Recent advances in land owner extension Proceedings of the IUFRO 3.08 Symposium with a special theme of peer-to-peer learning among land owners, 3–5 April 2011, Kuusamo, Finland Heimo Karppinen, Teppo Hujala and Outi Virkkula (eds.) Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm ISBN 978-951-40-2289-0 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-40-2290-6 (paperback) ISSN 1795-150X www.metla.fi Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 2 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute publishes preliminary research results and conference proceedings. The papers published in the series are not peer-reviewed. The papers are published in pdf format on the Internet. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/ ISSN 1795-150X Office Post Box 18 FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland tel. +358 10 2111 fax +358 10 211 2101 e-mail julkaisutoimitus@metla.fi Publisher Finnish Forest Research Institute Post Box 18 FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland tel. +358 10 2111 fax +358 10 211 2101 e-mail info@metla.fi http://www.metla.fi/ Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 3 Authors Karppinen, Heimo, Hujala, Teppo & Virkkula, Outi Title Recent advances in land owner extension Year 2011 Pages 91 ISBN 978-951-40-2289-0 (PDF) 978-951-40-2290-6 (paperback) ISSN 1795-150X Regional unit / Research programme / Projects Eastern Regional Unit / Family forestry and forest policy POL / 3521 Forest owners’ decision situations and pluralistic decision support, 3458 Family forestry and policy, 7389 Mapping a peer-to-peer model for enhancing adult learning among land owners Accepted by Jussi Uusivuori, professor, 14 March 2011 Abstract The international IUFRO 3.08 (Small-scale Forestry) Symposium, held in Kuusamo, Finland, April 3–5 2011, gathered total of 30 participants from Australia, Canada, Finland, Indonesia, Latvia, Nepal, Norway, Sweden and USA to discuss recent scientific research and practical advances in woodland owner extension and advisory. The publication at hand contains the programme and proceedings of the Symposium, which was organized in collaboration by Metla, University of Helsinki and Oulu Univer- sity of Applied Sciences along with the NordPlus Adult project “Mapping a peer-to-peer model for enhancing adult learning among land owners”. The overall purpose of the Symposium was to shed light on the new forms and approaches of land owner extension, forestry advisory and rural communication with a special focus on peer-to-peer learning among land owners. Based on an open call for presenta- tions, altogether 22 abstracts were accepted, and the contributed presentations covered a wide range of topics relating to peer-to-peer and adult learning, cooperation of forest owners, forest planning, exten- sion and services, and forestry advisory in the context of reshaping communities. In the invited keynote talks, benefits of land owners’ cooperation, social learning systems, and the Finnish forestry extension activities were introduced and elaborated. The five contributed full papers assessed the cases of land owner extension from the viewpoints of Finland, Latvia, Norway, the Philippines and Sweden. Keywords Adult learning, communication, family forest owners, forest planning services, forestry advisory, forestry extension, peers Available at http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm Replaces Is replaced by Contact information Heimo Karppinen, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 VANTAA, FINLAND. E-mail heimo.karppinen@metla.fi Other information Typesetting: Sari Elomaa. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 4 Contents Forewords.......................................................................................................................................6 Practical information......................................................................................................................9 Committees and contributors.....................................................................................................10 Programme outline.......................................................................................................................11 Excursion......................................................................................................................................12 Detailed programme of the scientific sessions.........................................................................13 Papers of the invited keynote speakers.....................................................................................17 Clues to cooperation: the obvious and not-so-obvious Kittredge David B.......................................................................................................................... 18 Social learning systems: what role in land owners managing change? Sriskandarajah Nadarajah........................................................................................................... 25 Forestry extension activities in the new era – what does the Finnish case teach us? Toivonen Ritva................................................................................................................................ 27 Full papers....................................................................................................................................29 Self-directed learners or not? Delivering agroforestry technology to farmers in the Philippines Baynes Jack and Herbohn John ................................................................................................. 30 Cross-border cooperation in the making? Small-scale private forest owners and the Norwegian case Follo Gro ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Family forest owners’ peer-to-peer networks: Experiences and potential in Finland Korhonen Katri, Hujala Teppo, Kurttila Mikko and Tikkanen Jukka ................................... 47 Peer-to-peer learning experiences in Sweden Westberg Lotten, Appelstrand Marie and Sriskandarajah Nadarajah ................................. 55 Increasing role of informal learning of private forest owners in Latvia Vilkriste Lelde ................................................................................................................................ 65 Abstracts.......................................................................................................................................73 Peer-to-peer learning – from an old “art of practice” to a new mode of Nordic-Baltic forest owner extension? Appelstrand Marie, Hujala Teppo, Korhonen Katri, Kurttila Mikko, Sriskandarajah Nadarajah, Tikkanen Jukka, Westberg Lotten and Vilkriste Lelde ............ 74 Forest planning over distance – two experiments to construct a feasibility outline Eyvindson Kyle, Hujala Teppo and Kurttila Mikko ................................................................. 75 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 5 Developing forest planning and extension: Developmental Work Research Hokajärvi Raili and Hujala Teppo ............................................................................................. 76 Finnish family forest owners’ topics of interest and types of participation on online discussion boards Hujala Teppo ................................................................................................................................. 77 Start up support to forest producers’ organization in Amhara Region, Ethiopia Kainulainen Jukka ........................................................................................................................ 78 Changing forest owners: A challenge to forestry extension in Finland Karppinen Heimo and Hänninen Harri .................................................................................... 79 Improving forest governance through collaborative planning approaches in Community Forestry Management: A reflection on Nepal’s experiences Khadka Chiranjeewee and Vacik Harald .................................................................................. 80 Finnish family forest owners’ forest planning services and the role of personal g�uidance Kurttila Mikko, Hujala Teppo and Korhonen Katri ................................................................. 81 Conceptual model for mapping service innovations: case of forestry services in Finland Mattila Osmo, Tervo Mikko, Toppinen Anne and Ripatti Pekka ............................................ 82 A briefing on four forestry-related peer-to-peer networks in West Virginia, USA McGill David W. and Spong Ben D. .......................................................................................... 83 Peer-to-peer learning and transformation in natural resources management and sustainable livelihood: Results and impacts from shared learning workshops series in Indonesia Moeliono Moira and Indriatmoko Yayan .................................................................................. 84 Motivational factors influencing the development of sustainable forest management practices among small woodlot owners in Nova Scotia: A case study Mutabazi Simon P. ........................................................................................................................ 85 Market-based mechanisms for enhanced provision of forest amenities in private lands: A case in the Ruka-Kuusamo area Mäntymaa Erkki, Ovaskainen Ville, Tyrväinen Liisa, Ahtikoski Anssi and Naskali Arto .. 86 Forestry services and extension practice in Kuusamo Forest Management Association Polojärvi Anne and Hokajärvi Raili .......................................................................................... 87 Peers, personal networks, and family forest management in Minnesota, USA Sagor Eli ........................................................................................................................................ 88 Impacts from an Appalachian region cooperative of forest harvesting professionals Spong Ben D. and McGill David W. .......................................................................................... 89 Talk-in-interaction analysis enhancing collaborative learning in a forest advisory encounter Virkkula Outi and Hujala Teppo ................................................................................................. 