1

The Komet programme-a public-private partnership in forest protection

1. Introduction

Worldwide, there has been an increasing interest for voluntary agreements with the promises

to create and restore trust as well as other positive outcomes (Mäntymaa et al. 2009; Vatn

2010). It is assumed in the literature on voluntary agreements that by engaging in motivating

actions, landowners can perceive themselves as equal actors in nature conservation policy

(Paloniemi and Vainio, 2011). This interest on voluntary agreements may be related to the

changes in forestry’s internal and external environments, which imply developments that

consider diversified use of forest resources (Korhonen et al. 2012). Voluntary agreements is in

particular a desirable strategy in countries where a lot of forests is privately owned, which

puts the government in an intriguing position on how to collaborate and inform landowners

about nature conservation (Korhonen et al. 2012; Saarikoski et al. 2013). This is the case in

Sweden with 28.3 million ha forest of which 22.5 ha productive forest land, where 50% of the

productive forest land is owned by individual owners, whereas the state only owns 17% of the

productive forest land (SFA, 2013). The government is thus dependent on the approximately

320 000 landowners and 5750 privately owned companies (SFA, 2013) initiatives to protect

forest land as a way to fulfill these international and national commitments. This is in

particularly so since the existing areas of high conservation value forests in Sweden are

presently too fragmented in relation to the environmental and forest policy commitments

(Angelstam et al. 2011).

In recent years the traditional use of top-down policy instruments in Sweden, implying

regulations and sometimes severe conflicts between landowners and authorities (Ångman,

2012) have been complemented with the introduction of voluntary agreements such as public-

private partnerships (PPP) that provides space for more participatory approaches

(Glasbergen, 2011; Emerson et al. 2011). One example of a PPP are Nature Conservation

Agreements (NCA), established in the mid-nineties and functioning as a partnership between

governmental authorities and landowners with the primary purpose to fulfill overarching

environmental objectives on biodiversity production. In a NCA, the landowner agrees to (with

some compensation) provide a public service in terms of protecting biodiversity. NCAs were

suggested to be in particular useful in southern Sweden since this protection form is

considered beneficial on smaller patches consisting of deciduous forest (SEPA and SFA,

2010). However, NCAs have shown to be a rather inefficient tool to reach environmental

2

objectives (Swedish Gov.Bill 2008/09:214; SEPA and SFA, 2010). The low interest for

NCAs poses a dilemma since a critical mass of participation is needed in voluntary

agreements to produce landscape-level benefits (Sorice et al. 2013).

To overcome this low interest and increase the implementation of NCAs among landowners

the Swedish government in 2010 officially introduced another public-private partnership; the

Komet Programme. This pilot project differ from traditional NCAs (and other formal

protection forms) since it give the intiative in nature conservation to the individual landowner

and not to a responsibly authority. The voluntary approach also give authorities and forest

associations a prominent role as information sources about this partnership. However, the

offered protection forms and payment in the programme are the same as in traditional formal

protection, i.e. woodland habitats, nature reserves and NCAs (Komet Programme report,

2013).

The background to the Komet Programme is found in the Finnish partnership METSO-an

action programme established as an attempt to increase the biodiversity in southern Finland.

The intention was to combine protection of biodiversity together with productivity (CABs

advisory council for nature conservation, 2008). The Komet Programme implies a voluntary

partnership for the landowner, and the stakeholders Swedish Environmental Protection

Agency (SEPA), the County Administrative Board (CAB) or the Forest Agency. A national

work group and a national reference group together with local steering committees has been

established in specific Komet areas with involvement of actors such as the Federation of

Swedish Farmers (LRF) and forest associations. It was decided that work with the Komet

Programme should be reported annually to the Government offices (Ministry of Environment)

and be finally accounted the first of October 2014 (Komet Programme report 2011:13).

A literature review reveals that many theoretical and empirical studies on voluntary

agreements focus primarily on the outcome in terms of protected forest (Chritchley et al.

2004; Mäntymaa et al. 2009; Sierra and Russman, 2006; Ferraro, 2011). Both the theoretical

and empirical literature in this field agree that an incentive-based policy could be more

efficient than a traditional top-down policy, but the realization of benefits in voluntary

agreements depends on the way the policy is implemented in practice (Juttinen et al. 2008;

Vatn, 2010). The empirical literature have also focused to a large extent what motivates

3

landowners in voluntary agreements (Mäntymaa et al. 2009; Cocklin and Moon, 2011;

Korhonen et al. 2012) such as economic compensation and membership in a forest association

(Mäntymaa et al. 2009; Berlin et al. 2006). However, the process-related aspects that increase

motivation needs further research, not the least since many forest agencies lack competence in

information and identifying social implications of policy actions (Saarikoski et al. 2013;

Lubell et al. 2005; Hiedanpää 2005) The aim of this study is to remedy this research gap and

explore what factors, in particular regarding information strategies, affect the establishment of

PPPs and how these are perceived among the involved actors. Actors are in this study public

and private individuals and organizations that play an important role in the policy processes

(Saarikoski et al. 2013). This study thus consider an overall understanding the structural,

external and internal dimensions that may explain landowners’ motivation for participating

(Moon and Cocklin, 2013). Moreover, since this study analyze the Swedish ‘METSO’; the

Komet Programme it is inspired by a Finnish study made by Mäntymaa et al. (2009) on

voluntary agreements.

The analysis which departs from Glasbergens Ladder of Partnership Activity (2011) and the

framework of Collaborative Governance developed by Emerson et al. (2011) focuses in

particular on the prerequisites for the Komet Programme where information strategies are

crucial to establish interest among landowners and responsible authorities and enable

sustainable relationships to develop. The following questions are posed; i) what political,

legal, socioeconomic resources and environmental factors affect the conditions to inform

about the program and for landowners to send in an interest application ii) what attitudes and

motivations promote shared understanding; iii) what process elements promote partnering?

iiii) what factors promote the constitution of a joint rule system in the Komet Programme?

This study combines a recent questionnaire on landowners’ perceptions about the Komet

Programme to present an overview of the programme together with semi-structured

interviews with key actors in two specific Komet areas. The chosen Komet areas are the

coastal area of Västerbotten County and Dalsland situated in Västra Götaland County. These

case study areas will be analyzed to explain the local prerequisites for the Komet

Programme’s establishment. The results may shed light in particular on what information

strategies motives landowners to participate, but also continue with a protection process in the

Komet Programme and the expected outcomes of these efforts.

