and non-industrial private forest owners’ views (in Finnish). Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 933. Horne P., Koskela T., Kuusinen M., Otsamo A., Syrjänen K.[eds.] 2006. Research report of the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (in Finnish). Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö, ympäristöministeriö, Metsäntutkimuslaitos ja Suomen ympäristökeskus. Vammalan kirjapaino Oy; Vammala. Hyttinen P., Niskanen A., Ottitsch A. 2000. New challenges for the forest sector to contribute to rural development in Europe. Land Use Policy; 17:221-232. Jokinen P. 2000. Europeanisation and Ecological Modernisation: Policy and Practices in Finland. Envi-ronmental Politics; 9:138-167. Kaljonen M. 2006. Co-construction of agency and environmental management. The case of agri-environmental policy implementation at Finnish farms. Journal of Rural Studies; 22:205-216. Kaljonen M. 2007a. Bringing back the lost biotopes. The practice of regional biodiversity management planning in Finland. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning; accepted 10/2007. Kaljonen M.2007b. Conducts of environmentality and politics of scaling – Agri-environmental policy and practice in Finland. Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Environmental Social Science Research Confer-ence, Oslo, 18th – 20th of June. Kärnä J. 2003. Environmental Marketing Strategy and its Implementation in Forest Industries. Publications of the Department of Forest Economics of the University of Helsinki 11. Helsinki.

68


Konijnendijk C.C. 2000. Adapting forestry to urban demands - role of communication in urban forestry in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning; 52:89-100. Kröger L. 2005. Development of the Finnish Agri-environmental Policy as a Learning Process. European Environ-ment, 15: 13-26. Kuussaari M., Tiainen J., Helenius J, Hietala-Koivu R., Heliölä J. [eds.] 2004. Significance of the Finnish agri-environment support scheme for biodiversity and landscape (in Finnish) The Finnish Environ-ment 709. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy; Vammala. Kyllönen S, Raitio K. 2004. Environmental conflicts and their management: conflict between wood production and reindeer husbandry in Inari. (in Finnish) Alue ja ympäristö; 33,2: 3-20. Ledoux L., Crooks S., Jordan A., Kerry, T.R. 2000. Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy; 17:257-268. Lindenmayer D.B., Franklin J.F. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island Press; Washington. Loots I.. Leroy, P. 2004. Conflicts with the implementation of area-oriented nature policy. A framework for interpretation. (in Dutch) Landschap; 21:199-209. MAF, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2004. Mid-term evaluation of the Horizontal Rural Development Programme. (In Finnish) Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy; Vammala. MAF 2006. Horizontal Rural Development Programme for Finland. (In Finnish) 3.8.2006/ 15.12.2006. Helsinki. Marsden T. [2003]: The Condition of Rural Sustainability. Van Gorcum; Wageningen. Mather A., Hill A.G., Nijnik M. 2006. Post-productivism and rural land-use: cul de sac or challenge for theorization? Journal of Rural Studies; 22:441-455. McCarthy J. 2005. Multifunctional rural geographies: reactionary or radical? Progress in Human Geography; 29:1-10. MCPFE 2002. Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management as adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 7-8 October 2002, Vienna, Austria. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Nijnik M., Mather A., 2006. Analysing institutions and public perspectives to identify the future of British forests. [in] Reynolds, K.M.,ed., Sustainable Forestry: From Monitoring and Modelling to Knowledge Management and Policy Science. CABI publishers: 171188. OECD 2001. Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework. OECD; Paris. Pierre J. (ed) 2000. Debating Governance, Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford University Press; Oxford. Potter C., Burney J. 2002. Agricultural Multifunctionality in the WTO – legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies; 18:35-47. Primmer E., Keinonen E. 2006. Collaborative Networks: A Pilot Project of Southern Finland Forest Bio-diversity Programme (in Finnish). Finnish Environment 45. Edita Ltd; Helsinki. Rantala T., Primmer E.2003. Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders’ rhetoric in Finland. Environmental Science & Policy; 6:205-216. Rhodes R.A.W 1997. Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press; Buckingham, Philadelphia.


69

Ridder D., Mostert, E., Wolters, H.A. [eds.]. 2005. Learning Together to Manage Together. Improving participation in water management. HarmoniCOP project, EC EVK1-CT-200200120. University of Osnabrück, Institute of Environmental Systems Research. Schusler T.M., Decker D. J., Pfeffer M.J. 2003. Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources; 15:309–326 Simon H.A. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. Fourth Edition. The Free Press; New York. Suskevics M., Külvik M 2007. Assessing the effects of public participation during designation of Natrua 2000 areas in Otepää Nature Park Area, Estonia. [in]: Chmielewski, T., ed. Nature conservation man-agement: from idea to practical results. Tàbara J.D. 2005. Sustainability learning for River Basin Management and Planning in Europe. Harmoni-COP, Integration report. HarmoniCOP project, EC EVK1-CT-2002-00120. IEST-UAB, Barcelona. Vatn A. 2005. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics; 55: 203– 217. Wilson G.A. 2004. The Australian Landcare movement: towards ‚post-productivist’ rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies; 20:461-484. Wolf S., Primmer E. 2006. Between Incentives and Action: A Pilot Study of Biodiversity Conservation Competencies for Multifunctional Forest Management in Finland. Society and Natural Resources; 19:845-861. Yliskylä-Peuralahti J. 2003. Biodiversity – a new spatial challenge for Finnish agri-environmental policies. Journal of Rural Studies; 19:215-231.