90 List of participants.......................................................................................................................91 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 6 Forewords Dear Symposium attendees, Finland is dominated by family forests. Previously, the main factor inducing structural changes, especially affecting the size structure of holdings, was war. We had Civil War in 1918, which lead to the redemption of leasehold properties in 1918. We were involved in World War II. Thereafter we had a huge settlement challenge of the refugees from the ceded territories and of war veterans and their widows. Since the 1960s the structure of family forest ownership has changed in a more peaceful way, mainly via the inheritance system. The ongoing trends among family forest owners are absenteeism and urbanization, aging, occupational differentiation and separation from agricul- ture, parcelization of holdings and changes in landowners’ objectives. Forestry extension and extension organisations have also a long history in Finland. For instance, forest owners’ own organisations, Forest Management Associations, have been lobbying forest owners’ interests in timber trade over one hundred years and at the same time, they have given technical assistance as extension organizations. Organizations adopt when the operational environment changes. Alongside with existing organiza- tions and communication channels, new solutions must be sought for. This is what this Symposium is about: looking for innovative ideas, new ways to perform, such as peer-to-peer learning among land owners. This traditional but recently re-recognized means of communication will certainly be useful also for those 4,000 family forest owners in Kuusamo, managing more than 300,000 hectares of forest land. Finally, I’d like to warmly thank the Scientific Committee and the organizations supporting this Symposium for their valuable contribution. Acknowledgements are extended to IUFRO, especially to Working Group 3.08 “Small-scale Forestry” for letting us use the status of a IUFRO meeting. We wish you advanced scientific presentations, heavy discussions and an “easy touch” of north- ern forests and culture! Prof. Heimo Karppinen Head/Scientific Committee Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 7 Dear colleagues, On behalf of the IUFRO 3.08 Small-scale Forestry Research Group, I welcome you to the Inter- national Symposium on “Recent advances in land owner extension”, with a special focus on peer- to-peer learning among land owners in Kuusamo, Finland from April 3 to 5, 2011. The Kuusamo Symposium will shed light on recent scientific research and practical experiences related to the new forms and approaches of land owner extension, forestry advisory, and rural communication. Presentations and workshops will cover many aspects such as land owners’ col- laboratives and co-operatives, cross-border co-operation, peer-to-peer learning, land owners’ social networks, innovation transfer activities, owner-targeted adult education in field settings, owner- oriented advisory services, cost-share programmes, and collaborative governance of renewable natural resources. The Symposium is fortunate to have three excellent keynote presentations by Professor David B. Kittredge (University of Massachusetts, USA): Clues to cooperation: the obvious and not-so- obvious; Professor Nadarajah Sriskandarajah (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Swe- den): Social learning systems: what role in land owners managing change?; and Director Ritva Toivonen (Forestry Development Centre Tapio, Finland): Forestry extension activities in the new era – what does the Finnish case teach us? In addition, there are twenty-two high quality presentations from a wide geographic spread (Eu- rope, North America, Australia and Asia) and covering a multitude of highly interesting topics. The Symposium has been organised by the Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla), University of Helsinki, and Oulu University of Applied Sciences under the auspices of the IUFRO 3.08 Small- scale Forestry group. I would like to recognise the efforts of the Organising Committee coordinated by Dr. Teppo Hujala, and the Scientific Committee chaired by Professor Heimo Karppinen as well as the contribution of the NordPlus Adult project group led by Dr. Jukka Tikkanen. I am sure the Symposium will be a great success. Dr John Herbohn Coordinator, IUFRO 3.08 Small-scale Forestry Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 8 Dear Symposium participants, In agriculture and forestry sector there is a growing trend towards changes regarding the follow- ing aspects: land owner profile: more and more land owners and forest owners live in towns away • from their property and have no connection to rural networks; they tend to be well edu- cated having regular jobs far from land-based businesses or they are retired the demand on the usage of private land is increasing: among other things, climate change • is leading to an increased demand for land for bio energy, and new forest-based activities like nature tourism and biodiversity protection are more and more fostered by means of land owners’ voluntary measures land owners tend to need more and more support, advice and education in making deci-• sions about how to manage their land As a result of these changes, education, information and guidance addressed to land owners need to take new and innovative forms in order to reach the target group and to be useful. Traditional natural resource planning and guidance services can no longer fulfil the diverse needs of the mod- ern land owner. One course of action opening ways towards innovative land owner extension services is peer-to- peer learning (P2PL) approach. P2PL has recently been among the most widely used concepts in several fields of adult education, including agro-environmental extension. Forest-related land owners’ peer-to-peer projects have been reported mainly from the US, but not in Europe. It is now due time for Europeans to scan the opportunities of P2PL within forestry extension on their side of the Atlantic Ocean. The project group of “Mapping the Peer-to-Peer Model for Enhancing Adult Learning among Land Owners” would like to thank Symposium organizers for making this scanning happen in Kuusamo, April 3–5, 2011. Extended acknowledgements are given to the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Nor- dPlus Adult programme for supporting the Symposium and the project. Along with the seminar we are hoping for inspiring discussions as building material for the “road map” on how the P2PL approach could be integrated in forest extension service tray in Baltic- Scandinavian countries. We wish you a pleasant stay in Kuusamo and hope you enjoy the northern winter. On behalf of the project group, Dr. Jukka Tikkanen Coordinator of the project “Mapping the Peer-to-Peer Model for Enhancing Adult Learning among Land Owners” Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 9 Practical information The Symposium is organized at Oivangin Lomakartano Chalets (Junganjoentie 4, FI-93600) near Kuusamo town, which is situated in north-eastern Finland, the province of Oulu. To learn more about Symposium premises, please see http://www.oivanginlomakartano.fi/en. More about Kuusa- mo region and activities in wintertime, kindly visit http://www.ruka.fi/winter_eng/. Local weather observations and forecasts for the next few days can be checked at http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ weather/Kuusamo. Symposium fee includes accommodation at Oivanki (twin rooms in wooden chalets), breakfasts, lunches, dinners and coffees during the Symposium (between Saturday April 2nd 13:00 and Tues- day April 5th 12:00 o’clock noon), paperback Symposium proceedings, a carry bag and a small souvenir, shuttle transport from and to the Kuusamo airport, and the in-symposium excursion programme. Registration, HelpDesk and the technical environment Registration takes place in the main building of Oivangin Lomakartano. For Symposium Help- Desk, please contact the Organising Committee, details below. Wireless Internet access is avail- able in the main building and in chalets Singer and Junga (open network “Lomakartano”). There are data projectors in the presentation rooms (Ukonkivi main hall and chalet Singer) and a copier available in the main building. Both presentation rooms have hostesses who will take care of the technical facilities before and during the sessions. In-symposium excursion takes place on Sunday April 3rd. For a detailed programme, please see page 12. Optional outdoor activities (e.g. dogteam ride, snowcat drive, visit to a reindeer farm) are organ- ised on Saturday April 2nd at 16:00–19:00 and on Sunday April 3rd at 08:00–11:30. Separate pay- ment is charged at Oivanki; cash and common credit cards will be accepted. Details about these activities can be found in an email sent to registrants prior to the Symposium. For specifics, please contact the Oivangin Lomakartano reception. Sauna, changing room and shower facilities are available in each wooden chalet. Time schedule of sessions comprises 20 minutes for talk, 5 minutes for questions and 5 minutes for changing the speaker and moving between the sessions. However, the keynote presentations will have 40 minutes for talk and 10 minutes for discussion. Presenters are kindly advised to con- tact the session chair and upload their presentation files before the session starts. Presentation in- formation, collected in advance, will be available for the session chairs in the presentation rooms. Session chairs are responsible for managing the time schedule of sessions, allowing due time for presentations and questions. Coffee, tea and refreshments during the coffee breaks are served in the main building, Ukonkivi restaurant. Important numbers Oivangin Lomakartano: host Mr Heikki Kilpelänaho +358 (0)40 528 4787, hostess Mrs Tuula Kilpelänaho +358 (0)400 106 121, fax: +358 (0)8 851 1985. Email: info(at)oivanginlomakartano.fi. http://www.oivanginlomakartano.fi/en http://www.ruka.fi/winter_eng/ http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/weather/Kuusamo http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/weather/Kuusamo Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 10 Committees and contributors Scientific Committee Head: Professor Heimo Karppinen, Univ. of Helsinki, Finland (heimo.karppinen(at)helsinki.fi) Department Head Jurij Begus (Slovenia Forest Service, Slovenia) Senior Researcher Tove Enggrob Boon (Univ. of Copenhagen, Denmark) Administrative Manager Sjur Haanshus (SKI, Norway) Doctor John Herbohn (Univ. of Queensland, Australia) Assistant Professor Michael G. Jacobson (Pennsylvania State University, USA) Professor Mikko Kurttila (Metla, Finland) Professor David McGill (West Virginia University, USA) Doctor Jukka Tikkanen (Oulu UAS, Finland) Organising Committee Head, D.Sc. Mr Teppo Hujala, Metla, Finland (teppo.hujala(at)metla.fi) +358 (0)40 801 5408 Mrs Raili Hokajärvi, Oulu UAS, Finland +358 (0)50 557 0612 Ms Katri Korhonen, Metla, Finland Mrs Arja Maunumäki, Oulu UAS, Finland Mrs Kaija Mielonen, Metla, Finland Mrs Anne Polojärvi, Kuusamo Forest owners’ association, Finland Mrs Outi Virkkula, Oulu UAS, Finland +358 (0)50 317 4881 Contributors We thank the following sponsors for the support of the Symposium: NordPlus Adult project “• Mapping the peer-to-peer model for enhancing adult learning among land owners” Niemi Foundation• Finnish Society of Forest Science • Organizers FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE http://www.iufro.org/ http://www.oamk.fi/english/ http://www.nordplusonline.org/adult http://www.metla.fi/index-en.html http://www.helsinki.fi/university/ http://www.metsatieteellinenseura.fi/english Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 11 Programme outline Date and time What happens Saturday April 2nd 2011 Arrival to Kuusamo 13:00–21:00 Registration 14:00–16:00 Arrival coffee with savoury 16:00–19:00 Optional outdoor activities, option to take a sauna 19:30–21:00 Welcome dinner Sunday April 3rd 2011 Introduction to Kuusamo nature, culture, and economy 07:00–08:00 Breakfast 08:00–11:30 Optional outdoor activities 11:30–12:15 Lunch 12:30–22:00 Symposium excursion, including a coffee break and dinner Monday April 4th 2011 Scientific programme 07:15–08:15 Breakfast 08:30–11:30 Opening and keynote session 11:30–12:15 Lunch 12:30–14:30 Parallel sessions 14:30–15:00 Coffee 15:00–16:30 Parallel sessions 16:30–17:00 Coffee 17:00–18:30 Parallel sessions 19:30–22:00 Symposium dinner Tuesday April 5th 2011 Plenary and workshop programme 07:15–08:15 Breakfast 08:30–09:30 Plenary session: Insights into peer-to-peer learning 09:30–10:45 Group work for enhancing the peer-to-peer model for land owner extension 10:45–11:10 Concluding discussion 11:10–11:15 Closing of the Symposium 11:15–12:00 Farewell lunch Departure Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 12 Excursion Sunday April 3rd Guide: Mr. Hannu Virranniemi from Pölkky Oy 12:30 The bus starts from Oivangin Lomakartano 13:00 Pölkky Oy, Wood processing (http://www.polkky.fi/en/homepage.html) 14:30 EVO, energy and water cooperative (http://www.kuusamonevo.fi/) 15:30 Tourist and Nature Centre Karhuntassu (http://www.luontoon.fi/page.asp?Section=5746) Coffee The Nature Photography Centre: ”In Hannu’s Footsteps”, exhibition by the most famous Finnish nature photographer, Mr. Hannu Hautala (http://www.hannuhautala.fi/en) 17:30 Bus through town Kuusamo to Ruka area 19:00 Visit at the top of Ruka mountain fell (the sunset will be at 20:04) 19:30 Dinner at Private Restaurant Kultala (http://www.rukansalonki.fi/en/private-restaurant-kultala.html) appr. 22:00 Back at Oivangin Lomakartano Clothing instructions: Most of the excursion time will be spent indoors or in a semi-urban outdoor environment, thus no hiking or trekking clothes are needed. Please note however that we’ll have short stop-overs and walks outside: warm socks, gloves, stocking cap and overcoat are recommended, naturally depending on the day’s weather. In any case, kindly prepare for a nice casual dinner indoors at the end of day. http://www.polkky.fi/en/homepage.html http://www.kuusamonevo.fi/ http://www.luontoon.fi/page.asp?Section=5746 http://www.hannuhautala.fi/en http://www.rukansalonki.fi/en/private-restaurant-kultala.html Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 13 Detailed programme of the scientific sessions Monday April 4th 8:30–11:30 Opening and keynote session Venue: Ukonkivi Main Hall Chair: Heimo Karppinen 08:30–08:50 Welcome words, Heimo Karppinen 08:50–09:40 Clues to cooperation: the obvious and not-so-obvious, David B. Kittredge 09:40–10:30 Social learning systems: what role in land owners managing change? Nadarajah Sriskandarajah 10:30–11:20 Forestry extension activities in the new era – what does the Finnish case teach us? Ritva Toivonen 11:20–11:30 Discussion Lunch break Monday April 4th 12:30–14:30 Parallel sessions, first round Venue Ukonkivi Main Hall Chalet Singer Session Session 1: Peer-to-peer learning Session 2: Forest planning, extension and services Chair David W. McGill Mikko Tervo 12:30–13:00 Lotten Westberg: Peer-to-peer learning experiences in Sweden Jack Baynes: Self-directed learners or not? Delivering agroforestry technology to farmers in the Philippines 13:00–13:30 Moira Moeliono: Peer-to-peer learning and transformation in natural resources management and sustainable livelihood: Results and impacts from shared learning workshops series in Indonesia Mikko Kurttila: Finnish family forest owners’ forest planning services and the role of personal guidance 13:30–14:00 Eli Sagor: Peers, personal networks, and family forest management in Minnesota, USA Anne Polojärvi: Forestry services and extension practice in Kuusamo Forest Management Association 14:00–14:30 Katri Korhonen: Family forest owners’ peer-to-peer networks: Experiences and potential in Finland Raili Hokajärvi: Developing forest planning and extension: Developmental work research Coffee break Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 14 Monday April 4th 15:00–16:30 Parallel sessions, second round Venue Ukonkivi Main Hall Chalet Singer Session Session 3: Cooperation of forest owners Session 4: Adult learning Chair Jack Baynes Lotten Westberg 15:00–15:30 Ben D. Spong: Impacts from an Appalachian region cooperative of forest harvesting professionals Outi Virkkula: Talk-in-interaction analysis enhancing collaborative learning in a forest advisory encounter 15:30–16:00 Jukka Kainulainen: Start up support to forest producers’ organization in Amhara region, Ethiopia Teppo Hujala: Finnish family forest owners’ topics of interest and types of participation on online discussion boards 16:00–16:30 Gro Follo: Cross-border cooperation in the making? Small- scale private forest owners and the Norwegian case Simon P. Mutabazi: Motivational factors influencing the development of sustainable forest management practices among small woodlot owners in Nova Scotia: A case study Coffee break Monday April 4th 17:00–18:30 Parallel sessions, third round Venue Ukonkivi Main Hall Chalet Singer Session Session 5: Reshaping communities Session 6: New approaches in focus Chair David B. Kittredge Mikko Kurttila 17:00–17:30 Heimo Karppinen: Changing forest owners: A challenge to forestry extension in Finland Kyle Eyvindson: Forest planning over distance – two experiments to construct a feasibility outline 17:30–18:00 Lelde Vilkriste: Increasing role of informal learning of private forest owners in Latvia Osmo Mattila: Conceptual model for mapping service innovations: case of forestry services in Finland 18:00–18:30 Chiranjeewee Khadka: Improving forest governance through collaborative planning approaches in community forestry management: A reflection on Nepal’s experiences Erkki Mäntymaa: Market- based mechanisms for enhanced provision of forest amenities in private lands: A case in the Ruka- Kuusamo area Symposium dinner Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 15 Tuesday April 5th 8:30–11:15 Plenary session “Insights into peer-to-peer learning” and workshop programme Venue: Ukonkivi Main Hall Chair: Jukka Tikkanen 08:30–09:00 A briefing on four forestry-related peer-to-peer networks in West Virginia, USA, David W. McGill 09:00–09:30 Peer-to-peer learning – from an old “art of practice” to a new mode of Nordic-Baltic forest owner extension?, Jukka Tikkanen 09:30–09:45 Introduction for group work, Nadarajah Sriskandarajah 09:45–10:45 Time for groups to compile their overviews 10:45–11:10 Concluding discussion 11:10–11:15 Closing of the Symposium, Heimo Karppinen Farewell lunch Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 16 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 17 Papers of the invited keynote speakers Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 18 Keynote 1 Mon April 4th 08:50–9:40 Ukonkivi Main Hall Clues to cooperation: the obvious and not-so-obvious Kittredge David B. University of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Conservation, Amherst, USA; email: dbk(at)eco.umass.edu The greater social ecosystem benefits that accrue from forests are well known, and thoroughly documented in places like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). Clean and abun- dant water; habitat and biodiversity; sources of outdoor recreation; support for local economies through tourism, wood production, and other forms of recreation; spiritual and cultural benefits; opportunities for carbon sequestration and a sink for deposited air pollutants all combine to make forests hugely valuable. In many parts of the world, forests are often owned by a myriad of private families and individuals, interlaced with community and organizational owners, as well as industrial and public holdings. Ownership boundary lines occur randomly, slicing across forests, irrespective of ecosystem or watershed functional boundaries, patterns, or processes (e.g., hydrology, migra- tion, home range, forest type). The public ecosystem values do not often start or stop at ownership lines, and indeed can be enhanced or safeguarded when considering the spatial scales at which they have evolved to operate. These considerations are not new. American conservationist Aldo Leopold (1966) advised “thinking like a mountain” when it came to understanding the integrated nature of vegetation, herbivores, predation, people, long temporal scales, and large landscapes. Enhanced or maintained ecosystem benefits provide good reasons why landowners might consider cooperating across property boundaries at scales more akin to these beneficial ecosystem services. Human nature being what it is, however, suggests some self-interest may be required to inspire landowners to think beyond their own properties and their individual decision making. From the perspective of individuals, forest benefits can be enhanced by thinking more broadly than a single property. Popular reasons for individual ownership such as outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, nature appreciation, and timber products (e.g., both access to and marketing of) can be enhanced by exploring cooperation at scales broader than individual ownerships. American poet Robert Frost acknowledged that “Good fences make good neighbors” in his poem entitled the Mending Wall (1966), when he described the way two forest owners cooperatively maintained the stone wall between their respective properties. But he also implied a certain bond or kinship of coop- eration between owners in the way they jointly walked along the wall each spring putting stones Table 1. Yaffee’s (1998, Table 14.1) “rough taxonomy of cooperative behaviors.” Behavior type Definition Awareness Being cognizant of others’ interest and actions Communication Talking about goals and activities Coordination Actions of one party are carried out in a manner that supports (or does not conflict with) those of another Collaboration Active partnerships with resources being shared or work being done by multiple partners Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 19 back in place that may have become dislodged over the year. Many private forest owners in the United States (and probably elsewhere) cite privacy as an important reason for ownership. Is this in contrast with concepts of cooperation between owners? It depends of course on what we mean by cooperate. The obvious clues or visible indications of cooperation Coordination and collaboration are the obvious clues or visible indications of cooperation. They are actions or events that can be counted, measured, and recorded. Collaborative, active partner- ship activities include obvious things like shared equipment or machinery; joint sale or marketing of timber; marking and maintenance of property boundaries; development of maps, inventory, or management plans; development or improvement of access (for timber, recreation, or fire protec- tion). Active owners who are managers do these things, or pay to have them done. These actions have results on the ground. People who do them can see the benefits to both their land and bank account, and these actions are easily measured, mapped, and estimated. The less obvious or invisible clues to cooperation Yaffee’s awareness and communication are less obvious forms of cooperation, but are as impor- tant, if not more so, than the obvious ones. They include activities such as: exchange of factual information; sharing of opinion, perspective, or personal experience; suggestions of contacts, other connections, or sources of information. These “invisible” forms of cooperation are less obvious, and much harder to “see”, measure, or detect. If you can’t see them, they can be assumed to be somehow less “legitimate” or important or not worth investing in, or even non-existent. If you can’t see them, how do you know if they are working? From the perspective of forest policy, how do you estimate your return on investment? Aren’t they a waste of time or money? But the invisible, less obvious clues of cooperation can be important precursors or prerequisites to the more obvious, visible, and tangible forms of cooperation It is logical that before landowners engage in more active forms of cooperation with other land- owners (e.g., share timber sales or management planning), they at least need to know them, and have some level of trust and shared common perspectives on land. Since many landowners pro- fess privacy to be one of their primary ownership objectives (e.g., Rickenbach et al. 1998, Belin et al. 2005, Butler 2008), it is hard to imagine that they could suddenly engage in active forms of cooperation without at least first engaging in some less active, or less obvious forms of coop- eration. This is even more important for people who reside great distances from their land and are not familiar with their neighbors (Rickenbach and Kittredge 2009). Importantly, studies of social networks suggest that people tend to associate with those perceived to be like themselves (i.e., homophily, e.g., McPherson et al. 2001). Foresters commonly believe that forest landown- ers think like foresters and share the same values, but this is not necessarily the case, and owners can commonly hold beliefs about forests that are more typical of the general public (Jones et al. 1995). Finley and Kittredge (2006) showed distinct segmentation of beliefs held by forest owners in Massachusetts (see also Finley et al. 2006), and Butler et al. (2007) have documented this for woodland owners throughout the United States, as well. