URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa4444 Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of private and company owned forests in North-Karelia, Finland MORITZ ALBRECHT Albrecht, Moritz (2012). Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance as- pects of private and company owned forests in North-Karelia, Finland. Fennia 190: 1, pp. 3–18. ISSN 1798-5617. The integration of improved environmental or sustainable aspects in forest man- agement is often affiliated with the rise of market-driven governance systems, such as forest certification. In terms of forest resource peripheries, like North- Karelia, Finland, these are often attributed to environmental business and con- sumer demands from the green Central European markets. While acknowledg- ing these aspects related to the supply chains of wood-based products, this study evaluates the actual perceptions about environmental forest governance and its spaces in the resource peripheries themselves. It displays the perceived changes and practices in forestry by comparing private and corporate ownership and their governance networks. This is accomplished by a qualitative, interview based case study of North Karelian and Finnish forestry actors. Transnational forest governance is hereby treated as a relational space, with forest certification systems as possible technologies used to achieve improved, sustainable forest management. Utilizing the North-Karelian forestry sector, the varying position- alities of actors and institutions within such a relational space shape the knowl- edge networks, perceptions and decision-making. The study evaluates how these local-global positionalities of actors and individuals shape their under- standing, and guide the direction of sustainable forest management in Finland while it (re-)produces opposing regimes of practice. With the discourse on forest certification being twofold, a more complex picture emerges if aspects of even- versus uneven-aged forest management in Finland are integrated. Shaped by the actor’s positionalities and related knowledge networks, perceptions regarding the quality of forest management practices and technologies used to achieve sustainability differ and thereby shape governance processes. The green markets are not perceived as the main driving force and a strong governmental influ- ence, particularly related to private ownership aspects, is noted in the Finnish case. Forest certification systems, and other political technologies for sustaina- ble forest management, are embedded in or strongly restricted by these aspects. Keywords: Finland, forest governance, qualitative case-study, sustainable spac- es, ownership positionalities, certification Moritz Albrecht, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, P.O.Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: moritz. albrecht@uef.fi. Introduction Regarding sustainable forest management (SFM), Finnish forestry has publicly provided a twofold picture on the international scale during the last decade. On the one hand, a positive image of sus- tainable managed forestry, almost entirely covered by forest certification appears and is promoted by large forest and wood-based companies, as well as forest owner associations and the state forest serv- ice Metsähallitus (e.g. Metsähallitus 2009; FFIF 2011a; FMA 2011a). On the other hand, large en- vironmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO) blame Finnish forestry for following un- sustainable management practices and promoting the destruction of Europe’s last remaining old- 4 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht growth forests (e.g. Harkki 2004; Harkki 2008; Greenpeace 2009). Even though international pro- tests about the destruction of old growth forests in Finnish Lapland have ceased after joint agree- ments (FFIF 2010), debates about the sufficient means and management tools or practices to achieve SFM in Finnish forestry continue (e.g. Luonto-Liitto et al. 2009; PEFC 2011). A continuous integration of environmental as- pects into forest management, harvesting practices and related laws is taking place in Finnish forestry (e.g. Mielikäinen & Hynynen 2003; Parviainen & Västilä 2011). Increased integration of environ- mental and sustainable aspects into forest manage- ment are often attributed to market driven govern- ance systems, such as forest certification, based on customer demands and ENGO protest campaigns in the Central European markets (Cashore et al. 2004; Albrecht 2010a). However, it remains un- clear how implementing actors outside the aca- demic or expert communities perceive changes in environmental criteria as well as their drivers. For Finland, multiple studies are concerned with forest owners’ opinions about conservation or environ- mental management practices (e.g. Karppinen 1998; Horne 2004; Hänninen & Kurttila 2004), yet, taking into account that up to 95% of commer- cial forestry is carried-out by contracting compa- nies, these are the main implementing actors for management practices in Finland (Koneyrittäjät 2009). These actors’ perceptions are of primary im- portance when evaluating aspects of