Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Blaðsíða 122

tutional capacity building
(Healeyetal. 1999:4): "The
notion of 'capacity-building’ and
'institutional capacity building'
are not new concepts. They have
been used to highlight the need
to build up individual capabili-
ties (e.g. labour force skills, or
entrepreneurial capacity), and
those of public administrations.
In the former case, the focus is
on the institutions which help to
develop such capabilities. In the
latter case, the emphasis has
been on the capacity of particular
organisations. The new thinking
about institutional capacity
focuses on the webs of relations
involved in urban governance,
which interlink government
organisations, those in the pri-
vate sector and voluntary organi-
sations and those who in any
way get involved in governance,
that is, in collective action. The
term 'institution’ is given a socio-
logical meaning as a 'enduring
feature' of social life giving
'solidity across time and space’
(Giddens 1984 p. 24), that is, it
extends beyond formal organisa-
tions, to encompass cultural pat-
terns (such as kinship relations,
religious life, other 'moral com-
munities' and informal civic
associations of all kinds)."
To avoid the currently con-
fused and broad use of the term
"social capital", Healey et al
(1999) use the term "institutional
capital" which includes knowl-
edge resources, relational re-
sources and mobilisation capaci-
ty, the two first leading to the
third. This model describes in a
structured way the challenges
discussed above facing local
institutions that try both to de-
velop local confidence and also
to find local solutions to plan-
ning and development problems.
We used this model to analyse
challenges facing forestry on the
west coast of Norway (Amdam et
al 2000). We also used perspec-
tives from confidence building,
local planningand institutional
capacity building to develop
strategies for change (Amdam
1992, 1995, 2000).
Knowledge resourses
Only 42% of responding forest
owners were of the opinion that
they have enough knowledge
needed for active forestry, high-
est (74%) among commercially
active, lowest among passive
without potential (13%) (table 3).
Only 3% of forest owners had a
formal education in forestry and
9% had formal agriculture educa-
tion and training. Between 74%
(commercially active) and 96%
(passive without potential) had no
agriculture or forestry education at
all! When asked about interest in
advice, 54% answered that they
would like more (table 4).
in our study we found that the
commercially active forest own-
ers had a higher degree of formal
and tacit knowledge related to
forestry then other groups and
this knowledge was closely con-
nected to our classification
(table 3). Knowledge resourses
are of course related to formal
education, but formal education
related to forestry is very low on
the west coast. Tacit knowledge
learned from parents, from self-
learning activity and traditions
etc. seems to be more important.
The active groups, especially the
commercially active, are really
interested in forestry. They "talk"
forestry with other active forest
owners, they are interested in
local production based on tim-
ber, and they are interested in
cultivating their forests.
On the other hand there is
high variation in response
regarding collective activities
such as local traditions for
forestry, organisational activities,
co-operation etc. This is often
explained as "Community X
and/or farm Y having a strong
tradition for forestry".
in general, the study showed
that the knowledge resourse
related to forestry was very low
Table 3. Question: 1 have enough knowledge to be active in forestry.
Passive without potential Passive witli potential Forest active Foiest active, sale Commercially active West Coast
No(l,2) 48% 23% 7% 9% 4% 18%
Botli/and (3,4) 40% 45% 40% 50% 23% 39%
Yes (5,6) 13% 33% 53% 41 % 74% 42%
I alt 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 4. Question: 1 have no need for advice in forestry.
Passive without potential Passive with potential Forest active Forest active, sale Commerdally active Tolal West Coast
Disagree 37% 53% 58% 62% 57% 54%
Both/and 40% 35% 31 % 34% 31 % 34%
Agæe 23% 12% 11 % 4% 12% 13%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
120
SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l.tbl.