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 20 Forest landowners tend to place importance or credence in informal advice or information from others perceived like themselves, often making this at least important, or more so, than informa- tion from professionals (e.g., Gootee et al. 2010, Kittredge et al. in review). In cases of peer-to- peer interaction there is minimal perception of vested interest on the part of the other party, or a professional trying to impose a program or policy. How do we estimate or measure these not obvious clues or precursors to cooperation? Like fingerprints in a mystery, are the less obvious clues for cooperation really all that invisible, or are there ways they can be detected? Rickenbach (2009) studied the social networks around mem- bers of a woodland owner cooperative and discovered that members also interact with non-members and serve as a means to convey forest information. Kittredge et al. (in review) likewise studied the egocentric networks around private woodland owners and determined that peer landowners and other non-professional people with local knowledge and credibility are important sources of information when landowners are faced with a decision about their land. The egocentric networks consisted of an average of 7 people, with 2 people serving as particularly influential and involved in a decision to harvest timber or place an easement on the property. A more recent study (Kittredge et al. in preparation.) used different techniques to investigate landowner networks in two nearby states and generated similar results. In addition, 40% of participating landowners identified that they were not only receiving information from their informal network, but that they also served as sources of information, as well. In fact, ten percent of participating landowners disclosed that other owners seek them out and actively ask for information. In an effort to assess the degree to which landowners are aware of conservation information and alternatives, Van Fleet (in preparation) surveyed landowners in a pilot study (i.e., n=500 owners in a 6-town area in western Massachusetts) to find out how much they knew, and where they might turn for information. Relative individual conservation awareness can lead to individual action, which in turn can lead to cooperative behaviors. First hand personal experience with a number of conservation activities (e.g., timber harvest, management plan, conservation easement, estate plan), was relatively low but second hand knowledge of someone else who had engaged in these activities was considerably higher. Though owners had relatively low first-hand experience with a number of management activities and decisions, it is clear they do know of others who have engaged in these activities, thereby implying the effectives of networks and informal information exchange. In contrast, fewer than 10 percent of participating landowners in the pilot study could correctly identify the name of the forester employed by the Massachusetts Bureau of Forestry to provide landowner assistance in their towns. Social networking and the informal exchange of information between woodland owners does not have to happen face to face or at the local level. The same way that Amazon.com and other online retail shopping opportunities make anonymous customer reviews available for people to make purchasing decisions, Kittredge (www.massacorn.net) and Sagor (www.myminnesotawoods.umn. edu) use threaded discussion opportunities online for woodland owners and others to exchange information informally. Interestingly, though the number of postings or contributions to the discus- sion on massacorn.net may appear low, the informal postings are the most frequently visited and popular part of the website. There is a significant difference between the number of posts, and the number of views of posts. Importantly, in spite of the fact that many woodland owners are older, their use of the internet as an information source is high and increasing (e.g., Belin et al. (2005) Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 21 estimated 75% of Massachusetts owners are online; by 2009, this had increased to 85%, with 66% online on a daily basis (Kittredge, unpublished data)). Invisible cooperation happens, but how often do owners need information? Landowners can engage in the invisible forms of cooperation (i.e., Yaffee’s awareness and com- munication), but how often are they faced with a decision and would benefit from information? The informal exchange of information between peers can be very helpful for activities such as hobbies they engage in on a frequent basis (e.g., fishing, bicycling), or consumer decisions they might make (e.g., food, shopping, entertainment) on a daily, weekly, or monthly scale. But trees grow slowly, forests do not change much, and years can go by between decisions made about land. This also depends on the size of ownership. There may be active decision making and hence a need for peer network activation frequently if an owner’s land is of a size to support annual activity. In places with numerous small ownerships (e.g., mean ownership in Massachusetts is 7.2 hectares; if ownerships < 3.6 hectares are excluded, the mean rises to 17.2 hectares; Kittredge et al. 2008), it is not hard to imagine years going by between decisions and hence a need to communicate with peers. The need to seek information through a peer network can be infrequent. Butler et al. (2011) for example estimate that in Massachusetts, 52% of owners (representing 74% of private family forest land) declare vague or no future intentions for their land in the next five years (e.g., “no current plans”, “unknown”, “leave it as is – no activity”, “minimal”). If these invisible clues of cooperation occur infrequently, they are difficult to detect. Also, new or novice landowners may have difficulty in finding the clues themselves, especially if they are absentee. These kinds of in- visible communication and awareness precursors to actual cooperation can be faint, infrequent signals not easily detected. What does this mean? In the United States, few woodland owners have professionally prepared management plans or consult with a forester prior to the sale of timber (Butler 2008). Data indicate that many owners do sell timber or some or all of their land, thus they appear to be making reactive decisions on the basis of immediate circumstances or need, and without formal, professional guidance or informa- tion (Kittredge 2004). In some cases, they may make decisions alone, yet in other cases, they may consult informal social networks and non-professionals. If they do consult peers and other non- professionals, it is possible that they could be pointed towards professional advice. They could alternatively consult non-professionals and receive inaccurate information or bad advice. It is likely, however, that informal and not-so-obvious forms of cooperation (e.g., Yaffee’s awareness and communication) can result in improved decisions for individuals, and lead eventually to more obvious and organized forms of cooperation, the net effect of which can be enhanced ecosystem- scale effects. But calls to cooperate for the sake of cooperation (and enhanced ecosystem benefits), without the important precursors of sharing of experience, trust, and exchange of information can fall on deaf ears (i.e., “why should I cooperate?”). Indeed, such calls to cooperate, complete with programmatic inducements or incentives, without the invisible clues, could be as awkward or ill- fitting as an arranged marriage between two strangers. In many landscapes dominated by a variety of small, private ownerships, the benefits to coopera- tive conservation are obvious, both for society and its dependence on ecosystem services, as well Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 22 as the owners themselves. Research suggests that the invisible clues to cooperation are important, thus making them worthy of attention from the standpoint of public policy. If landowner com- munication and sharing of information among peers are important precursor clues to cooperation, what can be done to promote these invisible or elusive behaviours? First, it is worth realizing that all landowners are not the same. Foresters might perceive them to be one distinct type of people with the common bond of forest ownership, but research and ex- perience shows us that in reality, there are many types of owners. Homophily is at work, and dif- ferent types of landowners will naturally want to seek out others like themselves with common interests and perspectives. Landowner associations are not necessarily sufficient for this due to landowner segmentation. For example, in the United States, state forest owner associations often serve as sponsors of the Tree Farm program. Landowners who are attracted to the image or con- cept of their forest as a farm that grows products like wood are attracted to this concept, but col- lectively participation in the Tree Farm program nationally only represents roughly 3 percent of all owners. Indeed, the notion of farms and agriculture can actively repel some owners, who think of their forest as a representative or idyllic piece of nature (e.g., the “Muir” archetype or segment of owners; Finley and Kittredge 2006). Existing landowner association structures have appeal to some but not all owners (Kittredge 2005). For example, though Sweden has a number of very successful landowner cooperatives, only roughly 50% of owners participate (Kittredge 2003). Based on our knowledge of people and their connec- tions, it seems clear that the invisible clues serve as precursors to cooperation. Rickenbach et al. (in review) suggest the important role of so-called boundary spanners to facilitate information flow and exchange between owners through a landscape across property boundaries. This is especially important since landowners might only infrequently need contact with other peers and access to their experiences and advice. Boundary spanners would not necessarily be foresters or other pro- fessionals, but they would be in a position to connect owners with one another, or to maintain the existence of informal networks that can be tapped on an as-needed basis. Catanzaro (2010) and Ma et al. (in review) have suggested providing informal forums like pot luck suppers to create op- portunities for landowners to engage one another to share experiences, build trust, and exchange information. These informal network opportunities to share, communicate, and learn will become increasingly important for owners given new issues evolving around woodland ownership (e.g., carbon sequestration and credits; green certification; biomass energy markets). The experiences of other owners on these subjects will only become a more important resource to cooperatively share. In general, these strategies provide opportunities for landowners to engage in the invisible, not ob- vious clues to cooperation. Research suggests that these invisible activities are already occurring and landowners are exchanging information. Public policy and outreach programs that value owner cooperation would use this knowledge and develop strategies to enable it to occur more often. Conclusions In many places around the world society has grown to depend on the wealth of ecosystem services that emanate from forest landscapes dominated by non-industrial private ownership. These services depend on fully functioning ecosystem patterns and processes that do not align with private prop- erty boundaries. Landowner cooperation in various forms can enhance and ensure management that is compatible with these larger scale social benefits. There is thus public value in facilitating landowner cooperation. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 23 Obvious forms or clues of landowner cooperation are evident in many countries and are simple to quantify. These obvious indicators do not tell the entire story, however. Invisible clues like shared experiences, information exchange, trust, references to professional assistance, and moral support provide important means for landowners to acquire information and consider more obvious forms of cooperation. These invisible clues could be considered important precursors to more formal and tangible cooperative activities. Because of this, they are worthy of enhanced public policy in- vestment to achieve additional cooperative results on the ground. The challenge lies in maintain- ing informal network opportunities that landowners can access as needed, recognizing that their demand for or interest in information and contact may occur infrequently. References: Belin, D.L., Kittredge, D.B., Stevens, T.H., Dennis, D.F., Schweik, C.M. and Morzuch, B.J. 2005. Assess- ing NIPF Owner Attitudes Toward Forest Management. Journal of Forestry 103(1): 28–35. Butler, B.J., Tyrrell, M., Feinberg, G., VanManen, S., Wiseman, L. and Wallinger, S. 2007. Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. Journal of Forestry 105(7): 348–357. Butler, B.J. 2008. Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p. Butler, B.J., Miles, P.D. and Hansen, M. H. 2011 (Mon Feb 28 10:44:40 CST 2011). National Woodland Owner Survey Table web-application version 1.0. Amherst, MA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- est Service, Northern Research Station. [Available only on internet: http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/NWOS/ta- blemaker.jsp] Catanzaro, P. 2010. Personal communication. Finley, A.O. and Kittredge, D.B. 2006. Thoreau, Muir, and Jane Doe: different types of private forest own- ers need different kinds of forest management. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(1): 27–34. Finley, A.O., Kittredge, D.B., Stevens, T.H., Schweik, C.M. and Dennis, D.C. 2006. Interest in cross- boundary cooperation: identification of distinct types of private forest owners. Forest Science 52(1): 10–22. Frost, R. 1966. “The Poetry of Robert Frost”, Edited by Edward Connery Lathem. Holt, Rinehart and Win- ston of Canada, Limited. Gootee, R.S., Blatner, K.A., Baumgartner, D.M., Carroll, M.S. and Weber, E.P. 2010. Choosing what to believe about forests: differences between professional and non-professional evaluative criteria. Small Scale Forestry 9: 137–152. Jones, S.B., Luloff, A.E. and Finley, J.C. 1995. Facing our myths: Another look at NIPFs. Journal of For- estry 93(9): 41–44. Kittredge, D.B., Rickenbach, M.G., Knoot, T., Snellings, E. and Erazo, A. in review. It’s the network: How personal connections shape decisions about private forest use. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Kittredge, D.B., Rickenbach, M.G., Jones, M. and Schipper, K. in preparation. Private woodland owner egocentric networks in Vermont and New Hampshire. Kittredge, D.B. 2003. Private forest owners in Sweden: large-scale cooperation in action. Journal of For- estry. 101(2): 41–46. Kittredge, D.B. 2004. Extension / outreach implications for America’s Family Forest owners. Journal of Forestry 102(7): 15–18. Kittredge, D.B. 2005. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than their individual proper- ties. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 671–688. Kittredge, D.B., D’Amato, A., Catanzaro, P., Fish, J. and Butler, B. 2008. Estimating ownerships and parcels of non-industrial private forest in Massachusetts. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 25(2): 93–98. Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac: with essays on conservation from Round river. Oxford Uni- versity Press. 295 pp. http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/NWOS/tablemaker.jsp http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/NWOS/tablemaker.jsp Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 24 Ma, Z., Kittredge, D.B. and Catanzaro, P. in review. Challenging the traditional forestry extension model: insights from the Woods Forum program in Massachusetts. Small Scale Forestry. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005: http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx Rickenbach, M.G., Kittredge, D.B., Dennis, D. and Stevens, T. 1998. Ecosystem management: capturing the concept for woodland owners. Journal of Forestry 96(4): 18–24. Rickenbach, M.G. and Kittredge, D.B. 2009. Time and distance: Comparing motivations among forest landowners in New England. Small-Scale Forestry 8: 95–108. Rickenbach, M. 2009. Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative. Forest Policy and Economics. 11: 593–599. Rickenbach, M.G., Schulte, L., Kittredge, D.B., Labich, W. and Shinneman, D. in review. Cross-boundary Cooperation: A Mechanism for Sustaining Ecosystem Goods and Services from Private Lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Van Fleet, T.E., Kittredge, D.B., Catanzaro, P. and Butler, B.J. in preparation. Re-imagining Private Forest Conservation: Estimating Landowner Awareness and their Preparedness to Act with the Conservation Awareness Index. Yaffee, S.L. 1998. Cooperation: a strategy for achieving stewardship across boundaries. In: Knight, R.L. and Landres, P. (eds.) Stewardship across boundaries. Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 25 Keynote 2 Mon April 4th 09:40–10:30 Ukonkivi Main Hall Social learning systems: what role in land owners managing change? Sriskandarajah Nadarajah Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Uppsala, Sweden; email: nadarajah.sriskandarajah(at)slu.se Changes in forest ownership structure in recent years and the extent and quality of interaction among the diverging types of landowners and between them and the forestry professionals have been a concern for forestry extension planners and service providers. This is the basis for the in- terest in peer-to-peer learning networks among small scale forest owners in Nordic countries as an approach and strategy to support landowner learning and enhancement of their ability to deal with complexity and manage change. The role of existing social networks among forest owners and the part played by trusted friends and relatives in providing input to better decision making have been studied. In the same vein, the relative roles of expert-advisors and peers in landowner decision making, the importance of personal relationships and communication in identity formation and fel- lowship among newcomers and their sense of belonging to a cohesive forest community, and the quality of information exchange and learning that takes place in such learning communities and peer networks, with or without external facilitation, are all worthy of further examination. This paper takes off from Kolb’s notion of experiential learning which argues that knowledge is produced through the transformation of experience (Kolb 1984). Learning, therefore, is the basic process by which humans not only make sense of their experiences in an ever-changing world but also choose their responses and enact them. The paper argues that being responsive to change, the ability to reflect in and on one’s action, and the capacity to link theory and practice in a dialectic way to be aware of one’s praxis are integral to all learning. Learning takes place invariably with the involvement of other people, therefore, social learning gains meaning in this context. Learn- ing taking place in groups, networks, communities and other social systems was defined as social learning. Wildemeersch (2007) proposed four dimensions, action, reflection, communication and negotiation, each dimension with two opposite poles, to collective learning and problem solving situations. He described social learning as the increased capacity of the social system to manage the tensions created by the opposite poles. In this paper, a learning ‘system’ is conceived in the sense Bawden (1995) proposed it, as a coherent group of people collaborating purposefully together to achieve high quality transformations, with a keen sense of emergence, shared processes and levels and states of learning, thus highlighting its systemic qualities. While individual learning in social contexts are important, what is empha- sised in this paper for landowner learning situations is a conception of social learning systems as opportunities not only for collective learning but also for the possibilities they afford for concerted action as a result of joint endeavour. This thinking is dominant among those working with situa- tions of multi-stakeholder processes in natural resource governance. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 26 Collective learning outcomes of relevance to peer-to-peer learning networks and such other social learning situations can be examined more closely by matching individual or collective learning processes against individual or collective learning outcomes in the way de Laat and Simons (2002) have done to distinguish four variations of learning in groups. Individual learning processes and individual outcomes characterise individual learning for members of the group; secondly, individual processes can result in collective outcomes for the group; as a third kind, collective learning proc- esses yielding individual learning outcomes would simply be learning through social interaction for that individual; and lastly, collective learning processes aimed at collective outcomes would qualify as true collective learning for all concerned. Where collective learning takes place in groups, de Laat and Simons (2002) recognise three broad types of collective learning according to the learning intention that the groups have: learning in networks, learning in teams and learning in communities. Learning networks are the loosest form of collective learning; teams are created with structure and intention to work on specific problems, while learning communities emerge around a topic of interest shared by voluntary members coming together with a learning goal and an intention to share, negotiate and create knowledge together. Etienne Wenger (1998) identified certain social constellations as crucial loci for learning and called them Communities of Practice (CoP). The basic structure of a CoP in Wenger’s terms is that it will be a combination of three fundamental elements: a domain of knowledge, which creates the com- mon ground such as, in the case of forest owners, an interest in managing small forest blocks; a community of people that fosters interactions and relationships based on mutual respect and trust and who care about this domain; and, a shared practice they are developing with their ideas, tools, information, and stories that they share, and with that they can be effective in their domain. When these elements function well, a CoP becomes a knowledge structure and a social structure for de- veloping and sharing knowledge together. Having proposed systems of social learning and communities of practice as two frameworks for collective learning enterprises, this paper attempts to overlay these strands of learning praxis on peer-to-peer networks, existing and imagined, among landowners and foresters. The paper will close by examining the extent to which the two frameworks overlap and differ in this context, drawing on the work of Blackmore (2010). It will consider the possibilities these frameworks offer to voluntary groups such as peer-to-peer learning networks, irrespective of whether they are will- ing to organise themselves or become amenable to be organised and facilitated in order for them to grow into collectively learning communities. References Bawden, R.J. 1995. Systemic Development: A Learning approach to Change, Centre for Systemic Develop- ment, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury. Occasional Paper 1. Blackmore, C. 2010. Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Springer London. De Laat, M.F. and Simons, P.R.J. 2002. Collective learning: Theoretical perspectives and ways to support networked learning. Vocational Training: European Journal 27: 13–24. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, CJ. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. NY: Cambridge University Press. Wildemeersch, D. 2007. Social learning revisited: Lessons from North and South, In: Wals, A.J. (ed.) So- cial learning towards a sustainable world: Principles, perspectives and praxis. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 27 Keynote 3 Mon April 4th 10:30–11:20 Ukonkivi Main Hall Forestry extension activities in the new era – what does the Finnish case teach us? Toivonen Ritva Forestry Development Centre Tapio, Helsinki, Finland; email: ritva.toivonen(at)tapio.fi Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 28 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 29 Full papers Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 30 Self-directed learners or not? Delivering agroforestry technology to farmers in the Philippines Baynes Jack1 and Herbohn John1 1 University of Queensland, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, St Lucia, Australia; email: j.baynes(at)uq.edu.au, j.herbohn(at)uq.edu.au Abstract This paper presents an evaluation of the usefulness of a participatory approach and adult learning principles for agroforestry extension in the Philippines. Visual observations and analysis of inter- views with farmers found that their ability to act as self-directed adult learners changed according to the situations with which they were faced. Farmers used a self-directed approach to their selection of inputs for the establishment of woodlots. However, when propagating seedlings, lack of technical knowledge caused them to shift to a state of dependency on ‘top-down’ didactic instruction. Farmers’ familiarity with agricultural crops, e.g. rice and coconuts, did not provide them with the skills to raise tree seedlings. A consequence of farmers applying their own interpretation of woodlot establishment procedures was that some sites were destroyed and seedling growth on other sites was poor. These failed woodlots are likely to present a negative image of the program in the future. Contributing in- fluences to farmers’ limited uptake of technology may have been a lack of other sources of support and information and the difficulty of interacting and sharing ideas with their peers. The practical implications of this research are that farmers in developing countries may lack the education, sup- port services and peer-to-peer interaction to behave similarly to self-directed learners in developed countries. A totally participatory approach to program delivery may maintain participants’ enthusi- asm and commitment but may result in unforseen outcomes. Hence, a flexible approach to the use of adult learning principles may be necessary. Keywords: participatory, adult learning, constructivism Introduction Despite technological advances, agroforestry extension has experienced uneven success in many parts of the world due to inadequate adoption rates or abandonment (Subhrendu et al. 2003). A contributing reason may be the manner in which farmers apply silvicultural1 technology. For ex- ample, Harrison et al. (2008) found that low seedling quality is generic to small nurseries in south- east Asia. Poor tree growth resulting from farmers’ reluctance to thin weaker and deformed trees is a major constraint to profitable tree farming in the Philippines (Bertomeu et al. 2006). However, until recently, agroforestry adoption studies have been concerned with biophysical rather than socio-economic variables (Mercer 2004) and there have been few studies in developing coun- tries which investigated how farmers learn. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to report aspects of farmers’ learning behaviour which affected the outcomes of an agroforestry extension program in the Philippines. In the current ethos of rural extension a participatory approach is almost mandatory, participants’ commitment being boosted by an extension process which encourages people to take responsibility 1 In this paper, the term silviculture includes seedling propagation, site preparation, woodlot establishment and man- agement. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 31 for their learning (Franzel and Scherr 2002, Ganpat et al. 2009). This approach is in accord with Knowles’ (1984) principles of adult or ‘self-directed’ learning that adults’ past experience is the basis of their learning, they are most interested in learning which is applicable to their lives and learning is problem centred rather than content centred. Farmers’ self-direction was metaphori- cally noted by Cramb (2000) that technological assistance may be described a ‘cake’ in which farmers shop around for technological ‘ingredients’ which they incorporate into their own ‘reci- pes’. Providers act as facilitators rather than teachers and the process is participant-centred rather than technology-centred. Although Knowles’ principles are consistent with Cramb’s metaphor, adult learning techniques have been criticised for representing an ‘American’ concept of independent, self-directed adult learners. However, a participatory approach to extension and adult learning principles are both underpinned by a constructivist2 view of learning which is independent of race, culture and socio-economic status. Hence, if an extension process is considered as a system of inter-related variables, partici- pants’ ability to behave as self-directed learners is important. Recent research into participatory extension (e.g. Magcale et al. 2006, Minh et al. 2010) suggested that where participatory princi- ples are not followed, (e.g. inflexible or top-down didactic delivery methods and failure to match participants’ objectives), extension programs often fail. A consequence of a participatory approach is that extension program planners lose control over the extension process. As control of program activities is ceded to participants, the likelihood of unexpected outcomes increases. One of the activities of Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) project ASEM/2003/052, Improving Financial Returns to Smallholder Tree Farmers in the Philippines provided an opportunity to investigate the application of adult learning principles to agroforestry extension. A participatory approach which treated farmers as adult learners was used to deliver the program and collect qualitative and quantitative data which provided information about farmers’ acceptance of agroforestry technology. During the program, changes in farmers’ use of technol- ogy prompted questions as to whether a flexible rather than a totally participatory approach may be appropriate for the delivery of agroforestry extension assistance. This paper provides an assessment of the usefulness of adult learning principles for an agroforestry extension program in the Philippines. In the next section, a précis of the methods of the extension program is presented. In the following section, farmers’ attitudes and responses are analysed in relation to the situations and difficulties they encountered throughout the program. Finally, recom- mendations are made for the delivery of agroforestry extension in similar contexts and settings. Research methods: The approach to the delivery of the extension program and data collection The methodology and results of the extension program is reported in Baynes et al. (2009) and a précis is presented below. The influence of farmers’ mental models on their acceptance of technol- ogy is also reported in Baynes et al. (2010). 2 The principles of constructivism are that learners ‘construct’ new ideas based on their current knowledge. People come to learning situations with a mental structure of past experiences and this influences their understanding and uptake of information (Dewey 1995). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 32 Between 2005 and early 2008, assistance was offered to farmers in four municipalities on Leyte Island to grow seedlings in home nurseries and establish woodlots. Deforestation of the country- side has been severe and there are few examples of woodlots grown by smallholders for commer- cial sale or domestic use. The purpose of the program was to evaluate farmers’ willingness and ability to adopt agroforestry technology. In the municipalities of Libagon and Dulag, extended assistance was offered in three stages, i.e. first, recruiting farmers and establishing their specific needs, second, propagating seed- lings in home nurseries and finally, preparing sites and out-planting seedlings. In Libagon and Du- lag 22 farmers participated in the program and 19 of them established woodlots. Farmers initially had little understanding of nursery and woodlot establishment skills. The only serious problem in the delivery of extension assistance occurred when persistent rain caused severe fungal infection of young seedlings and consequent loss of farmers’ confidence until remedial assistance was made available. After one year, the survival of woodlots was 74%, remaining sites being abandoned, washed away by floods or burnt. The participatory approach used to deliver extension assistance The program was run by Filipino ACIAR staff who had extensive field experience of rural exten- sion. It was anticipated that some farmers may wish to join the program to see what benefits it may bring. Hence, assistance was offered as a series of learning activities in which farmers were of- fered technical advice through group and on-farm visits. Farmers were offered assistance to collect seed, grow seedlings in home nurseries, prepare sites and establish woodlots. They were allowed to decide how many trees they wished to raise, and how and when woodlots were to be established. However, in order to propagate healthy seedlings and maximise site capture of out-planted trees, they were encouraged to maximise inputs, e.g. fungicide, fertiliser and weed control. Also, to re- move as many barriers as possible to farmers’ uptake of assistance, individual on-farm visits were arranged to accommodate farmers’ availability. Fortunately, the traditional Filipino capacity for friendship and humour proved invaluable in breaking down social barriers between farmers and extension staff. Meetings became quasi-social and collaborative. Data collected through analysis of interviews and observation of what farmers actually did To test whether farmers were self-directed learners or not, extension staff conducted interviews in which farmers’ progress, problems, attitudes and opinions were recorded. They also observed what farmers actually did and the extent to which farmers’ actions complied with recommenda- tions and advice. Data were collected on four main occasions: Recorded comments and visual observations made during an initial field day;1. Initial interviews with prospective program participants;2. Interviews with farmers during the seedling propagation stage;3. Visual observations of the methods farmers used to establish woodlots.4. The purpose of the data collected during the recruitment stage (i.e. the field days and initial inter- views), was to determine the level of assistance which may be required. During the second stage, the on-site interview provided information about farmers’ seedling propagation problems and their plans for site preparation and out-planting. A comparison of farmers’ stated intentions and actions was provided through a final inspection of their woodlots. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 33 Recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed for sections of text that could be grouped into generic themes. During the initial interviews, for example, comments that indicated farmers’ knowledge of potential problems relating to woodlot establishment were grouped under two ge- neric headings problems farmers can overcome and problems farmers cannot overcome. During the seedling propagation stage of the program, farmers were asked whether they needed on-site assistance to establish their woodlots. Their responses were classified as indicating either a directed or self-directed approach to woodlot establishment. Responses that indicated that they had planned the establishment of their woodlots, e.g. ‘I will slash the grass, burn it and then dig planting holes’ were classified as being self-directed. Responses which indicated a need for assistance, e.g. ‘I’ll need your help because I have no experience of planting trees’ were classified as being directed. The frequency of themed responses in the overall set of interviews was then used as an indicator of the relevance and importance of specific issues. It was anticipated that a critical factor in the success of the overall program would be farmers’ knowledge of potential problems concerning the establishment, maintenance and marketing of woodlots. Hence, to determine the way in which information would be presented, during the field days, the complexity of farmers’ preliminary comments and questions was analysed using Bloom’s taxonomy. This taxonomy was developed by Benjamin Bloom and a group of educational psy- chologists and one of its uses is to diagnose levels of understanding. Knowledge was classified by Bloom et al. (1956) as a ‘cognitive domain’ of six levels of increasing complexity and abstraction. The levels relevant to this research are level 2, an ability to comprehend knowledge and level 4, an ability to analyse knowledge. Values and opinions are also described in the taxonomy in five levels of an ‘affective domain’ in which level 2 is an ability to respond to information and level 3 is an ability to evaluate knowledge or provide an opinion. To ascertain how farmers reacted to infor- mation presented during the field days, their comments and responses to questions were recorded and classified into appropriate levels of the taxonomy. The results were then used by ACIAR staff to guide the delivery of subsequent stages of the program. Results The demographic characteristics of farmers who volunteered for the program, (particularly the size of their holdings and the proportion of their time spent farming) indicated they were a relatively wealthy group of smallholders compared to poor tenant farmers (Table 1). Most farmers had lim- ited formal education and many of them were observed to have difficulty reading extension infor- mation that was printed in either their local dialect (mainly Cebuano), or English. Evidence gathered at the field days of farmers’ readiness to act as self-directed learners A classification of 50 comments into levels of Bloom’s taxonomy for the cognitive domain found that 64% of farmers’ responses were at level 2 (information was comprehended) and the remaining 36% of responses were at level 4 (issues were analysed) (Table 2). As expected, many of farm- ers’ more complex responses could also be classified at level 3 of the affective domain, i.e. as an expression of an opinion. The classification of comments was necessarily imprecise because paralinguistics3 were lost. Nevertheless, for the group as a whole, the classification provided an 3 Paralinguistics include body language and the pitch and the volume of speech. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 34 approximate test of farmers’ understanding of agroforestry issues. The results indicated that they may be expected to behave as typical self-directed adult learners. The initial interviews with farmers who indicated that they wished to join the program were pur- posely conducted in a loosely structured inductive manner in which farmers were given as few verbal prompts as possible. This encouraged farmers to speak their thoughts openly. Hence, farm- ers were asked about positive and negative aspects of growing trees and the problems that they ei- ther could or couldn’t overcome. Themed responses showed that, not surprisingly, 70% of farmers wished to grow trees for housing materials and 43% of them wished to leave woodlots as a legacy for their children. Many of their answers indicated that they had considered their response before speaking. For example, at the start of the field day, 75% of farmers had indicated that they had little understanding of tree registration4 procedures. Extension staff had anticipated that their knowledge of this topic would be poor and had arranged for a lecture on tree registration procedures by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Several weeks later, during the initial interview only 17% of farmers considered it as an issue with which they may have difficulty with in the future. Similarly, the 48% of farmers who held title to their land with other family members or sub-leased it to tenants indicated that it was a problem that could be successfully negotiated. In addition 52% of farmers discussed how they would market lumber from their woodlots. Overall, the farmers presented an image of independent and self-directed learners (Table 3). 4 In certain circumstances, woodlot trees must be registered with DENR before they can be harvested. Table 1. Demographic characteristics of volunteer farmers in the municipalities of Libagon and Dulag. Demographic characteristic Municipality Libagon Dulag Number of farmers who received extension assistance 13 9 Number of barangays* represented 8 7 Average age of farmers 53 55 Average size of household 5 4 Average farm area (ha) 6.0 3.8 Average number of farm holdings 2.9 3.1 Percentage of working week spent working on farms 60 60 Most common farm use Coconuts Coconuts 2nd most common farm use Bananas Bananas * A barangay is the smallest unit of local government in the Philippines and is approximately equivalent to a village. Table 2. Examples of farmers’ comments classified as level 2 and 4 of Bloom’s taxonomy for the cognitive domain. Comments classified as level 2 (comprehension) This tree is crooked so we need to cut it out. How about growing seedlings in sawdust? Comments classified as level 4 (analysis) Based on our understanding, mahogany always has that kind of roots, how can we overcome that? It’s easy to kill the grass. I give it to our neighbours. They’ll cut it for free. Table 3. Examples of farmers’ responses which indicated an ability to behave as self-directed learners. In regard to fire, I’ll conduct brushing during rainy season and conduct only a strip brushing with a 1 m wide strip Financial problems can be managed if you base your planting on your capability to manage and maintain the trees Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 35 Farmers’ reaction to technical difficulties The possibility of farmers quickly becoming independent of technical assistance was lost once they encountered technical difficulties. When persistent rain caused widespread fungal infection and consequent losses of seedlings, farmers became discouraged and the program came close to col- lapse. Only 9% of the 22 farmers were able to grow healthy seedlings without personal assistance. During interviews, farmers’ comments reflected a complete dependence on extension assistance and advice (Table 4). They had no other basis for comparing information provided by ACIAR staff. There are few municipal libraries in Leyte and the focus of the ‘Techno Gabay Program’, which provides extension information to farmers, is agricultural crops and production systems. Even if farmers had been able to access the internet, their reading skills (particularly in English) would probably have precluded them from finding a remedy for their problems. Difficulties accommodating farmers’ schedules necessitated individual on-farm visits and inevita- bly, the mode of extension assistance reverted to top-down didactic instruction. However, farmers responded positively to instructions and almost all of them managed to grow sufficient healthy seedlings to warrant out-planting. Comparison between preliminary evidence of farmers’ self-direction and what they actually did The final stage of the program involved site preparation and out-planting. By this stage of the program almost all farmers had regained their confidence and had raised sufficient seedlings to warrant out-planting. In some cases it had not been possible for extension staff to visit sites before seedlings were planted. Hence, the main source of evidence of farmers’ acceptance of technology was a comparison of farmers’ stated intentions and a final inspection of the woodlots. The interviews that had been undertaken in the previous stages were examined for sections of text which could be classified as indicating a directed or self-directed attitude towards further as- sistance. In 20 interviews, 85% of the farmers made comments that indicated that they were no longer reliant on extension assistance (Table 5). For example, several farmers had planted trees on previous occasions. Consequently, they felt confident of their ability to do so again. Other farm- ers made comments that could be interpreted both ways, i.e. they requested assistance and then made comments that indicated that they had already decided how they were going to establish their woodlots. Despite being offered individual on-farm assistance, only six farmers (i.e. 27% of the original cohort of 22 farmers) accepted an offer of final assistance from extension staff to set out, plant and stake trees. Table 4. Typical farmers’ responses to interview questions concerning fungal infection of their seedlings. I don’t know what to do Ma’m, please help me? What do you mean by hardened sir? Kindly explain. Table 5. Examples of farmers’ comments which indicated that they were not reliant on extension assistance to establish woodlots. I’ll plough before planting and clean up the area. I don’t need other assistance. If I want your presence or help, I’ll contact you. I have Mr Duan’s number and he will call you. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 36 Final inspections revealed that some woodlots had been planted on very steep or eroded sites, un- derneath a dense canopy, in flood prone locations or directly adjacent to coconuts (Table 6). One year after planting, site maintenance (i.e. slashing of competing vegetation) had virtually ceased even though seedlings had not achieved dominance over weeds. In each case, these decisions had long-term implications for the growth of the woodlots. Neglecting weed control before seedlings have achieved site capture is likely to result in poor seedling growth and stagnation of the stand. Planting trees underneath a dense canopy is also likely to lead to very poor growth. Trees planted on the flood prone sites were washed away soon after planting and not surprisingly; those farmers became disenchanted with the program. One year after planting, seedlings that had been planted adjacent to coconuts showed poor growth and evidence of suppression. Despite extension advice to the contrary, some farmers had applied technology in a manner inconsistent with sound princi- ples of woodlot establishment. Discussion and conclusion For the cohort of Filipino farmers served by this extension program, their self-directedness varied according to the challenges they faced. A participatory extension approach in which farmers were allowed to apply technical information to their own circumstances maintained their cooperation and enthusiasm but in situations in which they realised that they were knowledge-deficient, they also accepted didactic and top-down instructional methods. In a broader context, these results suggest that self-directed extension program participants may not object to inclusion of top-down instruction, provided that they see the need for it. The results of this program suggest that although a participatory