4

2. Theoretical framework

In this study a specific form of voluntary agreements is in focus, e.g. public-private

partnerships. PPPs are defined as “the processes and structures of public policy decision

making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public

agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry

out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al. 2011, 2).

Thus, partnering is in the Komet Programme seen as an interactive process where actors or

stakeholders “restructure and build up new social relationships to create a new management

practice” (Glasbergen, 2011). This theoretical framework is based on a combination of

Glasbergens the Ladder of Partnership Activity (2011) and Emerson et al’s Integrative

Framework for Collaborative Governance (2011), arguing that the development of partnering

is a successive process, which in different stages or steps bring together actors from various

sectors of society in a partnering process. The following factors are assumed to affect this

prerequisites and process; a) the general system context i.e. the political, legal,

socioeconomic and environmental factors that creates openings and limitations for partnership

processes; b) collaborative dynamics including, shared attitudes and motivation but also

mutual understanding fostering trust between the involved actors, c)principled engagement

(discovery, definition, deliberation, and determination) which may create collaborative

advantages that eventually may lead to d) joint action or what Glasbergen (2011) define as the

constitution of a common rule system (procedural and institutional arrangements, knowledge

and resources).

2.1 The general system context

Several factors in the general system context may affect the possibilities to establish

partnerships. However, the model for protecting biodiversity in Sweden must be presented to

give the general picture of forest protection. The Swedish forest model operate for protecting

forest biodiversity through a combination of general conservation considerations (1979 §21)

in day-to-day forest management and the designation of protected forest areas (Swedish

Forestry Model report, 2009).

The urgent need for the Swedish government to protect biodiversity to fulfill international

commitments have influenced overarching policies and the legal framework and opened up

for the establishment of new interdependent relationships between the authorities and

landowners (Swedish Gov.Bill 2008/09:214). For instance, in the Komet Programme the role

5

of interdependency is reversed compared to traditional forest protection since it is the

landowner that take the first intiative to protection. This may imply what Raitio and

Saarikoskis (2012) suggest in their study; that when new actors in forest protection are able to

create interdependent relations and consciously coordinate processes new solutions to solve

complex conflicts are possible. This interdependency between actors bring forth their need to

act not only strategically but cooperatively to promote their interests (Saarikoski et al. 2013).

In accordance with Glasbergen (2012), this new policies contained enabling support such as

democratic norms, economic compensation and a policy framework giving the partnerships a

logical place in biodiversity policy. However, command-and control steering in the past of

that have created some conflicts (Zachrisson, 2009) may have a negative impact on the

relationships between the involved actors (Ångman, 2012). The level of economic

compensation is also often a source of conflict in this type of partnerships (Mäntymaa et al.

2009). In this study the role of economic compensation can be related to both the system

context and the individual level because the government provide the responsible authorities

with funding that affect landowners’ amount of compensation. The Swedish trait of rather

discrete power (Cinque, 2011) to settle regional guidelines among the authorities may also

influence partnering processes and cause a variation in the implementation of NCAs and the

outcome of the Komet Programme. Insight about how certain authorities organize and

perceive the involved actors contributes to understanding the relationships (Seekamp et al.

2011) in a specific region since voluntary agreements can be effective in certain contexts, but

are not likely to be effective otherwise (Segerson, 2013). Cashore et al. (2001) also suggested

that there is a connection between policy regime changes such as the changes in forest

protection and the underlying background conditions. This highlights the importance to

understand local information strategies and how voluntary agreements are framed (Saarikoski

et al. 2010). How a concept like voluntary forest protection are framed by key actors such as

regional authorities and given a place in biodiversity policies seem to help market the certain

needs in forest management policies to the public and media (Saarikoski et al. 2013).

2.2 Collaborative dynamics

2.2.1 Shared motivation

Shared motivation is defined as “a self-reinforcing cycle” promoting interpersonal

relationships and includes elements such as shared understanding and commitments (Emerson

et al. 2011; Ansell and Gash, 2008). Shared motivation among actors is in particular needed

6

in voluntary agreements such as PPPs, which aims at improving the procedural fairness of

decision-making (Paloniemi and Vainio, 2011).

There are many different motives for owning forest that often relates to the landowners

attitudes (Bergseng and Vatn, 2009). Disputes about compensation level are often held

forward as the main reason for biodiversity conflict (Bergseng and Vatn, 2009). Less active

landowners who work in jobs not related to forestry, and thus not economically dependent on

their forests either for home or commercial use tend to focus their management on aesthetical

and/or recreational instead (Wiersum et al. 2005). How compensation is perceived among the

involved landowners must therefore be considered as it concerns maintaining relationships

(Vatn, 2010). Without compensation, landowners may refuse to engage in a mutual

commitment (Mäntymaa et al. 2009:498). However, including payments in a situation where

the acquisition of land is not primarily seen as an economic issue may disrupt existing

relations (Vatn 2010:1248). This indicate that payment is not the only motivation for a

landowner, rather it is the perception of a payment that may be an issue of motivation (Vatn,

2010).

Another motivation to participate in the implementation of a NCA could be related to the size

of land. For example, Juttinen et al. (2005) and Mäntymaa et al. (2009) showed that

participants in partnership based protection tend to have relatively large forest estates,

presumably because the size affects the land that they may refrain from. Shared motivations

within forest owners associations could also influence participation in more voluntary based

protection (Berlin et al. 2006). This was revealed in the U.S where forest owners’ association

members placed greater importance on ecological benefits than non-members and were more

active in their forest management (Rickenbach et al. 2004).

Mäntymaa et al. 2009 also highlight the problem of asymmetric information related to

motivation. In voluntary protection the authority will never know the landowners’

preferences. There will always be some environmental friendly owners with untrue

preferences to get money for protection despite that they would be willing to protect without

compensation (Mäntymaa et al. 2009). Hence, to reach shared motivation in forest protection,

and ultimately mutual understanding needs considering and reflection on different attitudes

among landowners.

7

2.2.2 Mutual understanding

The establishment of mutual understanding fostering trust and internal legitimacy is crucial

for partnering (Glasbergen, 2011) such as when a landowner decides to participate and send in

an application form. Mutual understanding contributes to the reduction of transaction costs,

and provides the partnership with necessary stability to enable learning and exchange of

knowledge and the reduction of vulnerability (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004; Emerson et al.

