Boundary organisations between conservation and development: insights from Oulanka National Park, Finland

World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sust. Development, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2013 37

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Boundary organisations between conservation and development: insights from Oulanka National Park, Finland

Simo Sarkki* Thule Institute, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Hannu I. Heikkinen Department of Art Studies and Anthropology, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 1000, FI-90014, Finland E-mail: [email protected]

Riikka Puhakka Thule Institute/Oulanka Research Station, Liikasenvaarantie 134, FI-93999 Kuusamo, Finland E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Integrated conservation and development objectives are increasingly sought with protected area – sustainable tourism partnerships, and related certifications are promising to deliver integrated targets. However, in this article we show that European wide PAN Parks certification seems not to be supporting integrated objectives from the point of view of traditional nature users in Oulanka National Park, Finland. We compared the actions and responses of the certification, park management and traditional nature users in relation to mutually recognised issues: reindeer herding, hunting and predator management. Park management worked in many respects as a successful boundary organisation maintaining traditional rights against threats posed by standardisation practises of the certification, which emphasises conservation of wilderness with ‘sell nature in order to save it’ – logic. While successful in maintaining traditional rights, problems in boundary work existed in relation to the use of concepts that see traditional nature uses as a threat by default, communication and transparency, and distribution of benefits and burdens. Through examining existing and potential positive roles that park managements can have as boundary organisations, we argue that state-based park managements can mediate neoliberal standardisation efforts and harness their benefits while decreasing potential negative development outcomes in protected area governance.

38 S. Sarkki et al.

Keywords: National park; certifications; traditional nature users; conservation and development; Finland; neoliberalism; sustainable tourism; boundary organisations.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sarkki, S., Heikkinen, H.I. and Puhakka, R. (2013) ‘Boundary organisations between conservation and development: insights from Oulanka National Park, Finland’, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.37–63.

Biographical notes: Simo Sarkki works as a Researcher at Thule Institute, University of Oulu, Finland. He completed his PhD in Anthropology in 2011 on ‘Forest governance in Northern Finland’. He has also worked as a Researcher in three EU projects. He is an early career researcher and is interested on environmental governance and science-policy interfaces. He has published ten peer-reviewed articles for example in the following journals: Forest Policy and Economics, Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, The Polar Journal, International Journal of Business and Globalization, and Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice.

Hannu I Heikkinen is a Professor of Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oulu. He is Docent of Environmental and Applied Anthropology and worked previously in Thule Institute. He was an external researcher of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 2002–2009. Ethnographically he has focused on northern societies and indigenous cultures, and particularly environmental issues. Previously, he has worked in the Finland Futures Research Centre at Turku School of Economics, Laboratory of Environmental Protection at Helsinki University of Technology and Finnish Forest Research Institute.

Riikka Puhakka has worked as a post doc researcher at Oulanka Research Station at Thule Institute, University of Oulu, Finland. She completed her PhD in Cultural Geography in 2007 on ‘The role of tourism in Finnish national parks’. Her research interests include nature-based tourism, protected areas and sustainability. She has published over ten peer-reviewed articles (e.g., Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Ecotourism, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Ethics, Place and Environment).

1 Introduction

Markets as well as the state and its organisations are often associated with problems regarding co-management of protected areas (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Recently, it has been argued that suspicion towards the state remains, but market mechanisms related to conservation are more promising as rural people are seen to benefit from increasing connections with global markets with growing (nature-based) tourism [Brockington et al., (2008), p.90]. Protected area – sustainable tourism partnerships have emerged as a new kind of solution for combining conservation and development objectives in protected areas (Eagles, 2004; Fennell and Weaver, 2005; McCool, 2009; PAN Parks, 2010). Sustainable tourism can be promoted with certifications, which have increased drastically during the last decade also regarding protected areas (Buckley, 2002; Honey, 2002, 2007; WTO, 2002). Certifications represent an emerging hybrid trend of neoliberal

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 39

conservation governance, which fits both the market economy and conservation targets (Duffy, 2008; Cousins et al., 2009).

Certifications are often international while applied in certain locations, which are impacted often both positively and negatively. Furthermore, standardisation processes included in certifications may neglect the divergent perspectives on social sustainability at local scale (Medina, 2005). Thus, instead of treating certifications and related sustainable tourism as kind of magic bullets, certifications’ capacities to hit multiple targets simultaneously should be evaluated critically [Duffy, (2008), p.330]. In general, market mechanisms and their capacity to resolve environmental and social problems have been criticised, for example by critical geographers focusing on ‘false promises and unnatural consequences’ of neoliberalisations (Heyen et al., 2007). However, existing and potentially positive roles that the state and its organisations can take in the face of neoliberal re-regulation efforts seem to be under-developed in this literature.

In this article we aim to emphasise the existing and potential positive roles state organisations can have in relation to maintaining traditional rights threatened by pressure for stricter conservation by international conservation organisations and certifications. We examine interactions between standardisation processes initiated by PAN Parks protected area certification, state-based park management, and local traditional nature users regarding Oulanka National Park, Finland. We show that the standardisation and re-regulation processes launched by the certification pose a serious threat to local traditional rights to use the park, even though the certification promises local benefits. We view park managements, in this case the state organisation Metsähallitus, as a potential ‘mediator’ between certification and local traditional nature users. We use insights from the notion of the boundary organisation (Guston, 2001; Pham et al., 2010), instead of the more commonly used co-management (see Zachrisson 2009), because we want to emphasise the potential and positive role that the state-based park managements can have as ‘mediators’ of various interests, concerns and pressures coming from multiple actors and scales.

Despite rather good boundary work by Metsähallitus, we identified three problem domains where the work of boundary organisations could be developed further. The first problem is the conservation approaches’ tendency to see traditional nature users as a threat to nature and wilderness by default (e.g., Nash, 1973; Adams and Hutton, 2007). The second problem relates to the lack of proper communication and local possibilities for participation in relation to management and use of protected areas (e.g., Lane, 2001; Berkes, 2004). The third problem is that traditional nature users bear the burdens of conservation, while the benefits are enjoyed by others (e.g., conservationists; tourism entrepreneurs) (e.g., McDermott Hughes, 2005; West et al., 2006; Agrawal and Redford 2009; Dahlberg and Burlando 2009).

We begin by taking up some literature on neoliberalism, the above mentioned three typical problems for traditional nature users resulting from conservation approaches, and boundary organisations. After introducing the study area and the involved actors, we outline the management actions and responses of PAN Parks, park management and traditional nature users in order to show what are the contradictions between the certification and traditional nature users and what have been positive roles park management has taken regarding these contradictions. In the section that follows we look at the three problems in relation to ONP, PAN Parks, park management and local traditional nature users. We also develop suggestions on what positive roles state-based park managements could take regarding the three problems.

40 S. Sarkki et al.

2 Neoliberal certifications, problems and potential solutions

2.1 Protected area certifications as neoliberal governance

Market-based governance offers alternatives for state-based governance, and market approaches are often considered as superior and leading to the most optimal outcomes (Swyngedouw, 2005). The neoliberal ‘sell nature in order to save it’ – logic promises triple win solutions, which deliver benefits for economy, environment and also to people (McAfee, 1999). Neoliberalisation refers to expanding opportunities for capital investment by reworking state-market-civil society relations to allow deepening commodity production and exchange. This includes re-working of the way human society and non-human systems and beings relate [Heyen et al., (2007), p.10].

Certifications are one means by which the triple win solutions are expected to emerge. Various kinds of certifications related to tourism have increased, including certifications for protected areas (Honey, 2002, 2007; WTO, 2002). Certifications are both an environmental management and a marketing tool as they might help to reduce negative impacts and gain competitive advantage (Buckley, 2001, 2002; Font, 2002), and can be seen as a neoliberal governance strategy (Brockington et al., 2008). Adopting certification leads to some of the management authority moving away from state-based park management to private actors. For example ENGOs have gained power because of having a role in market-based mechanisms, such as certifications [Heyen et al., (2007), p.11]. The management authority is exerted through the standardisation processes included in certifications.

Standardisation processes are aiming to harmonise the certified destination. In case of protected area certifications this means that management and standardisation procedures are aiming to create certain conditions to nature, for example non-human wilderness or ‘natural state’. Standardisation links to technical ‘one size fits all’ – idea of governance, because it efforts to create similar conditions across the certified areas often by using detailed principles and criteria against which the natural conditions can be compared. The standardisation processes are in a way used to guarantee certain kinds of natural conditions to be marketed and sold for tourists, and enhanced possibilities for ‘green’ tourism are seen to benefit also local actors (see McAfee, 1999). However, creation of standards links to inclusions and exclusions of actors and activities relating to biodiversity conservation, and as such standardisation re-distributes fortunes and misfortunes resulting from conservation [Brockington et al., (2008), pp.180–181].