environmen- tal forest governance. As perceptions and rationali- ties guide actors’ activities (Merlingen 2003), it is important to understand the varying actors’ values regarding what has been achieved and what is re- garded as sufficient for SFM, and how they define such sustainable forest spaces. While local forestry stakeholders’ perceptions on uneven-aged forest management are described in a Swedish case- study by Axelsson and Angelstam (2011), their ac- count primary treats the knowledge of the stake- holders on technical aspects of forest management. Suitable for certain comparison, it lacks the rela- tional and spatial aspects evaluated by this study. On account on these aspects presented above the paper utilizes the following research questions as a guideline to provide an improved account of the processes at work in transnational forest gov- ernance: (i) How do the perceptions of actors, involved or linked to forestry, differ in terms of their atti- tudes/definitions towards SFM? (ii) What is the impact of the actors’ positionality in regard to the (re-)production of their ration- alities on, and regimes of practice for SFM? (iii) How do such perceptions of their sustainable spaces of forestry guide their decision making and acceptance of various technologies for SFM? (iv) How do these varying positionalities and per- ceptions shape the (re-)production of Finnish forestry in terms of SFM and transnational for- est governance spaces in general? These questions should not be understood in a normative fashion to determine general patterns in Finnish or transnational forestry but aim to high- light the multiplicity of processes which shape for- est governance and the utilization of related tech- nologies such as certification. Transnational forest certification systems are prominently utilized to define SFM, whereby two systems play a major role in global forestry. First, there is the strongly ENGO backed Forest Steward- ship Council (FSC) and second, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which is mostly supported by forest owner associ- ations and forestry institutions (e.g. Albrecht 2010b). In Finland, with a PEFC coverage of 95% in commercial forests (FMA 2011b) compared to a just recently approved and marginally implement- ed FSC the debate can be viewed as the defence of PEFC as a tool for SFM by promoting its achieve- ments. Generally, also in Finland, FSC entails stricter protective criteria and requires to set 5% of the certified forest aside for conservation of biodi- versity (see also PEFC 2009; FSC 2011). Neverthe- less, since national standards and implementation differs, the paper refrains from ranking the certifi- cation systems on their practical achievements for SFM. This has been studied elsewhere with vary- ing results (e.g. Harkki 2004; UPM 2005; Schlyter et al. 2009; Indufor 2010). Additionally, govern- mental means such as the Forestry Act of 1996 (MMM 1996) or guidelines by varying forestry re- lated institutions play a decisive role in regard to the SFM debate in Finnish forestry. Hereafter, envi- ronmental transnational forest governance is re- garded as a relational space, including the core market – resource periphery relations of wood product commodity chains (Albrecht 2010a, 2010b, 2012). The local case of the North-Kare- lian forest sector aims to display how actors in the resource peripheries (Fig. 1) perceive SFM based on their locally embedded relations. As they are integrated to (re-)produce the relational space they FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 5Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … are entangled with, this paper argues that this local positionality based on ownership patterns and other relations challenges purely market-driven modes and influences resource governance. Finnish and North-Karelian forestry systems Finnish as well as North-Karelian forestry are dis- tinguished by their high private, non commercial ownership of 52% (Forest Centre PK 2010; METLA 2010). Regarding productive forests the share of private owners in Finland is as much as 60%, while the share of final felling in private forests is 77% of Finnish forestry (METLA 2010). Company ownership of Finnish forests amounts to 9% whilst 35% of forests are state owned, of which only 26% are productive forests. In terms of company-owned forests, North-Karelia deviates from the Finnish mean with 23% (Forest Centre PK 2010). This is due to the prominent role of Tornator Oy (Torna- tor) in North-Karelia, an affiliated company of the global forest product company Stora Enso and re- sponsible for the management of Stora Enso’s former forest areas. State ownership is 20%. In relation to management operations and wood harvesting, despite the large share of private own- ership, forestry operations are carried-out by con- tracting companies in 95% of cases (Koneyrittäjät 2009). Apart from the age structure of private for- est owners, with 56% being over 60 in age, this owes to the specific forest planning and manage- ment system for private forests (METLA 2010). Fin- land has 13 forestry districts and regional Forestry Centres, North-Karelia being