2011; Glasbergen, 2011). Corbera et al. (2009) argue that some of the problems such as lack

of stability could decrease by trust building, which our previous study also found as an

important factor exemplified in the form of skillful forest officers who actively supported

owners (Widman, 2014, forthcoming). According to Fisher and Brown (1989) trust gradually

evolves as people can prove to each other that they are “reasonable, predictable and

dependable”. Legitimacy is one of the main explanations for why people are willing to

cooperate with authorities (Paloniemi and Vainio, 2011) and internal legitimacy refers to

procedural demands such as accountability and representation of affected actors (Scharpf,

1999). Previous research has shown that partnership processes often fail due to lack of

internal legitimacy and the fact that landowners felt that they were left uninvolved in the

process (Bergseng and Vatn, 2009).

2.2.2 Principled engagement

A key question in voluntary agreements such as PPPs is why some processes lead to

solutions that are acceptable to all involved actors while others fail to address controversies.

The answer to this question is often related to differences in how the process has been

designed, although as already mentioned in this paper attention must also be directed at the

local contexts for policy actions (Saarikoski et al. 2013).

“Principled engagement” describes the iterative development of and successive strengthening

of the partnership through what Emerson et al. (2011) define as four basic process elements:

discovery, definition, deliberation and determination. Through collaborative learning we

assume that in a successful partnership the partners discover common interest and identify and

analyze relevant information concerning for example the protection of biodiversity but also

the consequences of setting aside land in the Komet Programme. The actors also define

common purposes and agree on the protection form and its implication and adjust tasks and

expectations of one another. The third element, deliberation or reasoned communication, is

often seen as an essential ingredient for partnering. This is often dependent on both the

8

advocacy of individual and represented interests and the effectiveness of conflict resolution

strategies. In the roles of third party mediation and joint fact finding solutions could be

achieved that meet the needs and concerns of the actors better than they could achieve by

acting on their own (Susskind et al. 1999). Here we assume that the performance of the

representatives of-in this case the Forest Agency and/or the CAB-is crucial to understand the

quality as well as the success of the process. However, forest owners associations have in the

Komet Programme a more salient role in the process as sources of information to landowners,

but also as facilitators or mediators in a conflict through incorporate shared interests. Finally,

principled engagement incorporates the processes of determining the substantive content of a

protection form e.g. the level of protection, size of the area and management tasks to be

performed. Hence, according to Glasbergen (2011) this formation must be grounded in the

collaborative advantages found among the involved actors such as increased economic

compensation. It may be argued that principal engagement is already present in the Komet

Programme, because when an application is registered the landowner always present and

discuss the eventual protection site together with an authority.

2.2.3. Capacity for joint action or the constitution of a common rule system

According to Emerson et al. (2011) shared motivation and principled engagement will

stimulate and sustain the capacity for joint action through the development of institutional

arrangements, but also which is similar to Glasbergens third Ladder (2011), constituting a

rule system that focuses on the formalization of partnerships and the effects this can lead to.

Institutions are in this paper defined as rules and procedures, formal and informal that provide

authority and influence the relations between actors and the state, for example, by specifying

how different groups can participate in a partnership process (Saarikoski et al. 2013). The

development of institutional arrangements are needed to handle forest protection as “solutions

to collective choice problems” (Vatn 2010:1245), but the Komet Programme is still a pilot

project and as such its future formalization remain rather uncertain.

According to Glasbergen (2011) a ‘social contract’ defines the common rule system in which

the “partners formally invest in each other”. The contract specifies the commitment and

common rules and comprises both internal aspects, in which the mutual obligations of

partners are defined, and external ones related to how the partnership will interact with other

organizations. The formalization should further list different transactional and procedural

9

elements of the arrangement, such as commitments on different tasks and resources, and how

the partnership will deal with decision-making processes and monitoring of an NCA

(Glasbergen, 2011). There is indeed an issue concerning the relationship between institutions

and motivation for action (Vatn, 2010). Institutions, according to Vatn (2010) act as

rationality contexts which in some contexts motivate individually oriented action, and in other

contexts-like the community-motivate actions supporting the interests of the wider group.

Wunder (2007) and Moon (2011) argues that there tends to be a problem with monitoring

since voluntary agreements tend to lack explicit frameworks for monitoring their own success.

However, a Finnish study argue that better monitoring is generally needed in forest protection

to overcome the sharp disagreement between authorities and landowners over the preferred

outcomes of forest conservation (Paloniemi and Vainio, 2011).

Ferraro (2011) suggest that collaboration in the future in voluntary agreements will depend on

what kind of collaboration there already is, thus understanding how the institutional structures

facilitate present collaboration becomes important for successful future voluntary agreements.

Hence, the complexity of institutions and the different ways they affect the introduction of a

new policy instrument such as the Komet Programme must be considered (Primmer et al.

2013). The role of trust must also be considered as a necessary factor for explaining the

outcome concerning the establishment of protected areas (Hovik and Edvardsen 2007; White

et al. 2009; Walker and Daniels 1997).

To summarize, we assume that the motivation to participate and inform about the Komet

Programme, and ultimately implement a protection form is affected by a number of contextual

factors and that the process which in a stepwise manner includes the building of trust, creation

of collaborative advantages to be able to participate in a PPP (see table 1).

10

Table 1. Guiding research question based on the analytical frameworks developed by

Emerson et al. (2011) and Glasbergen (2011).

Glasbergen 2011 Emerson et al. 2011 Questions

Context Context What political, legal, socioeconomic

resources and environmental factors

affect the conditions to inform

about the program and for

landowners to send in an interest

application

Building trust

(step I) Shared motivation What attitudes and motivations

promote shared understanding? Creating

collaborative

advantages (step

II)

Principled

engagement

What process elements promote

partnering?

Constituting a

rule system (step

III)

Capacity of joint

action/outcome What factors promote the constitution

of a joint rule system?

3. Method and material

3.1 Research design

The selection of case study areas (Dalsland and Västerbottens coastal area) were chosen on

basis of implemented NCAs and different strategies on information campaigns. The Komet

areas Västerbottens coastal area and the district of Dalsland have a high rate of implemented

NCAs compared to the other Komet areas (Komet Programme report, 2013). However, these

two Komet areas are different in other aspects such as geographical location, information

strategies and other underlying reasons for becoming pilot areas, thus making them interesting

case study areas.