Neoliberalism is not a singular project, and even though it often has negative environmental and social consequences, the outcomes might also be positive. Thus, we cannot judge neoliberal project itself as creating misfortunes. Instead, we need to look different processes of neoliberalisations (Brenner and Theodore, 2002), and also create criteria by which such processes can be judged. Furthermore, when criticising neoliberalisations we need also to provide alternative for neoliberal developments [Castree, (2007), pp.284–285].

Next we look at three criteria by which the neoliberal processes in relation to protected areas can be judged:

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 41

1 the concepts used in the standardisation processes and their implication to management practices

2 participation and communication

3 distribution of benefits and burdens.

Having crafted some criteria by which the neoliberal processes can be judged, we also provide proposals for decreasing the potential negative consequences resulting from certifications, especially for traditional nature users. Here, we elaborate on the concept of the boundary organisation (Guston, 2001), and see it as an organisation which can soften the possible perils of technical standardisations related to certifications and to ‘one size fits all’ – logic.

2.2 Three recognised problems of conservation approaches for traditional nature users

The first problem relates to the concepts (e.g., wilderness, natural state) used in standardisation processes entailing re-regulation of protected areas. These concepts articulate problematic universals and work with the ‘one size fits all’ – idea of governance [Tsing, (2005), pp.95–101; Brockington et al., (2008), pp.180–181]. When examining biodiversity conservation and its relations to neoliberalism, it has become increasingly important to look at the images of nature that are being created and used to promote conservation [Brockington et al., (2008), p.176]. The images and concepts of wilderness and natural state embody images of pristine nature and also hidden value statements about what nature should be like in protected areas and how it should or should not be used [Tsing, (2005), pp.95–101; Carolan, 2006]. Furthermore, when the conservation and its objectives are looked through the concepts of wilderness and natural state, traditional nature uses are often seen as a threat to nature and its integrity by default, without explaining or examining whether this is the case or not (e.g., Nash, 1973; Mels, 2002; Adams and Hutton, 2007). In contrast, traditional nature users often see themselves and their activities as an integral part of nature, not as a threat to it (see Ingold, 2000). In addition, there are also diverging views within expert communities on what constitutes a natural state of nature (Heikkinen et al., 2010). These diverging views on nature, culture and sustainable use of resources have led into a series of conflicts in the history of conservation, including the removal of people from conservation areas and reductions of local use rights (West et al., 2006; Agrawal and Redford 2009).

Sustainable tourism – protected area partnerships, often promoted by certifications, claim to be solving the divergent views and interests by increasingly acknowledging also social, cultural and economic dimensions instead of mere ecological criteria (UNEP and WTO, 2005; Moore and Weiler, 2009). However, tourism-led development might also be harmful for traditional nature users, at least when efforts to create ideal spaces for wildlife and tourists redistribute protected area use rights from traditional nature users to tourists (McDermott Hughes, 2005). In conclusion, neoliberal conservation efforts could be judged by examining whether the forms of re-regulation they promote use exclusive definitions of concepts or do they have a more inclusive view, which may be negotiated place specifically with traditional nature users or local park managements.

42 S. Sarkki et al.

The second problem relates to participation, transparency and communication in face of re-regulation entailed by certification processes. It is increasingly evident that also locals, including traditional nature users, should be acknowledged as partners in conservation (Wilshusen et al., 2002) and conservation – sustainable tourism partnerships (McCool, 2009). Reasons for failures in engaging traditional nature users as equal partners are for example that the development objectives are merely stamped on the conservation approaches, with no appropriate efforts or resources (Adams and Hulme, 2001; Berkes 2004). On the other hand, scientific expertise, the common basis of conservation approaches and certifications, is often inadequate to deal with the change, complexity and uncertainty regarding the management of protected areas (McCool, 2009). Exclusive knowledge production within the scientific domain and lack of transparency leads to mistrust and rumours, which both weaken communication and possibilities for negotiating shared solutions (Kyllönen et al., 2006; Skogen et al., 2008). These problems could be relieved by completing scientific expertise by traditional nature users’ practical experiences which encompass for example long term local changes (see Collins and Evans, 2002). Ideally, parties can join to develop a shared understanding of the problems at hand and propose solutions to them through deliberative negotiations. Deliberation does not necessarily have to produce consensus, but its goal is to get various viewpoints into discussions, open problem definitions, and consider points for further research and development as well (Dietz and Stern, 1998; Berkes, 2007). However, deliberative arenas are never fair but often include competition and are embedded with power relations (see Adams and Hulme, 2001). In addition, often only a few persons from a community are taking part in participatory processes, and they might have diverging interests from the other members of the same community (Jamal and Stronza, 2009). The above problems relating to participation and transparency provide criteria by which to judge the practices of re-regulations necessitated by certifications.

The third problem relates to the benefit and burden redistributions resulted from conservation and certifications. Conservation is often justified with the idea of global public goods (Deke, 2008). However, the benefits of biodiversity go to the whole humanity while the burdens are carried by certain local actors (Ghate, 2003). Tourism is turning conservation away from global public good and intrinsic ecological value into something that can be harnessed also for economic benefits [Brockington et al., (2008), pp.131–132]. Thus, within conservation–sustainable tourism partnerships, the problem of benefit and burden distribution is expected to be alleviated with money flows brought by tourists, which are attracted into the destination by certifications. Combinations of market forces and regulatory conservation efforts promise triple-win solutions for economic growth, nature conservation, and local development (Igoe and Brockington, 2007). This neoliberal ‘sell nature in order to save it’ – logic assumes that when nature is commodified, its value increases giving additional resources and incentives for conservation (McAfee, 1999; Duffy, 2008). However, there are rarely clear win-win solutions, but rather tradeoffs within and between conservation and development objectives (Dahlberg and Burlando, 2009). Furthermore, win-win solutions between conservation and development may actualise only in rhetoric, while in reality conflicts caused by neoliberal conservation governance may be accelerating in frequency (Büscher and Dressler, 2007). The gap between rhetoric and reality may be due to the scale of analysis and to different views on who ought to be taken into account when determining the winners and losers (see Morris, 2008). For example, at the municipal scale, it might seem like local economies are prospering with increasing tourism, while the traditional

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 43

subsistence economies might be simultaneously defined as inappropriate for conservation priorities (see Igoe and Brockington, 2007). Neoliberalisation processes and certifications result to re-distributions of fortune and misfortune [Brockington et al., (2008), pp.180–181]. The fairness of these redistributions taking place via re-regulation by certifications could be used as a criterion to judge certifications.

2.3 Boundary organisations

A solution, which might soften the gap between traditional nature users and conservation approaches, could be an organisation working in between conservation and development objectives. Here we draw on the notion of a boundary organisation, which has emerged to conceptualise the intersections between science and politics (Guston, 2001). Central for the idea is that science and politics are co-constructed, not two distinct worlds, and negotiations at the boundary define what is on either side (Jasanoff, 1996). Boundary organisations

1 are accountable to each side of the boundary

2 involve participation from both sides of the boundary

3 provide opportunities for the creation of boundary objects, which are mutually understandable in both sides of the boundary (Guston, 2001)

4 help to define the scale of a problem

5 mediate multidirectional information flows across levels (Cash, 2001).

According to Miller (2001, p.487) boundary organisations are needed for finding ways “for institutions, networks, and even cultures that put together order and knowledge in very different ways to each successfully sustain its own internal processes while forming productive relationships with one another”.

The applications of the concept of a boundary organisation have been expanded to concern also, for example, science farmer interactions (Carr and Wilkinson, 2005) and the mediation of payments for ecosystem services (PES) between local communities and various organisations (Pham et al., 2010). By using the notion of the boundary organisation instead of the more common approach to protected area governance, co-management, we want to highlight the changing realities of park managers: they are not just dealing with the local communities, but also with the increasing international pressures to change conservation practices in various areas. We suggest that neoliberal conservation trends may not be able to live up to their promises and thus a mediating organisation is needed in between of traditional nature users and international certifications to decrease the negative consequences resulting from neoliberalisations (Heyen et al., 2007).