approach may be required to ensure farmers’ participation, their interpretation of technology may compromise program goals. Farmers’ initial ability to list, discuss and analyse issues (e.g. tree registration), suggested that they would act as self-directed adult learners. However, their lack of technical knowledge constrained their ability to evaluate the veracity of technical advice. In situations where they chose to ignore advice, their personal interpretation of the principles of tree growth resulted in the establishment of woodlots, some of which are unlikely to present a positive image of agroforestry in the future. Seedlings that are grown on infertile sites in competition with weeds are likely to become chlorotic and spindly and the entire woodlot may stagnate. Farmers’ subsequent disappointment is likely to result in negative publicity. In this instance, a participatory approach that encouraged farmers to interpret and apply technology to their own circumstances resulted in negative consequences. Farmers’ low-input approach may have been modified if they had been able to access comple- mentary sources of information. A contributing influence to farmers’ lack of competency in rais- ing seedlings may have been the dearth of other information or support services. Unfortunately, farmers were unable to transfer their knowledge of other farming practices to tree seedling propa- gation. Although information concerning growing and marketing of other crops (e.g. rice, copra) is available through farmer co-operatives and government sponsored information services, this Table 6. Characteristics of sites chosen by farmers for reforestation. Municipality and number of sites Percentage of sites with specific characteristics Infertile or eroded Dense canopy Flood prone Integrated with other crops Libagon (12) 42 8 0 67 Dulag (7) 0 0 43 100 Total (19) 26 5 16 79 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 37 information is not applicable to agroforestry. In addition, the geographically scattered occurrence of participating farmers, i.e. the recruitment of 13 farmers from eight barangays in Libagon and nine farmers from seven barangays in Dulag, inhibited farmer-to-farmer interaction. Consequently, those intuitively self-directed farmers who would have welcomed other sources of information were unable to access it. A general problem confronting rural extension planners in developing countries is to maximise recruitment and maintain participants’ enthusiasm, consistent with program goals. Farmers’ inter- est is often sparked by an inclusive extension approach that offers information and expertise in a new agricultural activity. The promise of new knowledge per se, also has a novelty value. In this program, the low level of farmers’ acceptance of out-planting assistance indicated that the nov- elty had partly dissipated by the time seedlings were ready for out-planting. Hence, some of them opted to ignore offers of assistance and to use inadequate woodlot establishment practices that were derived from their prior knowledge and experience. These results suggest that if farmers in developing countries are not supplied with a range of experiences and background information, (e.g. demonstration farms, peer-to-peer interaction) which allow them to develop as informed self-directed learners, then they are unlikely to fully benefit from assistance. In this sense, these farmers have special needs that set them apart from ‘western’ self-directed adult learners. Hence, providing them with complementary learning experiences may be well rewarded. References Baynes, J., Herbohn, J. and Russell, I. 2009. Bringing agroforestry technology to farmers in the Philippines: A comparison of two extension assistance programs. Small-scale Forestry 8(4): 381–398. Baynes, J., Herbohn, J. and Russell, I. 2010. The influence of farmers’ mental models on an agroforestry program in the Philippines. To appear in Small-scale Forestry. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11842-010- 9154-7 Bertomeu, M., Bertomeu, M. and Gimenéz, J.C. 2006. Improving adoptability of farm forestry in the Phil- ippine uplands: a linear programming model. Agroforestry Systems 68(1): 81–91. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Krathwohl, D.R. 1956. Taxonomy of educa- tional objectives; the classification of educational goals, book 1, cognitive domain. David McKay, New York. Cramb, R.A. 2000. Working with farmers: the key to adoption of forage technologies. In: Stür, W.W., Packer, J.B. and Kerridge, P.C. (eds.) Proceedings of an international workshop held in Cagayan de Oro City, Mindanao, Philippines, 12-15 October 1999. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 11–22. Dewey, J. 1995. Experience and Education. In: Merraiam, S.B. (ed.) Selected writings on philosophy and adult education. Kriegar Publishing Company, Malabar, pp. 27–30. Franzel, S. and Scherr, S.J. (eds.) 2002. Trees on the farm: Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI, Wallingford. Ganpat, W.G., Issac, W.A., Brathwaite, R.A.I. and Bekele, I. 2009. Farmers’ attitude towards a participatory research method used to evaluate weed management studies in bananas. Journal of Agricultural Educa- tion and Extension. 15(3): 235–244. Harrison, S., Gregorio, N. and Herbohn, J. 2008. A critical overview of forestry seedling production; Poli- cies and practices in relation to smallholder forestry in developing countries. Small-scale Forestry 7: 207–223. Knowles, M. 1984. The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston. Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Visco, R.G. and Delgado, M.E.M. 2006. Agroforesty adoption, innovations and smallholder farmers’ motivations in tropical uplands of southern Philippines, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(1): 131–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11842-010-9154-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11842-010-9154-7 Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 38 Mercer, D.E. 2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforestry Systems 61(3): 311–328 Minh, T.T., Larsen, C.E.S. and Neef, A. 2010. Challenges to institutionalizing participatory extension: The case of farmer livestock schools in Vietnam. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16(2): 179–194. Subhendru, K.P., Mercer, D.E., Sills, E. and Yang, J.-C. 2003. Taking stock of agroforestry adoption stud- ies. Agroforestry Systems. 57(3): 173–186. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 39 Cross-border cooperation in the making? Small-scale private forest owners and the Norwegian case Follo Gro1 1 Centre for Rural Research, University Centre Dragvoll, Trondheim, Norway; email: gro.follo(at)rural.no Abstract Norwegian forest ownership is fragmented with privately owned forest properties (≥ 2.5 ha) num- bering ca. 113,000. These small-scale owners account for 80% of total productive forest area. The counties in the coastal forest area have roughly the same number of forest properties as the remain- ing inland counties, but their average property size is smaller and strip forestry is more common. The owners’ level of forestry competence varies. According to Norwegian forest policy, the forestry sector shall contribute to the climate, preservation of biodiversity and creation of economic value. The sector is expected to do this while the public forest service is reduced and little is being done to adjust the structure of the forest properties. Since the forest owners’ organizations do not imply co- operative management of the forest, the present structure with a number of small properties becomes a basic premise for future actions. In the project “From ten to one — multi property cooperation for personal forest owners in the coastal forestry”, actors in the coastal forest area try to establish such cooperation. The attempts are subjected to trailing research i.e. the researchers follow and influence the processes. The project will yield a description of the conditions promoting and hindering coop- eration, evaluate costs and benefits, and derive practical solutions and implications for Norwegian forest policy. According to the project actors (interviewed in 2010) there is no need for change, and much can be achieved through cross-border cooperation. However, the actors’ stories reveal that the dialogue with forest owners is a challenge. Keywords: collaboration, cross-boundary coordination, forest management, NIPF-owners, Nor- way Introduction Norwegian forest ownership is fragmented. In 2008 there were about 119,600 forest estates with 2.5 ha of productive forest area or more, with personally owned forest properties numbering ca. 113,000 (Statistics Norway 2010a). “Personal forest owner” is a term Statistics Norway applies and defines. International scientific publications name this type of owners as “non-industrial pri- vate forest owners” (NIPF-owners), “family forest owners”, “private individuals and families” or “small-scale private forest owners”. In Norway these small-scale private forest owners account for 97% of all forest estates and 80% of total productive forest area, with an average forest property in this category of about 45 ha in size (Statistics Norway 2010a). Personal forest owners earn little money from their forest areas. The average income among the 25,200 owners with business income from forestry in 2008, was 36,000 NOK, amounting to 7% of their average total gross earnings that year (Statistics Norway 2010b). The counties included in the coastal forest area (Rogaland, Hordaland, Sogn and Fjordane, Møre and Romsdal, South- Trøndelag, North-Trøndelag, Nordland, Troms and Finnmark) have roughly the same number of forest properties as the remaining inland counties, but their average property size is smaller and strip forestry more common (The Coastal Forestry Project 2008). The average forestry income Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 193 http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm 40 among owners with business income from forestry in 2008 is lower in the counties of the coastal forest area than the Norwegian average (Statistics Norway 2010b). There are great variations in the level of forestry competence among the forest owners. It is strik- ing that among the forest owners in Trøndelag, 23% of the men and 49% of the women, could not answer a question about the proportion of mature forest area on their own property (Follo et al. 2006). The level of professional knowledge is low also among forest owners on the west coast (Amdam et al. 2000). Demands on the forestry sector are not likely to be reduced in the future and owners’ cost of acquiring and maintaining a satisfactory level of competence will increase. According to Norwegian forest policy, the forestry sector shall contribute (and much more so) to the climate, preservation of biodiversity and creation of economic value (Ministry of Agriculture and Food 2010, Stortingsmelding No. 39 2008-09). These enhanced goals are in line with the forest situation. We have an increased standing volume, the annual growth in the forest is more than triple that of the annual felling, and 25% of the Norwegian land area is productive forest area (Statistics Norway 2010c, d). The forestry sector is expected to contribute to the mentioned goals while at the same time, the public forest service is reduced (Stortingsmelding No. 17 1998-99, The Coastal Forestry Project 2008), and little is being done to adjust the structure of the forest properties. The forest owners’ organizations are not a solution to the structural problem. Even if Norway is among the 19 countries with forest owner cooperative associations (Kittredge 2005), neither or- ganization in The Norwegian Forest Owners’ Federation nor in Norskog does imply cooperative management of the forest. In addition maximum 54% of all Norwegian personal forest owners with 10 ha or more