Dalsland is situated in the county of Västra Götaland, which have 1 334 000 ha of productive

forest land (Västra Götaland rural programme, 2012) compared to Västerbotten with 3 114

000 ha productive forest land (Västerbotten Forest Agency, 2014).

In Västra Götaland some 80% of the forest is privately owned and distributed among 47 000

landowners (Göteborg Forest Agency, 2012) while in Västerbotten with 23 940 landowners,

forests are generally state-owned and the forest landscape is heavily affected by large clear-

cutting areas (Västerbotten CABa, 2013). As part of the taiga, Västerbotten is characterized

of boreal forest, i.e. dominating by pine and Norway spruce. According to the official web-

11

page for the Komet Programme, the forest most likely to be protected in Västerbottens Komet

area is sand pine forest, leafy forest, high productivity forest (forest on nutrient soil) and

forest stand situated in the archipelago (Min naturvård, 2013). The forest in Dalsland is

characterized by a varied topography consisting of forest with high amounts of calcium and

fragmented parts of deciduous forest (Västra Götaland Forest Agency, 2013). In Dalsland, the

most valuable protection areas are forest growing in steep areas, high productivity forest and

old meadows with deciduous forest (Min naturvård, 2014).

The coastal area of Västerbotten have quite many landowners; the number of landowners was

10 407 in 2010 (Umeå Forest Agency), which was an important reason to establish a Komet

area in the northern parts of Sweden (Personal Contact, Västerbotten CAB 2014). Dalsland

have 15 520 landowners, but also experience of conflicts in the past between landowners and

authorities (Personal contact, Västra Götaland Forest Agency, 2014). It is primarily the forest

owner associations Norra Skogsägarna that organizes landowners in Västerbotten with 4711

members (Personal contact, Norra Skogsägarna 2014) and Södra Skogsägarna in Dalsland

with xxx members in respectively Komet area (Södra Skogsägarna, 2014).

Despite that these Komet areas are similar in the rate of implemented NCAs, context related

factors may affect willingness to participate in the Komet Programme and eventual

implementation of NCAs.

3.2 Methods

The empirical material for this study is based primarily on telephone semi-structured

interviews conducted in early spring 2014. The sample of owners that was involved in the

Komet Programme was derived from the Forest Agency, CABs and forest owner associations

in each county. Four interviews with landowners (only in Dalsland) have so far been

performed. Thirteen interviews were conducted with representatives in the national reference

and working group from CABs, Forest Agencies, forest owner associations, LRF, Swedish

Forest Industries, WWF, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and the national head

project leader for the Komet Programme. The interview themes were based on the analytical

framework described earlier.

The questionnaire was performed by a consult firm and sent out to 600 landowners per Komet

area, hence 3000 landowners received the questionnaire. The total response rate is 41% and

12

relatively evenly distributed among the pilot areas. This questionnaire was developed to know

how well-informed landowners are about the Komet Programme, their considerations and

how they perceive nature conservation in general. Two weeks after collecting the

questionnaire, telephone interviews was performed based on a random selection of

landowners that had not answered the questionnaire. The drop-out rate was noted for 150

landowners (Markägarenkät, 2012).

3.3 Local strategies in the Komet areas

Västerbottens pilot area consist of the six municipalities Robertsfors, Umeå, Vindeln, Vännäs,

Bjurholm and Nordmaling. The area stretches over 14 936 km2, of which 8085 ha is

productive forest land (Personal contact, Riksskogstaxeringen, 2014).

The pilot area is supervised by the local Forest Agency and CAB in Västerbotten together in a

local collaboration group with representatives from LRF, the forest owner association Norra

Skogsägarna, and three forest companies Sveaskog, Holmen, SCA and the sawmill Sågab.

This collaboration group have met occasionally every year, however, during the last year a

decrease in interest to attend meetings among stakeholder representatives have been noticed.

The local Swedish Society of Nature Conservation group do not attend these meetings, which

may be related to that the focus is to involve the forest owner associations. This collaboration

group have discussed the most efficient use of information campaigns, held education courses

about the Komet Programme for timber suppliers and have occasionally attended the local

forest associations meetings such as Skogskvällar. During early spring 2014 there will be

information meetings with the forest owner association Norra Skogsägarna for landowners

and meetings with the forest inspectors (Personal contact, Västerbotten CAB, 2014).

Dalsland consist of eighteen small municipalities in the district of Fyrbodal, which is situated

in Västra Götaland County. The pilot area covers 4875 km2 of which 2698 is productive

forest land (Personal contact, Riksskogstaxeringen, 2014).

A ‘promotion’ group has been established with representatives from the Forest Agency, LRF,

forest owner associations and CAB. The promotion group’s primary focus is to inform about

the Komet Programme and thus develop innovative information campaigns (Personal contact,

Västra Götaland Forest Agency, 2014). In Dalsland information have mostly been transferred

in the local media and forest magazines and letters, although there have been some

information on local meetings held by the local forest owner association Södra Skogsägarna

13

(Personal contact, Västra Götaland Forest Agency, 2014). In the questionnaire from 2012 it is

revealed that in Dalsland together with Skåne it is more common to be informed by letter than

in the other pilot areas; Västerbotten, Hälsingland and Kronoberg (26 respectively 23%

compared with the average 18%). On the other hand, in Västerbotten and southern

Hälsingland it was more common with information by a forest owner association/timber

supplier (20 respectively 16% compared with the average 10%). Västerbotten also had the

largest number of landowners that had been informed on forest events (11%). However,

according to the questionnaire most landowners would like to be informed by letter (37%) or

brochures (29%). This finding is crucial to highlight since the most common reason among

landowners for not sending in an interest application is lack of information about the

programme (Markägarenkät, 2012).

In total, Västerbottens Komet area have between the years 2010-2013 received 144

applications and the medium area on productive forest land was on 4, 6 ha (Västerbotten

CABb, 2014). In Dalsland the received interest application between the years 2010-2013 was

134 applications and the medium area of on productive forest land was on 3, 9 ha (Komet

Programme report, 2013; personal contact, Fyrbodal Forest Agency, 2014)

4. Results

Background: NCAs

NCAs were added in 1993 to three other types of forest protection in Sweden, national parks,

nature reserves and woodland habitats. The different types differ both in size and form of

protection. Where national parks and nature reserves are generally large areas, both woodland

habitats and NCAs considers rather small areas. The main difference between the different

types of protection is that NCAs are not a permanent form of protection, but a partnership

agreement based on a civil-law agreement for 50 years (Swedish Gov.Bill 1992/93:226).