Here we apply the notion of the boundary organisation to the state organisation Metsähallitus, which manages protected areas in Finland. By using the notion of the boundary organisation, we want to emphasise potentially positive (and ideal) role of park management, state organisation, in mediating between diverging interests from various actors from multiple scales. State organisation is seen to have the potential to mediate between standardisation efforts by certification and local concerns also in relation to the three recognised problems in conservation: exclusive concepts used in standardisation processes, participation and communication, and distributions of benefit and burdens.

44 S. Sarkki et al.

3 Multiple scales of governance in Oulanka National Park

Conservation vs. development literature focuses mainly on the developing world (see Wilshusen et al., 2002; West et al., 2006; Spenceley, 2008). However, these issues are relevant also for rural areas in developed countries such as Finland. Contradictions have emerged for example over internationally generated conservation pressures on Finnish protected areas (Hiedanpää, 2002; Heikkinen et al., 2010). Like in many other countries, in Finland protected area tourism synergies are also being developed through sustainable tourism certifications, like EUROPARC’s (2010) European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas, and PAN Parks (2010) certification, both of which have two certified parks in Finland. In this article we focus on European wide Protected Area Network (PAN) Parks certification and Oulanka National Park (ONP) in north eastern Finland.

ONP (28,000 hectares) is situated in the sparsely populated municipalities of Kuusamo and Salla, in the provinces of Northern Ostrobothnia and Lapland, and is adjacent to the Russian border just below the Arctic Circle (Figure 1). The first plans to establish ONP in the 1930’s did not come into fruition; the ownership of common lands was not then totally resolved, and locals feared that nature conservation would violate their rights. However, the plan eventually succeeded in 1956 and the park expanded twice in the 1980’s, in spite of some local resistance at every phase (Ruuttula-Vasari and Juvonen, 2006). Similar conflicts in regards to the establishment of national parks have been rather common in Finland (Rytteri and Puhakka, 2009).

ONP has been one of the most popular and well-known parks in Finland since its establishment. In 2010, there were 169,000 visits to ONP, almost three times as many as in 1992 (Metsähallitus, 2011). According to a representative of Metsähallitus, the joint goal of ONP and the adjacent Paanajärvi National Park in Russia is to become the most attractive wilderness location in Europe by 2015, and PAN Parks certification is one of the tools for gaining competitive advantage. According to a study made using the money generation model, park visitors boosted the local economy by 14.2 million euro in 2008 (Metsähallitus and Metla, 2009), which emphasises ONP’s positive effects on the region’s socio-economic development. Thirty partnership companies organise recreation services in ONP, approximately twenty accommodation companies are located close by, and eight tourism businesses have acquired the PAN Parks partner certification in Oulanka region.

Finnish national parks are managed by the Natural Heritage Services of Metsähallitus, funded primarily by the state, according to parliamentary legislation, the Ministry of the Environment’s guidelines, and Metsähallitus’s own principles and management and land-use plans for each park (see Heinonen, 2007). The primary goal of Finnish national parks is nature conservation. Secondary goals relate to recreation, environmental education, and research, and are met within the limits set by nature conservation objectives (Metsähallitus, 2011). Gilligan et al. (2005) stated that ONP had the highest management effectiveness score of any area assessed in a survey of 206 forest protected areas worldwide (Dudley et al., 2004).

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 45

Figure 1 Map of Oulanka National Park in Finland

ONP was among the first certified PAN Parks in 2002 (PAN Parks, 2010), is part of EU’s Natura 2000 conservation network (Metsähallitus, 2011), and belongs to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) protected area management category II (national park) (Chape et al., 2003). Injunction-based approaches have confronted much

46 S. Sarkki et al.

criticism, and IUCN has reformed its goals to encompass local development issues (Schelhas, 2001; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004) by also stressing the role of sustainable tourism in achieving the integrated objectives (Eagles 2004). This general paradigm shift in international conservation is highlighted in the European programme 2005–2008 of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The programme encourages searching for new innovative ways to finance and manage protected areas in order to support the goals of conservation and benefit regional development and adjacent communities. Among the key partners in achieving these goals is the PAN Parks initiative (WCPA, 2005), which provides a third-party certification system under the WCPA Framework for Management Effectiveness (PAN Parks, 2010).

PAN Parks was established in 1997 by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Dutch leisure company Molecaten (Font and Clark 2006). Currently, there are eleven certified protected areas across Europe. PAN Parks’ partnerships with conservation organisations, travel agencies, business communities, and other groups on various scales act as tools for achieving balance between economic growth, cultural integrity, and ecological sustainability. PAN Parks applies an integrated approach combining wilderness protection and sustainable tourism, which means reducing the pressure caused by tourism on the park, and ensuring that ‘tourism provides real benefits for the rural communities in and around the protected areas’. These benefits include

1 increased collaboration in park management by improved communication and direct engagement

2 opening access to new markets for small businesses by the eco-certification brand

3 new jobs and economic benefits (PAN Parks, 2010).

A park becomes certified following verification carried out by a team of independent experts in accordance with the PAN Parks (2008) principles and criteria. A verification group conducts annual monitoring and a re-verification after a 5-year period. A park must meet five principles, each with specific criteria: natural values, habitat management, visitor management, sustainable tourism development, and tourism business partners (PAN Parks, 2010). PAN Parks supports a non-intervention approach to protected area management [e.g., PAN Parks, (2009a), pp.12–13]. The minimum size of a PAN Park is 20,000 hectares with a wilderness/core zone of at least 10,000 hectares in its natural state, least modified by man, and representing the most undisturbed expanses of Europe’s remaining natural landscapes (PAN Parks, 2010). The PAN Parks (2008) criteria do not permit extractive uses in the core zone (e.g., hunting/culling, fishing, logging, grazing or motorised transportation) even if based on traditional use. PAN Parks exerts pressure towards certain management options for parks through the verification process, but national legislation protecting certain use rights must be complied with.

PAN Parks aims to address the local collaboration with its principle on sustainable tourism development strategy (STDS), which requires setting up a local PAN Parks group (LPPG). This group then approves the development strategy and decides on the business partner verifications (PAN Parks, 2008). In ONP, LPPG includes representatives from municipalities, Metsähallitus, tourism associations, local people and environmental NGO [STDS, (2004), pp.10–12]. The tasks of the LPPG include representation and participation of stakeholder groups and gathering feedback [STDS, (2004), pp.47–48].

Traditionally, the main livelihoods of Oulanka region have been small-scale agriculture, forestry, and reindeer herding, which still provide income for some families

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 47

in the area. Hunting and fishing are important forms of local recreation and a way of life. These means of subsistence also carry social (e.g., people come together for common activities) and cultural (e.g., long historical traditions) meanings for local people. Reindeer herding is directed with the act, which secure the free grazing rights also in the national parks. Also hunting is usually allowed for local people within the national parks in northern Finland, even though hunting is a contested issue in many locations.

The conservation areas in northern Finland can be seen as a kind of commons (see Dietz et al., 2003), where locals have customary rights related to reindeer herding, hunting and fishing. Possible reductions of these rights are highly sensitive issues especially in the home land of indigenous Sámi people in northern Finland, where the land-use rights are not clearly resolved (Heikkinen et al., 2010). Oulanka has not been inhabited by Sámi for centuries, but still the Sámi’s close relationship with reindeer herding makes the issue nationally highly sensitive for management authorities, because reindeer herding is under same legislations throughout the northern Finland. The scales, issues and actors involved in the governance of ONP are portrayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Scales, issues and actors in relation to ONP

4 Study material

This anthropological study builds forward from a set of previous studies on ONP. In particular this study builds on earlier research focusing on ONP and PAN Parks

48 S. Sarkki et al.

comprising of 40 semi-structured interviews of various local stakeholders (local NGOs, PAN Parks’ partners and other companies, municipalities, park employees, and other locals living near ONP). The study identified four diverging discourses representing different local views on socio-cultural development pertaining to tourism in ONP (Puhakka et al., 2009). In addition, previous research includes questionnaire studies, in which local people (Cottrell et al., 2008) and tourists (Ylimaunu, 2009) were respondents.

Earlier research (Puhakka et al., 2009) provides a fruitful departure to examine one of the discourses, ‘defending the rights of local people’, more closely. Here we focus on those traditional nature users (reindeer herders, hunters) who have practical interests in relation to ONP and who are losing their rights if additional restrictions on nature uses would emerge. We also examined the views and actions of PAN Parks and the role of park management, Metsähallitus, as a boundary organisation. Further study with this focus can reveal measures for developing the conservation approaches in general, especially in relation to contradictions between international conservation pressures and traditional nature users.

