Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Page 123

among forest owners. Forestry is
an activity for the highly motivat-
ed few. Most communities have
low range, integration and open-
ness regarding forestry, the forest
doesn't "exist" as a proper in-
come activity, it is not included
in their frame of reference.
Information is not meaningful
and does not lead to comprehen-
sion of possibilities. To increase
activity, the knowledge resourses
of all forest owners must be fun-
damentally changed into a more
proactive attitude. On the other
hand forestry is a marginal activi-
ty. The few forestry based knowl-
edge resourses, mostly tacit, are
challenged by a higher formal
education level outside forestry
and agriculture in the communi-
ties, and the number of forest
owners that are active in agricul-
ture is steadily reduced as more
and more find work in manufac-
turing industries and services.
Relational resources
Our findings are that the relation-
al capital of west coast forestry is
very low (Amdam et al 2000).
There are active networks between
the commercially active forest
owners, public forest advisers and
forest owner organisations but
these networks are not integrated
into other local networks, they are
regional or national “clubs of spe-
cial interests". Since most active
foresters are also active in agricul-
ture production, one should
expect an integration of these net-
works, but this is very seldom the
situation. The public organisa-
tions and institutions dealing with
forestry were mostly imported
from the eastern part of Norway
where forestry is important and
where properties are rather big.
Activities like advice, agriculture
and forest planning are not inte-
grated and education is separated
at almost all levels. Agriculture is
seldom spoken about in forest
networks, and vice versa, in spite
of being populated by the same
land owners.
in local public planning, agri-
culture is much more important
than forestry. When forestry is on
the agenda, it is mostly as an
activity preceived to be in con-
flict with environment and
leisure interests. Very few speak
about forestry in local communi-
ties (table 5).
In most communities, it is un-
usual to co-operate in forestry,
with over 75% being of the opin-
ion that the level of co-operation
is too low (table 6). However,
they do very little to change this
situation.
The few forest-based networks
are also under strong pressure.
Alternative work, cut-backs in the
number of forest advisers, reduc-
tion of active farmers, increasing
age among forest owners etc, all
make it difficult to increase activi-
ty in existing networks. To change
this situation other networks
must be activated - forestry must
try to "occupy” and mobilise exist-
ing networks and to establish new
ones that can mobilise new
groups. Why not see forestry as a
sport or Ieisure activity- anything
that increases the focus on
forestry can be of value in this sit-
uation. To talk forestry, especially
about positive aspects, is maybe
the single most important activity
(Storper 1997). What we learned
was that forest owners that had
high income from forestry seldom
spoke about their experience,
while "amateurs" with bad experi-
ence from sale etc. spread this
like "fire in dry grass".
Table 5. Statement: Forestry is often spoken about in the local community.
Passive without potentiíil Passive wilh polential Foæst acive Foæst active, sale Commercially active Total West Coast
Disagree slrongly (1) “ 48% 21% 18% 10% 10% 21 %
2 19% 33% 22% 31% 17% 25%
3 14% 25% 23% 25% 24% 23%
4 12% 16% 20% 25% 31 % 20%
5 4% 5 % 12% QO 14% 8 %
Agæe strongly (6) 3 % 1 % 6% 1 % 3 % 3 %
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 6. Question: Is it usual to co-operate in forestry where you live?
Passive without potential Passive witli potential Foiest active Forest acdve, sale Commerdally active Total West Coast
Yes 12% 19% 23% 27% 30% 21%
No 62% 65% 67% 63% 64% 65%
Don't know 26% 16% 10% 11% 6% 14%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l.tbl.
121