NCAs were assumed to have a prominent role for reaching the interim target Long-term

protection of forest land (Swedish Gov.Bill 2008/09:214). The current form for NCA was

established in 2010, and has been developed in accordance with the government’s instruction

A sustainable nature conservation policy (2008/09:214). Since 2010, the compensation level

has increased. However, the compensation for NCAs is counted as income from economic

activities and needs to be taxed the same year the agreement is signed (SEPA and SFA, 2010).

14

In 2008 the Swedish government stated that in order to strengthen local ties and cooperation

with landowners, the use of NCA should increase (Swedish Gov.Bill 2008/09:214). However,

the NCA had yet shown to be a rather inefficient policy instrument to fulfill governmental

objectives (Swedish Gov.Bill 2008/09:214), although with a rather large variation among the

counties in terms of achieving regionally specified targets. Hence, new solutions was needed

and the SEPA together with the Swedish Forest Agency (SFA) presented in 2008 the

governmental assignment Complementary methods for protection of valuable nature

(Kompletterande metoder för skydd av värdefull natur), the initial framework for the

partnership the Komet Programme. The Komet Programme was officially initiated in May

2010 (Komet Programme report, 2013).

The establishment of the Komet Programme

The inspiration behind the Komet Programme is the Finnish partnership model METSO-an

action programme established as an attempt to increase the biodiversity in southern Finland.

METSO was partly developed as a consequence after the entrance to the European Union

when the process Natura 2000 areas created deep conflicts between landowners and

authorities (CABs advisory council for nature conservation, 2008).

The first framework of METSO was a pilot project named METSO I that existed between the

years 2002-2007. In 2008, the Finnish government decided to permanent the pilot project and

thus METSO II was established, which will expire in 2016. METSO II have during 2008-

2013 together protected 28 798 ha land (Personal contact, METSO 2014).

The government decision to look for inspiration in a Finnish forest program may be related to

the many similarities with Sweden as a forest county. The ownership structure in Finland is

similar as well as the vegetation zone where most of the forest land belongs to the boreal

zone. The highest rate of private landowners are also found in the southern parts in respective

country (CABs advisory council for nature conservation, 2008). However, in 2008 the CABs

advisory council claimed that there also existed some major differences between Finnish and

Swedish forest management that would imply different outcomes for a voluntary partnership.

In accordance with this groups conclusions from 2008 we have outlined these differences in a

small table:

15

Table 2. Main differences in forest protection between Finland and Sweden (CABs advisory

council for nature conservation, 2008; Personal contact METSO 2014)

Finland Sweden

Working methods through national protection

programs

Working methods based on a national strategy

for formal protection

No national strategy based in conservation

biology research

National strategy based in conservation biology

research

Finnish private forest management more

subsidized

Swedish private forest management less

subsidized

Collection of data on key habitats Good information on key habitats

Compensated for what the forest stand is worth

in relation to timber prize. No taxation for

private landowners.

Compensation based on volume of forest stand.

Taxation for private landowners.

Based on this information we may assume that the METSO programme offer more incentives

for the production-oriented landowner through higher payment and no taxation. The

compensations for nature conservation in Finland is quite competitive compared to the

income for felling forest and selling timber (Personal contact METSO, 2014).

Despite these differences between Sweden and Finland in forest protection in 2009, SEPA,

SFA and Skåne CAB were assigned by the government to work with complementary methods

for protection of forest land in five larger geographical areas; Komet areas. The Komet areas

consisted of Västerbottens coastal area, the southern parts of Hälsingland, Kronoberg County,

Dalsland and the eastern parts of Skåne. The areas was chosen because of their biogeographic

representativeness and that they are characterized by private landownership (Komet

Programme report 201l, 13).

The remit should be carried out in project form with a national working group and a reference

group. The work is managed in collaboration with regional Forest Agencies and CABs, and

stakeholder organizations such as forest associations. The representation also includes local

working groups in the Komet areas. These local working groups consist of the Forest Agency,

CAB, forest companies and the major forest owner association in the area. However, there is

an absence of environmental organizations in many of the local working groups, although

they are found in the national reference group (Komet Programme report, 2013).

16

The first preliminary results from the Komet Programme suggested a relatively strong interest

among landowners in implementing NCAs. However, a tendency was noted for the number of

interest in formal protection to decrease in the end of the period (Komet Programme report

2011, 11-12). This tendency is confirmed in the last report of the Komet Programme where a

rather modest implementation of NCAs is the result, but nature reserves and wood land

habitats seem more appealing to landowners (Komet Programme report, 2013).

In the latest report of the Komet programme the results from 2010-2013 was presented, where

a total of 186 areas with 726 hectares of productive forest land have been protected as part of

the Komet Programme. These include 94 woodland habitats, 75 NCAs, and 17 agreements on

nature reserves. More than 80 % of the expressions of interest evaluated related at least in part

to high-value cores and of these about one-third had not been registered as key habitats or

objects with high nature value (Komet Programme report, 2013). Key habitats concern forest

areas with very high nature values. These areas have a key role in the conservation of the

threatened species in forest land, and are registered by the regional Forest Agency or CAB.

Key habitats have no formal protection, but in general forest companies do not buy timber

from key habitats. Areas that do not meet the requirements for key habitats can anyhow be

considered as objects with high nature value since these objects have the potential to develop

into key habitats if they are preserved carefully (SFA, 2007).

The costs of the Komet Programme totaled about SEK 23 million in administrative expenses,

and almost SEK 51 million in compensation to landowners. The administrative costs are

higher in the Komet Programme in comparison to traditional formal protection, despite that

these costs have decreased in the last two years (Komet Programme report, 2013). Differences

in the budget between the Komet areas are small despite different geographical locations, area

of forest land and number of landowners. Additionally, a specific Komet compensation for

SEK 6 million (2014 the sum is SEK 5 million) is distributed every year. This Komet

compensation have been allocated among the pilot areas on basis of performance, which have

implied minor differences for approximately half a million SEK among the Komet areas

(Personal contact, Västra Götaland Forest Agency, 2014).

