Forestry Conflicts from the 1950's to 1983 : A Review of a Comparative Study between USA, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway

[Konflikte in der Forstwirtschaft in den Jahren 1950 bis 1983. Eine vrgleichende Studie zwischen USA, Deutschland, Frankreich, Schweden, Finland und Norwegen]

Joensuu

1995

91 S.

zahlr. Lit. Ang.

Bandaufführung

13762

73251

Since the 1950's and 1960's forestry has been subject to serious public criticism in many western countries. Especially in the late 1960's and early 1970's contradictions between forestry and other uses of forests reached such a magnitude that it raised widespread public concern. It was known that comparable 'forestry battles' had simultaneously emerged in most western countries. Consequently, there was reason to expect that the causes for the phenomenon were connected to social developments. In this review, research conducted by Dr. Aarne Reunala is presented, the purpose of which was to describe the public criticism of forestry, and to outline the reysons for this criticism. The research material was composed of interviews and written material from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France and the United States. During the early 1980's about 20-30 specialists representing forestry, recreation, environmental protection and authorities were interviewed in each country. In addition, the material consisted of written sources pointed out by the interviewed specialists. The data covers forestry conflicts from the 1950's to 1983. In this review, the incidents that led to forestry conflicts in each of the case study countries are described, and conclusions are drawn on the reasons for their emergence. The incidents that lead to 'forestry battles' were not only similar, but also occurred rather simultaneously within all the observed countries where forests became a battlefield for various interests. In all the case study countries three simultaneous phases of development were noticeable: the intensification of forestry operations, the increase of recreational needs, and the development of the environmental movement. In all these countries, forests became the objects of a struggle between interest groups. Pressures from different directions clashed, leading to the described forestry conflicts. Bsically, the increase of such pressures was a consequence of economic growth, which led to growing efficiency in the exploitation of forest resources. An efficient economy, including forestry, raised the standard of living and increased the possibilities and willingness of the public to seek recreation within forests. On the other hand, economic growth caused deterioration of the environment and fear for the exhaustion of natural resources. Thus, the factors that led to forestry conflicts were integral parts of the social development of the industrialized countries. This is why the criticism against forestry arose so simultaneously in so many countries. Of course, many details of the forestry conflicts cannot be explained only with such a general factor as economic growth. The simultaneous escalation of the criticism against forestry in the early 1970's, was also influenced by, for example, the international spread of numerous scientific reports on environmental issues, the world wide Environment Year of 1970, and the almost simultaneous progression of intensified forestry practises in the observed countries. Another common factor for all the observed countries was the judgement made by forestry professionals that, with effective information, the criticism could be decreased. Increased information improved the possibilities for 'peace', but so did the economic recession ot the late 1970's and increased environmental consideration in forestry practises. It seemed that the forestry profession was so tied to its traditions of wood production, that it could not see the social development, in which forests received new values and uses. Instead, these changes were regarded as exaggerated, unnecessary and a threat tot the traditional status of the profession. Therefore, the criticism was considered to be groundless, and it was confronted with traditional 'forestry facts'. When this did not succeed, the media was made partly guilty of the criticism. When the observed countries are compared, it seems that the intensity of forestry conflicts were more related to the speed of changes in forestry practises than to the intensity of change. In those countries where the changes were most rapid (Finland, Sweden, the United States and France), forestry conflicts were also the severest. In addition, such factors as the isolation of the forestry profession, the importance of forests for the national economy, the cultural role of forests, the speed of social change, and the existense of common interests between forestry, recreation and environment protection affected the nature and duration of the conflicts. The fact that forestry conflicts occurred implied that knowledge of the biology, technology and economy of wood production was no longer sufficient to satisfy common interests related to forests. In addition, information on philosophical, psychological as well as sociologicalissues related to the use of forests was needed. More respect need to be paid, not only to trees, but to all other aspects of forests that we manage. In addition, there existed a need to spread information on forestry systematically - not only in a response to emerging criticims.