Thematic interviews (n = 11) were conducted in 2008 for traditional nature users (reindeer herders, hunters n = 8) and representatives of Metsähallitus (n = 3). Thematic interviews mapped traditional nature users’ conceptions of PAN Parks, the significance of the park for their livelihoods and recreation, their conceptions of wilderness, and possible threats and desires related to the park. The interviews with representatives of Metsähallitus focused on PAN Parks and Metsähallitus’ role in the implementation of the PAN Parks principles and criteria, and conceptions of wilderness. Additional five thematic interviews were conducted in 2008 with two local reindeer herders, a municipal officer, a park management representative and local predator tourism entrepreneur. These interviews focused on topical hunting, herding and predator conservation initiatives. The sample (total n = 16) is relatively small, but still represents major existing practical traditional interests related to ONP and adjacent areas as well as points of view of the population, which is in danger of losing their traditional use rights in practice. PAN Parks’ goals and objectives, both in general and related specifically to ONP, were investigated using the official verification (PAN Parks, 2002, 2007), monitoring reports of ONP (PAN Parks 2003, 2005), PAN Parks websites (2010), and other reports (2009a, 2009b).

Reindeer herding and hunting are important local means of subsistence and also forms of local recreation and way-of-life in northern Finland. In addition, throughout northern Finland natural resource management is under the same legislation and management structure, including the main authority position of Metsähallitus. Hence, our case study has implications also for broader discussions regarding the nature conservation principles and practices nationally in addition to international linkages of current nature conservation trends in Finland and in other countries.

The first interesting problem which was revealed during the interviews of traditional nature users was that many of them were not even aware of PAN Parks certification not to mention its potential influences on ONP management and potentially resulting changes in their traditional rights. Thus, in these interviews we could seldom concentrate directly on PAN Parks, but on the issues raised by the certification: reindeer herding, hunting and predator management within ONP and especially its core zone. These interlinked categories were chosen because they were recognised as important by both the traditional nature users and PAN Parks.

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 49

5 Actions and responses in ONP management

5.1 Reindeer herding

In the first verification report of ONP, the PAN Parks (2002) team proposed that areas of significant size should be fenced to exclude reindeer herding. This would allow regeneration of lichen and create areas of significant demonstration value. Reindeer were not seen to threaten the survival of the species, but to change the characteristics of the forest floor. Before the fencing proposal, the verification team also consulted the leader of the Ala-Kitka reindeer herding cooperative (RHC) to gain more knowledge about reindeer herding. However, his views did not have impact on the fencing proposal (see PAN Parks, 2002). He stated in our interview: ‘We have the right to free grazing and it is not reasonable for some areas to be fenced’. Furthermore he pointed out that ONP has been verified as PAN Parks with the decisions of only a few people, and this new status turned reindeer, ‘which have been here for ages’, into a threat overnight.

The impact of reindeer on summer pastures does not worry PAN Parks in the same way as the decrease in lichen does, resulting from autumn and winter grazing (PAN Parks, 2002). The park still provides critical winter pastures for reindeer even though most of the reindeer are fed inside the fences near herders’ homes from January until April. For example, one herder estimated that during a normal year, winter pastures in the park decrease his supplementary feeding by two months. Herders were particularly against any extra fences in the pasture areas. According to herders, reindeer usually start following fences while looking for access to their old grazing grounds, leading to depletion of pastures near the fences, and wandering reindeer would end up in a bad condition in the winter, which is the most critical time of the year.

The interviewed representatives of Metsähallitus did not consider the idea of fencing reasonable either, as it would also disturb natural dynamics. However, according to a representative of Metsähallitus, there is an evident contradiction between the PAN Parks criteria and extractive reindeer herding in the core zone, and when compatibility is assessed with the knowledge derived from overgrazing problems (e.g., sheep) in Europe, it is understandable that PAN Parks has rather strict view on herding.

After the verification in 2002, a study was made to investigate and negotiate the local conditions in order to evaluate whether reindeer herding is compatible with the PAN Parks principles and criteria. The study was conducted by Finnish reindeer and forest experts and park managers, and it was concluded that ‘domesticated reindeer do not have a negative impact on the development of the vegetation, or exceed the carrying capacity’. Despite this, PAN Parks’ (2003) monitoring report considered that ONP’s management plan should aim to return the ecological role of reindeer towards a more natural level, implying a more ‘natural’ distribution and density of reindeer, and to move away from supplementary winter feeding. For herders, supplementary winter feeding both in the forests and within the home fences is essential for the survival of the reindeer during the most difficult months of the year as there are not many winter pastures left outside the park. Winter pastures have decreased because of industrial forestry, which has resulted in higher reindeer densities in the remaining pastures, like in ONP, leading to increased reindeer pressure on lichens.

In a later verification report, the idea of fencing was abandoned. However, reindeer were still considered as the largest issue in relation to the fulfilment of the PAN Parks principles and criteria by PAN Parks verifiers, who suggested that as long as it is

50 S. Sarkki et al.

impossible to reintroduce wild forest reindeer, reindeer should be managed so that their effects would resemble those of wild forest reindeer, a natural species of the area. In addition, PAN Parks asked Metsähallitus to draft a long term programme for core zone, in which for example the issues of reindeer herding and hunting should be addressed (PAN Parks 2007).

As a response Metsähallitus wrote a ‘wilderness zone programme’. Regarding reindeer herding, the programme refers to the earlier studies conducted by the reindeer and forests experts. Accordingly large herbivores are natural part of ONP, and there are around 160–325 reindeer winter grazing within the park: “This number is somewhat higher than the estimate of the hypothetical natural winter population of wild forest reindeer in ONP... The management of the Oulanka National Park cooperates with local Reindeer Herding Associations to secure the presence of reindeer in the PAN Parks Wilderness Zone. The long term aim of the management is to stabilaze the grazing pressure of reindeer in Wilderness Zone to as close to the natural situation as possible” [Metsähallitus wilderness…, (2010), pp.10–11] (emphasis ours).

According to a representative of Metsähallitus, the discussions on the role of reindeer in ONP with PAN Parks have been demanding. However, especially the studies by the reindeer experts made it possible to communicate this new knowledge to PAN Parks, which accepted it as unbiased, unlike the reindeer herders’ own views. Thus, the research by reindeer experts was needed to move the discussions forward and to abandon the fencing targets. The representative of Metsähallitus also referred to a contradiction between PAN Parks principles and criteria aiming to exclude extractive uses and Finnish legislation securing rights to reindeer herding. This right is not dependent on whether reindeer seem to resemble wild forest reindeer or not. According to the representatives of Metsähallitus, possible overgrazing is an appropriate criterion to discuss, but the overall compatibility of reindeer herding with the protected areas is a particularly sensitive issue because the traditional grazing rights predate all national parks in northern Finland.

5.2 Hunting and predators

The PAN Parks (2007) verification report states that all hunting in the core zone of ONP should be prohibited. Locals have the right to hunt various game animals, such as moose, outside the core zone. Currently, only bear hunting is allowed in the core zone, even though no bear killings have been reported there during the history of the park. However, Metsähallitus was advised by PAN Parks to explore legal possibilities to ban bear hunting. The verification team concluded that some changes in the legal basis of ONP are expected due to its Natura 2000 status, and these changes would provide an opportunity to introduce new legal regimes in relation to brown bear hunting, fishing, and reindeer herding.

The interviewed local hunters and reindeer herders are strongly against the reduction of local hunting rights, and many of them considered that there are more predators in the park than in the adjacent areas. They also pointed out that rogue predator hunting licences do not often allow hunting within the park. Some see the potential bear hunting ban as just another effort to diminish local rights, and might therefore oppose it on principle. However, interviewed herders stated that as the number of predators has increased, more reindeer are subject to predation, which already poses a critical threat to the continuance of the herders’ livelihood. Economic losses are primarily related to the costs of searching for reindeer carcasses in the forests in order to receive state-assured compensations.

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 51

However, carcasses often remain undiscovered, for example, because bears are eager to feed on reindeer calves, and often eat them entirely. A reindeer herder described an incident involving a bear inside his colleague’s calving fences: “He saw a bear chasing a calf and tried to disturb the bear with his all-terrain vehicle, but the bear just looked at him, took the calf and went away. The bear had killed twelve calves during the night”. Secondly, reindeer must be taken inside winter fences early because the predation risk and feeding costs have increased. A herder living next to the park said: “There are good pastures in the park. ... I would take none of my reindeer home, but predators force me to do it, and they are increasing”. Table 1 Views of PAN Parks, Metsähallitus and traditional nature users on reindeer herding,

hunting and predators

Conflicting issue PAN Parks’ premises Metsähallitus’ premises Local premises

Reindeer herding

There are no restrictions on reindeer herding at the moment, but according to herders lack of natural pastures and predator situation forces herders to feed reindeer in fences nearby their homes.