The conclusion so far is that the efforts relating to the Komet Programme in its present

structure have led to encouragement of land owners’ interest in nature conservation, but the

efficiency of protection is still considered lower in the Komet Programme (Komet Programme

report, 2013). However, the government have (Swedish Gov. Bill 2013/14:1) expressed that

17

they are positive towards the work in the Komet Programme and the pilot areas. Hence, the

governments’ future plan is that the Komet Programme will be practiced all over Sweden as a

complementary method to formal protection. This expression is also emphasized by the

responsible authorities for the Komet Programme; the Swedish Forest Agency, Skåne CAB

and the SEPA (Delredovisningsrapport, Komet, 2014).

4.4 Results from interviews and questionnaire

4.5 Shared motivations

Shared understanding is when the involved actors agree on a shared set of attitudes and is a

necessary precondition for the establishment of a partnership in combination with factors such

as economic compensation, and the establishment of trust and legitimacy. So far, the

interviews with landowners showed mainly positive perceptions towards the Komet

Programme, but mixed perceptions among the authorities and organizations. According to the

questionnaire many of the landowners who had sent in an interest application were not

employed in forestry and tended to focus their management on aesthetic and/or recreational

use instead. However, despite this focus on aesthetic and/or recreational use it appears as

economic compensation is crucial also in a voluntary partnership. One landowner who was in

the middle of an eventual implementation of a NCA, declared that the compensation was too

low (despite the increase in payment 2010) and thus he may not continue with the process.

The responsible authorities confirmed that from the beginning there was never a discussion on

increasing the payment specifically for NCAs within the Komet Programme. Representatives

from the forest owner associations expressed disappointment on this matter and stated that the

implementation of NCAs was a failure that could be explained by the still low compensation

and unfavorable taxation. The owners anyhow appear in general positive towards protecting

forest in the Komet Programme as this partnership emphasize their right to participation and

ownership. ‘Statutory rights can make you feel stubborn, if it is voluntarily it is much

better…’ (Interview 4).

Perception about the Komet Programme may also affect the authorities in their information

strategies. The representative from the CAB in Västra Götaland suggested that the rather high

rate of implemented NCAs was due to their long experience with actively promoting NCAs.

In Västerbotten, the implementation of NCAs is not promoted in the same way due to lack of

experience. In both Komet areas there were suggestions from the responsible authorities that

18

the forest owners associations claimed that they were positive to work as information sources,

but when these authorities met landowners they generally stated that they had found

information about the Komet Programme from other sources than their forest owner

association/timber supplier. This is rather contradictory considering the positive response

from the interviewed actors in the forest owner associations, where they emphasized their

motivation to participate and promote the Komet Programme. However, the questionnaire

confirms that the question on eventual engagement in the Komet Programme from the local

forest community was often left unanswered and about half of the landowners answered

’don’t know’ on this question.

The forest owner associations suggested that members tend to be more informed than non-

members about the Komet Programme and nature conservation, which may increase

members’ environmental interest. However, whether membership imply more

environmentally motivated landowners is difficult to know in this stage of the study.

Additionally, the questionnaire tells us that certified landowners send in more interest

applications than others and that approximately half of the landowners express a desire to

protect forest. In our previous study that focused on the implementation of NCAs, the

landowners stated not only environmental motives, but emphasized that they manage a

heritage that they are emotionally attached to (Widman, 2014, forthcoming). This may suggest

that also in the Komet Programme there tend to be various reasons for motivation, however,

different motives may not always influence rate of participation.

4.4 Comparing different process patterns

In this section the process and what Emerson et al. (2011) refer to as ’process elements’ is

presented. In the questionnaire, four-fifths of the landowners that had sent in an interest

application perceived that they had been well-treated during the process.

Below two narratives of landowners within a Komet area will be presented, analyzed and

compared based on what Emerson et al. (2011) defines as the four basic process elements -

discovery, definition, deliberation and determination. However, since this is a work in

progress, very brief presentations of two processes in Dalsland are presented. Despite that one

of the described landowners decided not to send in an interest application, his involvement in

the Komet Programme is nevertheless seen as a form of process due to his active role in

informing and encourage other landowners to participate in the programme.

19

The first case concerns a landowner that works outside the forest sector, but has attended

several courses on forest management. His wife owns the property on 52 ha, however, he take

care of the management where he practice small-scale forest management. The second case is

an inherited property on 46 ha with an ongoing process concerning an eventual

implementation of a NCA. This property is owned by a landowner together with his wife for

economic, but also recreational purposes such as hunting.

Regarding the process element discovery, e.g. the discovery of shared interests, in the first

case the landowner had been informed by his forest owner association Södra Skogsägarna. In

the second case, the landowner received an information brochure about the Komet

Programme and found it quite interesting since he wanted to protect forest. Thus, it could be

suggested that these owners despite different entrances shared initially an interest together

with their local forest community in that they became involved in the Komet Programme.

However, in the first case the landowner later decided not to participate as he perceived that

his estate was too small for protection of forest land. However, as a certified owner with a

great interest in nature conservation they already had voluntarily acquitted land on their

property.

However, a major difference concerns the definition of the discovered interests. In the first

case the landowner was well-informed about the Komet Programme and the different

protection forms, which may be related to his role as an elected representative for the forest

owner association Södra Skogsägarna in Dalsland due to his knowledge of nature

conservation. However, despite the interest for the Komet Programme he defined this

partnership as not suitable for his estate. In the second case the landowner was not so well-

informed about the Komet Programme and had no opinion on voluntary agreements. Overall,

he seemed rather uninterested on the local forest community and authorities’ work. Hence,

although he sent in an interest application, he appeared not to have agreed yet with the

authorities how the eventual protection site would be designed.

In the first case, it is difficult to discuss the value of deliberation, since the landowner never

had any hands-on experience of contacting a forest officer and hence go through the different

stages in an implementation process. However, he perceived it positive that, for instance, the

forest owner associations’ role as information sources was strengthened in the Komet

Programme. This landowner had also as a representative from Södra Skogsägarna informed

20

about the program for members and friends. In the second case the landowner seemed

indifferent in how he perceived the forest officer’s role and other actors’ role in the process,

although he indicated that the process seemed ‘quite fuzzy’. In contradiction to his statement,

all of the interviewed representatives from the responsible authorities and organizations

emphasized the strengthening of relationships with landowners as one of the main successes

with the Komet Programme.

