In Presentation

1. In Presentation • Metsähallitus • Public participation background • How p.p. is used in Metsähallitus • What we have learned last ten years • Critics of p.p. • Where p.p. is going in the future Metsähallitus 2006

2. Lands and waters administered by Metsähallitus Forest land in managed forests 3,5 mill. Hectares Scrub and nonproductive land1,5 mill. hectaresConservation areas, wilderness reserves and other areas4,0 mill. hectares Waters 3,4 mill. hectaresTotal 12,4 mill. hectares Ownership of forest land in Finland State (Metsähallitus)CompaniesOthers Private owners Metsähallitus 2006

3. Metsähallitus Vision and Mission Vision: • Metsähallitus is a leading operator in the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources in Europe. Mission: • We manage state land and water areas according to the goals set by society. We produce a wide range of high quality services in the use and conservation of natural resources in Finland and abroad. In our work we combine traditional Finnish expertise in forest management with an international operating environment. Metsähallitus 2006

4. Background for public participation • People want to contribute to the planning of their environment (state land is “owned” by citizens) • Co-operation could be a solution for conflicts • Open co-operation and p.p. is based on Metsähallitus decision, not on law • International development is going towards p.p. (Rio 1992, Forestry Ministerial Conference in Europe 1993, Certification, EMS, EIA, Forest Act, etc.) Metsähallitus 2006

5. Social sustainability and Public Participation • Social sustainability includes all conflicting human needs and possible solutions to them. • Society must have a political system in place that enables effective public participation in decision making; at the same time, society must have such social systems which provide solutions for tensions caused by inharmonious development (World Commission … 1987). • Thus, social sustainability can be achieved once we have functional systems for addressing conflicting objectives and functional practices for seeking and finding solutions for these conflicting objectives. Metsähallitus 2006

6. Why public participation in Metsähallitus • Integrating the various uses of natural resources • Understandable and widely accepted plans • Development of organisation and personnel through co-operation • Positive and open public image • Possibility for interest groups to work together Metsähallitus 2006

7. Why public participation in Metsähallitus • Better use of local knowledge on natural resources • Possibility to decrease, restrict or decide conflicts • Extensive gathering and mediation of information • Social sustainability • Open and co-operative way of working in Metsähallitus Metsähallitus 2006

8. Applications of p.p. in Metsähallitus • Regional natural resources management planning (NRMP). Strategic level land use planning for seven regions every fifth year. • Landscape ecological planning. Landscape level planning especially from ecological point of view. • Real estate processes (Zoning). • Management plans of conservation and recreational areas • Operational plans for logging, silviculture and road construction plans. • P.p. started in all planning processes in 1995 Metsähallitus 2006

9. P.p. Principles in practise • Participation plan should be made together with interest groups • Participation should start in the beginning of the process. • Opportunity to participate should be offered to all interested parties and persons. • Methods should be flexible and process to be evaluated “on line” • Different ways and methods of participation should be provided. • Information and comments coming through various participation methods are different Metsähallitus 2006

10. P.p. Principles in practise • The skills and possibilities of participants vary • Process has to be open, equitable, transparent and interactive. • Decisions made and participants’ impact on them should be accountable. • Participation should be continued in implementation and monitoring. • Good and understandable information trough the process Metsähallitus 2006

11. Methods of p.p. • Information sharing is essential in all methods • Teamwork of elected representatives • Public meetings • Open houses • Various methods of contacting people • written comments • phoned comments • personal visits • public field trips • Internet Metsähallitus 2006

12. Methods of p.p. • Working Group • Open invitation to all stakeholder groups • Stakeholder groups name their own representatives • Independent chairperson • Sets the priorities for the management scenarios and for evaluation criteria • Recommends the chosen scenario to be approved by Metsähallitus • Metsähallitus makes the final decision of the chosen scenario and is responsible to implement it • Systems Intelligence method new form of co-operation Metsähallitus 2006

13. Lessons learned in p.p. processes • Attitudes of Metsähallitus employees concerning PP has been reserved. • Experiencing the processes they changed to be more positive. • Public is keen to participate and regards participatory processes very positive. • The process takes time and should be done carefully. • Even though we do a lot of work we get feedback only from 2 % of the population in the target area. Vast silent majority. Metsähallitus 2006

14. Lessons learned in p.p. processes • Positive feedback from the media concerning the processes. • People give comments seriously, the comments must be handled respectfully. • It is not easy to keep the people interested through long processes. • 15 % of feedback received from the people is not implemented in final plan. • 50 % of public comments can be responded Metsähallitus 2006

15. Critics of p.p. • Participation should be based on law • There are no such conflicts in the community which would need participation. Consensus practice means that conflicts are based on missing information. • Public participation is not considered as a statutory democratic process and therefore it doesn’t have much impact • People are not willing to participate, they are afraid of participating, they don’t have understanding, time or interest to participate. • Participation is making planning process slower and more expensive. It calls for new skills and should be done effectively. Metsähallitus 2006

16. Critics of p.p. • Participation is even increasing conflicts. • Participation will decrease the power of active and critical groups in the society because of compromises. • Participating stakeholder groups don’t have to commit to the final decisions in practice. • Modern society is so full of different values that no participation enables reconciliation. • Public participation is made only for propaganda and manipulation purposes Metsähallitus 2006

17. P.p. in the future • Conflicting issues are not decreasing and we’ll need skills to manage them • We are getting towards and learning co-operation culture • Community is increasing p.p. effort based on laws • P.p. will be an essential part of all planning processes in the future • New methods will be developed (internet, visualization etc.) Metsähallitus 2006