As long as it is impossible to re-introduce wild forest reindeer in the park, reindeer herding’s impact on nature should resemble that of wild forest reindeer. The impact of domesticated reindeer on ONP should be diminished.

Reducing reindeer herders’ rights in protected areas is a sensitive issue nationally and Metsähallitus is rather neutral in its opinions. Also reindeer herding act secures free grazing right in ONP and Metsähallitus complies with legal requirements.

ONP serves as an important pasture area for local reindeer herders, and they want to continue using the national park as normal pasture land.

Predators

At least according to traditional nature users the number of predators has increased in the area during the last decade.

Understands that, e.g., wolf packs are not possible in Oulanka and the reindeer herding district, but the underlying tendency is that predators are part of the natural state, iconic wilderness species and should thus be protected.

Predation is closely linked with the sustainability of reindeer herding, which is a sensitive issue to Metsähallitus (see above).

Local nature users would like to hunt more predators or with less state regulation than currently. This is true especially of reindeer herders because of their immediate losses.

Hunting

Bear hunting is still allowed for locals in the core zone, and various game animals can be hunted outside the core zone of ONP.

PAN Parks wants to ban the possibility to hunt bear in the core zone.

Metsähallitus is ready to support legislative changes required to ban bear hunting, and they argue that bear hunting is a rather hypothetical right at the moment.

Local nature users feel that there are already too many predators in the area, and they should be hunted more than at present. Banning of bear hunting is opposed.

52 S. Sarkki et al.

PAN Parks (2007, p.12) states that lichen ecosystems in ONP are not sufficient to support the presence of a large number of grazing semi-domestic reindeer, and because of this, the animals are fenced and artificially fed. This statement reduces the complexities of hunting–predator–reindeer–local relationships to lichen–reindeer relationships and seems to fail to acknowledge that the predator situation is already so stressed that all suggested limitations on predator hunting are highly sensitive issues for locals. A monitoring report (PAN Parks, 2005) states that locals may oppose hunting bans by principle and because of reindeer predation, but emphasises that compensations are paid. The report also points out a contradiction between local concerns and foreign tourists since the latter often think that protected areas should protect all wildlife. Accordingly, the park would be less attractable if hunting is allowed.

While writing the wilderness zone programme for ONP (2010), Metsähallitus chose to consult the LPPG. In the discussions on the programme, representatives of local villagers were against any reductions of bear hunting rights, and Metsähallitus stated that the management of ONP will not propose legislative changes to ban bear hunting without a positive statement from the LPPG. In addition, the legislative changes would be difficult without clear threat to conservational values. In contrast to legislative changes, a monitoring programme for bear hunting will be initiated [Metsähallitus wilderness... (2010), p.3, pp.12–13]. This highlights that Metsähallitus has taken the local concerns over their rights seriously, and understood the complexity in predator situation, which includes issues like fear, customary rights, economic losses and sense of well-being (Table 1).

6 Potentials for boundary organisations in ONP

The previous section showed that there are problems concerning PAN Parks certification’s ability to deliver the promised benefits for traditional nature users. In fact, it was shown that the re-regulation with PAN Parks certification in ONP created pressure for decreasing traditional nature users’ rights rather than delivering benefits. Furthermore, state-based park management softened the contradictions between neoliberal certification’s standardisation efforts and local concerns. Next we examine how PAN Parks and Metsähallitus coped and could cope with the three recognised problems of conservation approaches.

6.1 Controversial concepts

Here we outline some of the problems in using concepts in standardisation processes that see traditional nature uses as a threat by default. Furthermore, we provide alternative conceptualisations originating from traditional nature users to show that the concepts do not carry universal meanings [see Tsing, (2005), pp.95–101]. We also discuss how the negative impacts of standardisation efforts on traditional nature users could be alleviated by park managements as boundary organisation.

PAN Parks and traditional nature users have diverging conceptualisations of nature and how it should be used and by whom. PAN Parks (e.g., 2010) uses the explicit notion of sustainable tourism (cf., UNEP and WTO, 2005; Moore and Weiler, 2009), but at the

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 53

same time in ONP, PAN Parks seems to advocate ideal space for wildlife and tourists and exclude traditional uses when promoting a non-intervention approach to protected area management (cf., McDermott Hughes, 2005; PAN Parks, 2009a, 2010). According to PAN Parks (2009a, p.12): “Non-intervention management is based on the idea that the process of natural rewilding is accepted, together with natural dynamics being respected”. In relation to reindeer herding, PAN Parks’ non-intervention approach is manifested with preferences of ‘original species’ (wild forest reindeer) over the semi-domesticated reindeer of reindeer husbandry. In Oulanka, PAN Parks has ‘the ambition to protect fragments of unlogged boreal forest from intensive reindeer herding’ (PAN Parks, 2010). With these kinds of statements PAN Parks is constructing traditional nature uses as environmental problems. In addition, PAN Parks (2007) verification report states that all hunting in the core zone of ONP should be prohibited. This idea is linked to the general thoughts of PAN Parks (2010) regarding brown bear, wolf, and lynx as ‘iconic wilderness species’. Healthy and stable populations of the wilderness species should be ensured with non-intervention management approach (PAN Parks, 2009b). Here the idea of non-human wilderness can be seen to motivate standardisation and re-regulatory efforts, which can have impacts on traditional nature users.

For the interviewed traditional nature users, the concept of wilderness also incorporates local uses of nature. One of the interviewees stated: ‘Local people do not merely want to explore the park with their eyes; they also want to do something in it’. This quote refers especially to traditional and also socio-culturally important nature uses (reindeer herding, hunting, fishing) and aptly reflects the feelings among all the interviewed traditional nature users. They also pointed out that if local practices are excluded, then even tourism should be banned, and wondered why the university’s research station in the park is not seen as a problem. A herder emphasised that ‘people are part of nature, and nature does not belong to just one group of people, such as researchers or PAN Parks, but it is for all of us, even for the locals’. Another herder pointed out that ‘it is often thought that reindeer herders hate nature, but instead, they are true friends of nature; they value it differently than those urban people who base their knowledge on books and have not practised nature-based livelihoods’. These quotations question the legitimacy of conservation organisations to define who and what is good for nature. In contrast to PAN Parks, traditional nature users reason that reindeer can not be a threat to nature as reindeer have been in ONP for centuries and the nature is still in good condition. These local views stress that there certainly are divergences in the views regarding conceptualisations regarding wilderness, and provide critique towards assumptions on universal meanings and highlight the need for more critical approaches to concepts used in conservation standardisation and governance.

PAN Parks’ preferences to scientific knowledge over reindeer herders’ knowledge can be seen as a problem. With the fencing case Metsähallitus was able to mobilise scientific knowledge production on the subject of reindeer herding and discussed over-grazing. This scientific knowledge created by researchers was able to communicate the message to PAN Parks, unlike the discussions with reindeer herders. The scientific reindeer research can be seen as a boundary object, which was acceptable for PAN Parks and led to abandonment of fencing targets. Thus, boundary organisations capacity to mobilise acceptable knowledge production for efficient and understandable communication led into changes in PAN Parks’ standardisation efforts in ONP. However, acceptable knowledge production for PAN Parks by researchers does not take away the

54 S. Sarkki et al.

problems of lack of local people’s access to knowledge and its production (cf., McCool, 2009). Drawing from this, reindeer herders’ expertise should be accepted as legitimate without requirements for transforming it into scientific knowledge, while at the same time acknowledging also the importance of scientific knowledge (cf., Collins and Evans, 2002).

Given the different problem definitions and conceptualisations of nature between PAN Parks and traditional nature users, Metsähallitus could arrange deliberative forums between different parties, where negotiation of site-specific problem definitions and solutions could be made (e.g., Dietz and Stern, 1998). Boundary organisations between international conservation approaches and traditional nature users are needed because it is often unrealistic that international actors would join to the site-specific deliberations. One of the issues which would be good to open would be to explain why natural species (wild forest reindeer) are seen as superior to cultural species (semi-domesticated reindeer). This discussion is essential because concepts used in standardisation processes, such as wilderness and ‘natural state’ are often considered to represent objective reality, while closer inspection reveals that they are value statements as they speak about what ‘nature’ should be like (Carolan, 2006). Similarly, reindeer herders could open their ways to cope with the problems of scarce pastures within the region, and explain the developments in reindeer herding practices from free grazing to part time artificial feeding. The key would be to understand and value both nature and culture as dynamic systems and to understand different parties’ perceptions of nature, culture and their sustainable relationships. The resulting nuanced understandings would challenge ‘one size fits all’ – logic included in standardisation processes.