The last process element concerns determination. In the first case the landowner suggested

that a positive outcome with the Komet Programme was that the landowners decided whether

to protect or not on their property and as such they had more influence in the determination of

a protection site. For example, he pointed at the fact that in the Komet Programme a

landowner can even in the middle of an implementation process decide to leave without

facing any consequences. According to this landowner, his colleagues/friends that took part in

the program perceived they could also determine the management of the protected site. In the

second case, the owner was still in the middle of an implementation process (the interest

application was sent in for a year ago) and as such determining the content of the NCA was

crucial for his willingness to continue. However, in particular the low compensation worried

him and hence he was not confirmed on whether he would continue with the protection work.

These different cases represents two landowners within the same pilot area, however, they

have different attitudes and also somewhat surprising results in their decision to participate.

Hence, despite a common interest there may be difficulties to find a common purpose and

content of a protection site in some instances. Interestingly is the fact that a landowner may

decide not to participate, but could still encourage other landowners to take part in a

partnership. This indicate that the Komet Programme could have a positive spill-over effect,

and information strategies may try to reconnect specific landowners with large networks.

However, the representatives at the Forest Agencies and CABs stated that a recent and for

them positive change in the routines since 2012 have implied that an authority can now if a

valuable area is stretching into a neighboring property contact the neighbor and inform about

the Komet Programme.

21

Capacity of joint action

Our interviews show partly mixed results concerning what factors that promote the

constitution of joint action in voluntary agreements such as partnerships.

The forest owner associations, LRF and the Forest Industries seemed convinced that the

Komet Programme was the future for protection of forest. In the questionnaire about half of

the landowners confirmed that if they had a protected site on their property, the site would be

managed well of the responsible authorities and the other half think the opposite. A majority

(84%) agree or partly agree that they perceive it important to receive information about the

protected site and how its nature values are managed now and in the future. However, of those

landowners that in 2012 sent in an interest application approximately half of them had not

received a notice from an authority. From the performed interviews with actors working at the

responsible authorities they admitted that the costs for administration have increased due to

more received applications. This increase in costs have implied lack of time and not enough

personnel. If the government want to formalize the Komet Programme further, the current

lack of resources must be considered since this may affect negatively on trust building and

investment in relationships.

Joint action includes monitoring and in the routines for the Komet Programme it is stated that

the protection forms within the programme should be monitored exactly as outside the

program. However, since the Komet Programme is still a pilot project most of the

implemented protection sites have not been monitored yet.

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions

22

References

Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Jonsson, B.G. & Roberge, J.-M.

2011. Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: the policy

implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica. 45(5), 1111–1133.

Ansell, C., Gash. A. 2008. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Public

Administration Research and Theory. 18 (4), 543-571.

Bergseng, E., Vatn, A., 2009. Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict-Some evidence

from the Nordic countries. Journal of Forest Economics. 15, 147-165.

Berlin, C., Lidestav, G., Holm, S., 2006. Values placed on forest property benefits by Swedish

NIPF owners: Differences between members in forest owners associations and non-members,

Small-Scale Forestry. 5, 83-96.

CABs advisory council for nature conservation, 2008. The Finnish model respective Swedish

model for nature reserves. 2008-12-01. (In Swedish).

Cashore, B., Rayner, J., Wilson, J., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., 2001. Privileging the sub-sector:

critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making. Forest Policy and

Economics. 2, 319, 332.

Cinque, S., 2011. Administrative discretion in the management of Swedish wolf policy.

Policy Studies. 32, 599-614.

Cocklin, C., Moon, K, 2011. Particpation in biological conservation: Motivation and barriers

of Australian landholders. Journal of Rural Studies. 27, 331-347.

Corbera, E., Soberianis, C.G., Brown, K., 2009. Institutional dimensions of payments for

ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological

Economics. 68, 743–761.

Critchley, C.N.R, Burke, M.J.W. Stevens, D. P, 2004. Conservation of lowland semi-natural

grasslands in the UK: a review of botanical monitoring results from agri-environment

schemes. Biological Conservation. 2, 263-278.

23

Delredoviningsrapport, Komet, 2014. Delredovisning av regeringsuppdrag om att påbörja ett

samverkansprogram med markägare med Kompletterande metoder för skydd av natur

(Komet). Förslag 2014-01-20. Swedish Forest Agency. The County Administrative Board

Skåne. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. In Swedish.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S., 2011. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative

Governance. Journal of Public Administrative Research and Theory. 22, 1-29.

Ferraro, P., 2011. The future of payment for environmental services. Conservation Biology.

25, 1134-1138.

Fisher, R, Brown, S., 1989. Getting together: Building relationships as we negotiate,

New York, NY, Penguin Books.

Fisher, A., Van der Wal, R., 2007. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird-the

construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biological Conservation.

135, 256-267.

Glasbergen, P., 2011. Understanding Partnerships for Sustainable Development Analytically:

the Ladder of Partnership Activity as a Methodological Tool. Environmental Policy and

Governance. 21, 1-13.

Göteborg Forest Agency, 2012. Distriktet i siffror, http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Global/aga-

och-bruka/Lokala-sidor/G%c3%b6teborg/G%c3%b6teborg_Statistik.pdf. Online document.

(accessed October 12, 2012) In Swedish.

Hovik, S., Edvardsen, M., 2006. Private-public partnership: An exceptional solution in nature

conservation in Norway. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and

Sustainability. 11, 361-372.

Juttinen, A., Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M. and Svento, R, 2008. Voluntary agreements in

protecting privately owned forests in Finland-To buy or lease?. Forest Policy and Economics.

10, 1-24.

Juutinen, A., Horne, P., Koskela, T., Matinaho, S., Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M., 2005.

Metsänomistajien näkemyksiä luonnonarvokaupasta: Kyselytutkimus luonnonarvokaupan

kokeiluhankkeeseen osallistuneille, Metlan työraportteja. 18, Vantaa. In Finnish.

24

Komet Programme report, 2011. Kometprogrammet-avrapportering 2011. Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency. Rapport 6468. In Swedish.

Komet Programme report, 2013. Kometprogrammet-avrapportering 2013. Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency. Rapport 6587. In Swedish.

Koppenjan, J., Klijn. E.H., 2004. Managing uncertainty in networks: A network approach to

problem solving and decision making, New York, NY: Routledge.

Korhonen, K., Hujala, T., Kurttila, M. 2012. Diffusion of voluntary protection among family

forest owners: Decision process and success factors. Forest Policy and Economics. 26, 82-90.

