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.