6.2 Problems in participation

Participation and communication have important role in producing acceptable decisions. This is especially true when certifications are implemented and re-regulations emerge. If there is no transparent communication about the new situation, problems may occur. In addition, the lack of transparency is also a practical problem as it decreases the possibilities of people to accept reductions of their rights (Dahlberg and Burlando, 2009). Certifications may also initiate new local participatory structures as part of the re-regulatory efforts, which may provide important locations for communications, if working properly.

Metsähallitus’ communications about PAN Parks with traditional nature users have been insufficient, which was acknowledged by the interviewed traditional nature users and representatives of Metsähallitus, who considered the lack of resources as the main obstacle to increasing communication. A recent questionnaire study (n = 314) of local residents in the vicinity of ONP also showed that people did not perceive communication related to PAN Parks, transparency or their possibilities for participation as sufficient (Cottrell et al. 2008).

Most of the interviewed traditional nature users were not even aware of the discussions concerning their traditional resource rights generated by PAN Parks or PAN Parks altogether. For example, not even the interviewed leader of the Ala-Kitka RHC heard about the fencing plan directly from PAN Parks. According to him, the secrecy around the issue cast a negative shadow over the whole idea of PAN Parks, and he stated that: ‘I am sceptical about PAN Parks because I have not found out what its final

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 55

purposes and goals are’. Another herder stated that: ‘when knowledge reaches you as a rumour, it automatically makes you defensive because you do not know what the actual case is’. A setting where issues are heard as rumours ruins traditional nature users’ will to cooperate. Insufficient communication erodes trust, which has been seen as a major explaining factor for local opposition towards adjacent parks (Stern, 2008). Furthermore, those more knowledgeable about PAN Parks seemed to have a more positive attitude towards it in ONP (Cottrell et al., 2008). Thus, it would be an essential function for boundary organisations to manage multi-directional information flows, not just local issues to PAN Parks, but also the agenda and aims of PAN Parks to locals.

Reindeer herders’, hunters’ or fishers’ associations are not represented in the LPPG of Oulanka, but invited to the meetings when necessary [STDS, (2004), pp.10–12]. This might in fact lead to acceleration of the rumours and negative attitudes and block the feedback coming from traditional nature users. Yet there was an example, where the LPPG did not approve partner verification from a predator sighting enterprise because it was in public conflict with reindeer herders. Another example was when Metsähallitus proposed to PAN Parks that existing legal regime of bear hunting should not be changed after consulting the LPPG (Metsähallitus wilderness…, 2010). Thus, even though the local nature users’ associations are not represented in the LPPG, the body has knowledge about the local circumstances, especially through representatives of local villagers. Thus, LPPG has had positive roles regarding traditional nature users’ rights and mediated between different knowledge. LPPG’s work could be improved by including representatives of traditional nature users, who could diffuse the knowledge further and stop the rumours.

6.3 Distribution of benefits and burdens and boundary organisations

Tourism is turning conservation away from global public good and intrinsic ecological value into something that can be harnessed also for economic profits. Tourism is producing direct and indirect benefits, but resulting re-regulation is also shadowing other kinds of development paths [Brockington et al., (2008), pp.131–134]. Furthermore, assessing the benefits resulting from certifications is quite hard.

Many tourism entrepreneurs and other stakeholders expect that as tourists’ awareness of PAN Parks increases, economic benefits would actualise for the whole municipality (Cottrell et al., 2008; Puhakka et al., 2009). PAN Parks assumes to be able to assist in the creation of markets, new jobs, as well as increasing visitor numbers, with partner certifications being a tool for diffusing the benefits to the local scale (PAN Parks, 2010). However, in a survey research (Cottrell et al., 2008), a majority (56%) of respondents said that they do not benefit from the PAN Parks status of ONP, 17% said they benefit directly or indirectly, and 26% had no opinion. The results of the questionnaire on domestic (n = 204) and foreign (n = 61) visitors to ONP also showed that PAN Parks certification of ONP had influenced only one visitor’s choice of trip destination although 76% of respondents said they will rather choose a service/product which has a certification (Ylimaunu, 2009). Even though PAN Parks has provided new marketing channels for tourism enterprises, assessing the benefits is a complex issue.

The direct benefits of PAN Parks will actualise for tourism related actors, but traditional nature users outside tourism may gain only secondary benefits through a strengthening municipal economy. Those who will benefit from the PAN Parks

56 S. Sarkki et al.

development are not the same actors as those who will get restrictions to their rights. This issue cannot be addressed by estimations on how much money ONP’s visitors leave to the area annually or by using the logic that the losses are compensated by increasing local incomes.

PAN Parks has a tendency to see the traditional local land uses, by default, as inappropriate for conservation purposes, but encourages reindeer herders to engage with tourism. This is manifested by the verification team’s recommendation to explore “possibilities for reduction of reindeer to levels comparable to natural dynamics in agreement with the local reindeer associations, including alternative sources of income for reindeer herders such as reindeer-based tourism”. Stricter protection is suggested to be beneficial even to reindeer herding because it creates “voluntary schemes linked to incentives such as organic certification for wild reindeer meat, which might increase market share and price” [PAN Parks, (2007), p.10, p.20]. However, this gesture to local social sustainability does not take into account whether local nature users want or are able to transform their way of life into a commodity (cf., Igoe and Brockington, 2007). In fact some local reindeer herders provide reindeer-based tourism services, but still they need access to their traditional reindeer pastures. Thus, local livelihood-based identity is not incompatible with tourism per se if the transformation does not require total abandonment of previous way-of-life (cf. Petrzelka et al. 2006). Instead, the problem is that the PAN Parks certification does not advocate free choice for locals between tourism and reindeer herding in its attempts to ‘naturalise’ the impacts of reindeer herding.

Lack of free choice is problematic regarding the integrated objectives of PAN Parks. First, the notion of voluntary transformation insists on transparent planning processes and mutual trust, which is not enhanced by poor communication of conservation targets. Second, it hijacks the meaning of social sustainability by defining on behalf of locals what is good for them. Also partner certifications are part of these sustainability definitions, which impose divisions between appropriate and inappropriate ways of using the park. The leader of the Ala-Kitka RHC said that “they gave [to PAN Parks partner enterprises] a sheet saying that you are ecological and suitable for the park, but reindeer herding is not suitable. In a way, they bought local acceptance [with local partner certifications] for the idea of PAN Parks”.

The role of a boundary organisation here could be to advance conservation organisations’ understandings about local dynamics of benefit and burden distribution and involved tradeoffs. This is essential as the local scale includes variation resulting in different meanings of social sustainability for various locals (Jamal and Stronza, 2009; Puhakka et al., 2009). Efforts have been made to examine how much money the visitors leave to the area, but there are no detailed approaches to map the specific winners and losers on a local scale. For example, principles of social impact assessment could be used for this purpose (e.g., Vanclay, 2006).

Boundary organisations could also facilitate the collaborative efforts for tourism related transformations of those who actually lose their rights and are willing to transform their livelihoods to tourism related businesses. Finally, boundary organisations could mediate the compensations for ‘losers’ unwilling for transformations. Compensations could be funded in various ways, by collecting funds from the ‘winners’, by getting resources from a conservation organisation, or by receiving funds from the government. Some innovative ways for compensations have been created for example under the label of PES (Pham et al., 2010) (Table 2).

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 57

Table 2 Three problems, ONP and potential roles for park managements’ as boundary

organisations

The problems Case in ONP Potential roles for park managements as boundary organisations

• PAN Parks sees traditional nature uses as a threat to wilderness by default, while local nature users see themselves and their means of subsistence as integral part of nature

• Initiating and mediating negotiations for site-specific definition of integrated sustainability

• Checking that certifications’ objectives and practices match and inform about inconsistencies

Diverging concepts of nature and sustainability

• PAN Parks’ approach to sustainability is focusing on ecological and economic issues, while the social issues (connected to nature uses) are most important for the traditional nature users

• Balancing the ecological bias in definitions of protected area management objectives

• Lack of communication and transparency about PAN Parks

• Highlighting the role of traditional nature users’ expertise

• Scope of participation within LPPG (not including potential losers properly)

• Managing multi-directional information flows

• Using existing planning structures for additional communication and negotiations

• Using local key actors in knowledge diffusion

Poor participation

• PAN Parks’ tendency to neglect traditional nature users’ expertise

• Transforming the reindeer herders’ expertise into scientific expertise acceptable for conservation organisations

• Mapping of tradeoffs and ‘winners’ and ‘losers’

• Helping in voluntary transformations from subsistence livelihoods to sustainable tourism

Unequal distribution of benefits and burdens

• PAN Parks is emphasising the benefits, which are however not relevant for those who are losing their rights.