Lubell, M. 2005. Do Watershed Partnerships Enhance Beliefs Conducive to Collective

action? in Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenbert, Z., Vedlitz, A., Matlock, M.,

Swimming upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management, Cambridge MA:

MIT Press, pp.201-232.

Markägarenkät, 2012. Landowners’ considerations on the Komet Programme. Results from a

questionnaire spring 2012. WSP Analys & Strategi. In Swedish.

Min naturvård, 2014. Västerbottens kustland. http://www.minnaturvård.se/sv/Min-

naturvard/Kometomraden/Vasterbottens-kustland/. (accessed 20 February 2014). In Swedish.

Moon, K. and Cocklin, C., 2011. A Landholder-Based Approach to the Design of Private-

Land Conservation Programs. Conservation Biology. 25, 493–503.

Moon, K., Cocklin, C., 2011. Particpation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and

barriers of Australian landholders. Journal of Rural Studies. 27, 331-342.

Mäntymaa, E., Juutinen, A., Mönkkönen, M., 2009. Participation and compensation claims in

voluntary forest protection: A case of privately owned forests in Finland. Forest Policy and

Economics, 7, 498-507.

Paloniemi, R., Vainio, A., 2011. Legitimacy and empowerment: combining two conceptual

approaches for explaining forest owners’ willingness to cooperate in nature conservation.

Journal of integrative Environmental Sciences, 8:2, 128-138.

25

Primmer, E., Saarikoski, H., Åkerman, M., 2012. The Challenges of Governance in Regional

Forest Planning: An Analysis of Participatory Forest Program Processes in Finland. Society &

Natural Resources. 23, 667-682.

Raitio, K., Saarikoski, H. 2012. Governing Old-Growth Forests: The Interdependence of

Actors in Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia. Society & Natural resources. 25, 900-

914.

Rickenbach, M.G., Guries, R.P., Schmoldt, D.L., 2008. Membership matters: comparing

members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA.

Forest Policy and Economics. 8, 93-103.

Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., Barry, J., 2012. Understanding ‘successful’ conflict resolution:

Policy regime changes and new interactive arenas in the Great Bear Rainforest 2013. Land

use Policy. 32, 271-280.

Saarikoski, H., Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., 2010.

Stakeholders’ perspectives about proper particpation for Regional Forest Programmes in

Finland. Forest Policy and Economics. 5, 161-180.

Scharpf, F.W., 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford, Oxford

University Press.

Segerson, K., 2013. Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Protection and Resource

Management. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 5, 161-180.

Seekamp, E., Cerveny, K.L., McCreary, A., 2011. Institutions, Individuals, and Socio-

Cultural Domains of Partnerships: A Typology of USDA Forest Service Recreation Partners.

Environmental Management. 48, 615-630.

SEPA and SFA, 2010. Naturvårdsavtal-Riktlinjer för tillämpning, Version 2.0,

Skogsstyrelsen, Naturvårdsverket och Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. In Swedish.

SFA, 2013. Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry, Jönköping, Swedish Forest Agency.

SFA, 2007. Nyckelbiotoper-unika skogsområden. Swedish Forest Agency. In Swedish.

26

Sierra, R., Russman E. 2006. On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest

conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics. 59, 131-

141.

Sorice, G.M., Oh, C., Gartner. T., Snickeus, M., Johnson, R., Donland, J.C., 2013. Increasing

participation in programs for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Applications. 23, 1146-

1155.

Susskind, L., S. McKearnen, and J. Thomas-Larmer, eds. 1999. The consensus building

handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swedish Forestry Model report, 2009. Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry

(KLSA).

Swedish Gov. Bill 2013/14:1. Budgetpropositionen för 2014. Stockholm, Ministry of

Government. In Swedish.

Swedish Gov. Bill 2008/09:214. Hållbart skydd av naturområden. Stockholm, Ministry of

Government. In Swedish.

Swedish Gov. Bill 1992/93:226. En ny skogspolitik. Stockholm, Ministry of Government. In

Swedish.

Thomson, A. M., Perry, J., 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box, Public

Administration Review. 66, 20-32.

Umeå Forest Agency, 2010. Umeå distrikt i siffror. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Aga-och-

bruka/Lokala-sidor/Distrikt/Umea-distrikt/Distriktet-i-siffror-/. (accessed February 10, 2014).

In Swedish.

Vatn, A. 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological

Economics. 69, 1245-1252.

Västerbotten CABa, 2014. Skogen-drygt halva Västerbotten.

http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vasterbotten/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/tillstandet-i-

miljon/skog/Pages/default.aspx. (accessed 10 February 2014). In Swedish.

27

Västerbotten CABb, 2014. Kometpresentation referensgruppen vårvintern 2014. Västerbotten

CAB. Power Point presentation in Swedish.

Västra Götaland Forest Agency, 2014. Skogslandskapet i Fyrbodals distrikt.

http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Aga-och-bruka/Lokala-sidor/Distrikt/Fyrbodals-distrikt/Mer-

om-skogen/. (accessed 3 February 2014). In Swedish,

Västra Götaland rural programme, 2012. Landsbygdsprogram för Sverige 2007-2013.

Genomförandestrategi för Västra Götalands län, Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, Dnr

602–34840–2011. Online document.

Walker, G. B. & Daniels, S. E., 1997. Foundations of Natural Resource Conflict. In Solberg,

B & Miina, S., (eds.), 1997. Conflict Management and Public Participation in Land

Management. European Forest Institute Proceedings 14. Joensuu.

Wiersum, K.F., Elands, B.H.M., Hoogsta, M.A., 2005. Small-scale forest ownership across

Europe: Characteristics and future potential. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and

Policy. 4 (1), 1-19.

White, R.M., Fischer, A., Marshall, K., Travis, M.J., Webb, J.T., di Falco, S., Redpath, M.S.,

van der Wal, R., 2009. Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand

biodiversity conflicts. 26, 242-253.

Wunder, S. 2007. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical

Conservation. Conservation Biology. 21, 48-58.

Zachrisson, A., 2009. Commons protected for or from the people. Co-management in the

Swedish mountain region? , Academic dissertation, Department of Political Science, Umeå

University.

Ångman, E. 2012. Feelings and fellings. Academic Dissertation. Uppsala: Sveriges

lantbruksuniversitet. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae. 1652-6880.