• Co-designing of compensation mechanisms for ‘losers’

7 Conclusions

Castree (2007, pp.281–282) has emphasised that neoliberalisations should not be viewed as purely utopian or dystopian terms, but middle way is more realistic. In ONP state-

58 S. Sarkki et al.

based park management did not just provide space for market mechanism to be enrolled, but negotiated more place-specific terms in which the certification is applied in ONP. This research suggests that unleashed neoliberal conservation via certifications can have negative effects on traditional nature users, even though the certification is promising benefits for nature as well as for local development. There seems to be a paradox in PAN Parks’ promises and possibly also in other protected area-tourism certifications: they promise local benefits through growing markets while requiring increased monitoring and control over traditional nature uses. This control becomes a prerequisite for the attractiveness of a destination, increasing markets and local benefits. For maintaining the traditional nature users’ rights, the role of park management as a boundary organisation has been important and these boundary roles could also be developed further.

This finding is in line with for example critical geographers who emphasise ‘false promises and unnatural consequences’ of neoliberalisations (Heyen et al., 2007). What is less articulated in the literature is our emphasis on the potential and existing positive roles of the state and its organisations in mediating between neoliberal development, the certification process, and traditional nature users. We also took a fresh theoretical departure to the dilemmas of conservation vs. development debate by taking up the concept of a boundary organisation instead of using more common concept of co-management. This enabled us to examine the positive and potential roles of park managements’ in conservation governance. The case stressed that even though some management authority was moved from park management to the certification, park management was still able to negotiate about the possible restrictions on traditional nature users.

Re-regulation entailed by certifications’ standardisation processes can and maybe should be controlled by state-based park management. Neoliberal re-regulations are promising, but often include false promises, or at least the delivery of promises is partial. Especially challenging is that certifications and included standardisation processes promote ‘one size fits all’ – logic, resulting to difficulties to see the local level as heterogeneous groups of actors or divergences between different localities. If the park managements retain their role in defining and negotiating the rules of protected areas, there is a good possibility to harness the benefits of neoliberal conservation without increasing the ‘unnatural consequences’.

The challenge here is how well park managements can mediate between various pressures, objectives and interests. In the developing world this might be especially challenging. For example Rylance (2008) has found that outside intermediaries can help governments in combining conservation and development objectives in Mozambique. This is exactly the opposite when compared to our results in Finland where state-based park management was able to mediate between conservation and development objectives. Thus, the interesting point to make here is that boundary organisations between conservation and development can be state organisations or international actors depending on existing policy contexts. This raises further questions for combining conservation and development objectives by boundary organisations: how does the background of a boundary organisation impact on its potential positive roles that it should seek, and where the boundary regarding conservation vs. development in different situations actually is? Is it between neoliberal certification and traditional nature users, or between state organisations and local communities, or does it exist at all?

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 59

Acknowledgements

For funding the study, the authors would like to thank Emil Aaltonen foundation, Kordelin foundation, FiDiPro programme ‘Human-Environment Relations in the North: resource development, climate change and resilience’ of the University of Oulu, Finland and University of Alberta, Canada, and the project ‘Sustainable nature-based tourism and adaptive management of protected areas’ of the University of Oulu, funded by the Academy of Finland. The authors also thank the reviewers and editors for improving the publication. Finally, we like to thank Pirkko Siikamäki for providing expertise and constructive comments for various drafts of this article.

References Adams, W.M. and Hulme, D. (2001) ‘If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is

the question?’, Oryx, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.193–200. Adams, W.M. and Hutton, J. (2007) ‘People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity

conservation’, Conservation & Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.147–183. Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (1999) ‘Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in

natural resource conservation’, World Development, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.629–649. Agrawal, A. and Redford, K. (2009) ‘Conservation and displacement: an overview’, Conservation

& Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.1–10. Berkes, F. (2004) ‘Rethinking community based conservation’, Conservation Biology, Vol. 18,

No. 3, pp.621–630. Berkes, F. (2007) ‘Community-based conservation in a globalized world’, Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of the America, Vol. 104, No. 39, pp.15188–15193.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. (2004) ‘Indigenous and local communities and protected areas towards equity and enhanced conservation. Guidance on policy and practice for co-managed protected areas and community conserved areas’, Best Practice Protected Area Guideline Series No. 11, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) ‘Cities and geographies of ‘actually existing Neoliberalism’’, Antipode, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.349–379.

Brockington, D., Duffy, R. and Igoe, J. (2008) Nature Unbound: Conservation Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas, Earthscan, London.

Buckley, R. (2001) ‘Turnover and trends in ecolabels’, in Font, X. and Buckley, R. (Eds.): Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management, pp.189–212, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Buckley, R.C. (2002) ‘Tourism ecolabels’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.183–203.

Büscher, B. and Dressler, W. (2007) ‘Linking neoprotectionism and environmental governance: on the rapidly increasing tensions between actors in the environment-development nexus’, Conservation & Society, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.586–611.

Carolan, M.S. (2006) ‘Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process’, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp.661–668.

Carr, A. and Wilkinson, R. (2005) ‘Beyond participation: boundary organizations as a new space for farmers and scientists to interact’, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.255–265.

60 S. Sarkki et al.

Cash, D.W. (2001) ‘‘In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information’: agricultural extension and boundary organizations’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.431–453.

Castree, N. (2007) ‘Neoliberal ecologies’, in Heyen, N., McCarthy, J., Prudham, S. and Robbins, P. (Eds.): Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences (Eds.): pp.281–286, Routledge, London & New York.

Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., Fox, P. and Spalding, M. (Compils.) (2003) United Nations List of Protected Areas’, The World Conservation Union and World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN & UNEP, Switzerland.

Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2002) ‘The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.235–296.

Cottrell, S.P., Van der Donk, M. and Siikamäki, P. (2008) ‘Results of questionnaire study 2007’, Report 1 of socio-economic analysis of PAN Parks: Oulanka National Park, available at http://www.panparks.org/Projects/Research/Downloadablestudies/S2 (accessed on 20 August 2008).

Cousins, J.A., Evans, J. and Saddler, J. (2009) ‘Selling conservation? Scientific legitimacy and the commodification of conservation tourism’, Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, p.32.

Dahlberg, A.C. and Burlando, C. (2009) ‘Addressing trade-offs: Experiences from conservation and development initiatives in the Mkuze wetlands, South Africa’, Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 2, p.37.

Deke, O. (2008) Environmental Policy Instruments for Conserving Global Biodiversity, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

Dietz, T. and Stern, P.C. (1998) ‘Science, values and biodiversity’, BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp.441–444.

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.C. (2003) ‘The struggle to govern the commons’, Science, Vol. 302, No. 5652, pp.1907–1912.

Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Borodin, O., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M. and Lacerda, L. et al. (2004) Are Protected Areas Working? An Analyzis of Forest Protected Areas by WWF, WWF International, Gland.

Duffy, R. (2008) ‘Neoliberalising nature: global networks and ecotourism development in Madagascar’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.327–344.

Eagles, P.F.J. (2004) ‘Tourism at the fifth world parks congress, Durban, South Africa, 8–17 September 2003’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.169–173.

Europarc (2010) ‘Europarc federation. The voice of Europe’s protected areas’, available at http://www.europarc.org/home/ (accessed on 10 June 2010).

Fennell, D. and Weaver, D. (2005) ‘The ecotourium concept and tourism-conservation symbiosis’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.373–390.

Font, X. (2002) ‘Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and prospects’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.197–205.

Font, X. and Clark, S. (2006) ‘Certification of protected areas: the case of PAN Parks in Europe’, in Black, R. and Crabtree, A. (Eds.): Quality Control and Certification in Ecotourism, (Eds.): pp.299–315, CABI, Wallingford.

Ghate, R. (2003) ‘Global gains at local costs: imposing protected areas: evidence from central India’, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.377–389.

Gilligan, B., Dudley, N., Fernandez de Tejada, A. and Toivonen, H. (2005) ‘Management effectiveness evaluation of Finland’s protected areas’, Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus A, p.147, available at http://www.metsa.fi/mee (accessed on 22 August 2008).

Guston, D.H. (2001) ‘Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.399–408.

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 61

Heikkinen, H.I., Sarkki, S., Jokinen, M. and Fornander, D.E. (2010) ‘Global area conservation ideals versus the local realities of reindeer herding in Northernmost Finland’, International Journal of Business and Globalization, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.110–130.

Heinonen, M. (Ed.) (2007) ‘State of the Parks in Finland. Finnish protected areas and their management from 2000 to 2005’, Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus A, p.170, available at http://www.metsa.fi/sop (accessed on 22 August 2008).

Heyen, N., McCarthy, J., Prudham, S. and Robbins, P. (2007) ‘Introduction: false promises’, in Heyen, N., J. McCarthy, S. Prudham, and P. Robbins (Eds.): Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences (Eds.): pp.1–22, Routledge, London & New York.

Hiedanpää, J. (2002) ‘European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland’, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 61, Nos. 2–4, pp.113–123.

Honey, M. (2007) ‘The role of certification and accreditation in ensuring tourism contribute to conservation’, in Bushell, R. and Eagles, P. (Eds.): Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits beyond Boundaries, pp.168–190, CAB International, Wallingford.

Honey, M. (Ed.) (2002) Ecotourism & Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, Island Press, Washington DC.

Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2007) ‘Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction’, Conservation & Society, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.432–449.

Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, Routledge, London.

IUCN, available at http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_regions/wcpa_europeregion/ (accessed on 10 December 2009).

Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. (2009) ‘Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: stakeholders, structuring and sustainability’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.169–189.

Jartti, L., Lahti, K. and Hovi, M. (2010) Metsähallitus Wilderness Zone Program for Oulanka National Park, Metsähallitus.

Jasanoff, S. (1996) ‘Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.393–418.

Kyllönen, S., Colpaert, A., Heikkinen, H., Jokinen, M., Kumpula, J., Marttunen, M., Muje, K. and Raitio, K. (2006) ‘Conflict management as a means to the sustainable use of natural resources’, Silva Fennica, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.687–728.

Lane, M.B. (2001) ‘Affirming new directions in planning theory: co-management of protected areas’, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp.657–671.

McAfee, K. (1999) ‘Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.133–154.

McCool, S.F. (2009) ‘Constructing partnerships for protected area tourism planning in an era of change and messiness’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.133–148.

McDermott Hughes, D. (2005) ‘Third nature: making space and time in the great Limpopo conservation area’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.157–184.

Medina, L.K. (2005) ‘Ecotourism and certification: confronting the principles and pragmatics of socially responsible tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.281–295.

Mels, T. (2002) ‘Nature, home, and scenery: the official spatialities of Swedish national parks’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.135–154.

Metsähallitus (2011) ‘Metsähallituksen luontopalvelut. Upeimman luontomme hoitaja. Vuosikertomus 2010’, available at http://julkaisut.metsa.fi/julkaisut/pdf/luo/vk2010fin.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2011).

62 S. Sarkki et al.

Metsähallitus and Metla (2009) ‘Kansallispuistojen ja retkeilyalueiden kävijöiden rahankäytön paikallistaloudelliset vaikutukset’, Metsähallitus, available at http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/fi/Eraasiatjaretkeily/Virkistyskaytonsuunnittelu/suojelualueidenmerkityspaikallistaloudelle/Sivut/Kansallispuistoihinsijoitetutrahatpalautuvatmonikertaisina.aspx (accessed on 30 November 2009).

Miller, C. (2001) ‘Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.478–500.

Miller, G. (2003) ‘PAN Parks Verification. Oulanka National Park, Finland’, Monitoring Report, PAN Parks.

Miller, G. (2005) ‘PAN Parks Verification. Oulanka National Park, Finland’, Monitoring Report, PAN Parks.

Moore, S.A. and Weiler, B. (2009) ‘Tourism-protected area partnerships: stoking the fires of innovation’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.129–132.

Morris, A.W. (2008) ‘Easing conservation? Conservation easements, public accountability and neoliberalism’, Geoforum, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.1215–1227.

Nash, R. (1973) Wilderness and the American Mind, Yale University Press, New Haven. PAN Parks (2008) ‘Verification manual, Principles and Criteria 1–3, 4, & 5’, January, Endorsed by

the Supervisory Board, available at http://www.panparks.org/learn/apply_for_verification/principles_and_criteria (accessed on 11 June 2010).

PAN Parks (2009a) ‘Last of the wild: Overview of status and monitoring of some wilderness related species in the Natura 2000 network’, available at http://www.panparks.org/learn/wilderness_resource_bank/wilderness_conservation (accessed on 15 June 2010).

PAN Parks (2009b) ‘As nature intended: Best practice examples of wilderness management in the Natura 2000 network’, available at http://www.panparks.org/learn/wilderness_resource_bank/wilderness_conservation (accessed on 17 June 2010).

PAN Parks (2010) available at http://www.panparks.org (accessed on 11 June 2010). Petrzelka, P., Krannich, R. and Brehm, J. (2006) ‘Identification with resource-based occupations

and desire for tourism: are the two necessarily inconsistent?’, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp.693–707.

Pham, T.T., Campbell, B.M., Garnett, S.T., Aslin, H. and Hoang, M.H. (2010) ‘Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam’, Environmental Conservation, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.64–72.

Puhakka, R., Sarkki, S., Cottrell, S.P. and Siikamäki, P. (2009) ‘Local discourses and international initiatives: sociocultural sustainability of tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.529–549.

Ruuttula-Vasari, A. and Juvonen, S-K. (Eds.) (2006) Oulanka – kuohujen keskeltä kansallispuistoksi, Pohjanmaan luontopalvelut: Metsähallitus.

Rylance, A. (2008) ‘Local economic development in Mozambique: an assessment of the implementation of tourism policy as a means to promote local economies’, in Spenceley, A. (Ed.): Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development, pp.27–40, Earthscan, London.

Rytteri, T. and Puhakka, R. (2009) ‘Formation of Finland’s national parks as a political issue’, Ethics, Place & Environment, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.91–106.

Schelhas, J. (2001) ‘The USA national parks in international perspective: have we learned the wrong lesson?’, Environmental Conservation, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.300–304.

Skogen, K., Mauz, I. and Krange, O. (2008) ‘Cry wolf!: narratives of wolf recovery in France and Norway’, Rural Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp.105–133.

Boundary organisations between conservation and development 63

Spenceley, A. (Ed.) (2008) Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues in Conservation and Development, Earthscan, London.

STDS (2004) ‘Sustainable tourism development strategy: Oulanka National Parks and its environs’, October, Oulanka Cooperation Group, Oulanka.

Stern, M. (2008) ‘The power of trust: Toward a theory of local opposition to neighboring protected areas’, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp.859–875.

Stritih, J., Mari, F. and Karjalainen, H. (2007) ‘PAN Parks verification. Oulanka National Park, Finland’,Renewal verification report, P&C 1–3 and 4–5, PAN Parks.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005) ‘Disposessing H2O: the contested terrain of water privatization’, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.81–98.

Tsing, A. (2005) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

UNEP and WTO (United Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism Organisation) (2005) Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers, United Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism Organisation, Paris and Madrid.

Vanclay, F. (2006) ‘Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between the International and US documents’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.3–14.

WCPA (2005) ‘World commission on protected areas’, European Programme 2005–2008. West, P., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected

areas’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 35, pp.251–277. Wilshusen, P., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C. and West, P.C. (2002) ‘Reinventing a square wheel: a

critique of a resurgent protection paradigm in international biodiversity conservation’, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.17–40.

WTO (2002) Voluntary Initiatives for Sustainable Tourism, World Tourism Organization, Madrid. Ylimaunu, T. (2009) ‘Matkailun ympäristösertifiointien tunnettuus ja merkitys luontomatkailijoille:

esimerkkinä Oulangan kansallispuisto ja PAN Parks – sertifikaatti’, M.Sc. thesis, University of Oulu, Finland.

Zachrisson, A. (2009) ‘Commons Protected For or From the People. Co-Management in the Swedish Mountain Region?’, p.3, Research Report, Department of Political Science, Umeå, Sweden.

Zinke, A., G. Miller, J. Stritih and P. Borg (2002) ‘Verification of Oulanka National Park, Finland’, Verification report, PAN Parks.