one. Aside preparing the regional forestry programme the Forestry Cen- tres have several tasks concerning private owned forests: preparation of 10 year management plans for private forest owners and their holdings, and distribution of information, support for forest man- agement, subsidies and education for forest own- ers and professionals. Additionally, by approving forest use declarations prior to loggings and carry- ing-out follow-up evaluations in chosen harvest- ing sites, Forest Centres are the responsible institu- tions for supervising the implementation of the Finnish Forest Act (Forest Centre 2011). Hence, they strongly guide and influence forest manage- ment in Finland. Other important actors are the Forest Manage- ment Associations (FMA) and the Forest Owners Union (FOU). The FMA has legislative rights to collect a forest management fee, private forest owners are automatically members of the FMA (FMA 2011a). The FMA supports forest owners in terms of planning, education and timber sale. Har- vesting and management plans are developed and tenders for logging rights are offered by power of attorney. North-Karelia’s FMA buys all plans made by the Forest Centre and integrates them into its forestry planning support. Harvesting activities in private forests are carried-out twofold. For thin- ning and intermediate felling, the FMA marks stands and hires contractors, while for final felling this task is primarily done by the companies after acquisition of logging rights. The FOU, on the oth- er hand, is mainly concerned with broader organi- zational aspects and supports cooperation among local FMAs. Additionally, the FOU holds and ad- ministers the regional PEFC certificate for its for- estry district. In North-Karelia, compared to most Fig. 1. Finnish administrative regions and location of case study area of North-Karelia in a North European context. 6 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht other forestry districts, the FMA and the FOU are one entity separated only on paper. Company forests are less embedded into this structured system. While being obliged to prepare forest use declarations to Forest Centres the same as private forest owners, follow-up checks are car- ried out by the Forest Development Centre Tapio (Tapio) in most cases. Management planning is carried-out by their own staff while the marking of logging sites is mostly performed by the respective buyers’ personnel. In the case of Tornator, up to 90% of logging rights are sold to Stora Enso which hires contractors to carry-out logging activities. With respect to state owned forests, most responsi- bilities and duties rest with the State Forestry Serv- ice Metsähallitus. The large majority of protected areas are situated in state-owned forest (METLA 2010). Private and corporate owned forests entail numerous entities involved in forest management, who are influencing forest governance with their perceptions, knowledge and the resulting practic- es. Since these entities are affected by their rela- tions among each other and towards external ac- tors or aspects of environmental forest manage- ment, the next section will present the underlying theoretical framework of this study based on rela- tional space and knowledge networks. Perceiving sustainable spaces of forest governance Local actors and entities are part of a wider space of transnational forest governance. Hereafter, space is regarded as relational (e.g. Massey 2005; Murdoch 2006), just as transnational environmen- tal forest governance is perceived as a relational space (e.g. Albrecht 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Inter- linked actors involved within this space, whether on a global or on a local scale, (re-)produce and affect the performativity of this space, due to the varying relations they are entangled with. Rela- tions in this regard include social and biophysical components (Massey 2005). For example, knowl- edge or cooperation networks, varying forestry practices, or ecological aspects of forests are rela- tions which enable or restrict entities in their ac- tivities or choices (e.g. Albrecht 2010b). As rela- tional spaces are open and (re-)produced by a multiplicity of relations and actors (Massey 2005), Murdoch (2006) points out its consensual and contested character. This notion is highly visible in the debate about SFM practices, if on a global scale, or in localized examples, like the Finnish debate discussed by this paper. A common problem in debates on SFM and its practices lies in the definition of the criteria neces- sary for one to achieve sustainability. As stressed by Hudson (2005) in his account on sustainable economic practices, flows and spaces, the deline- ation of sustainable spaces is critically dependent upon the definition of sustainability in the realm itself. Taking into account the social co-construc- tion of nature (Castree & Braun 2001), the varying perceptions of actors, and entities and their knowl- edge networks on what is claimed to be the truth, respectively, the necessary means to achieve SFM are steering governance processes and individual Table 1. List of acronyms with English and original (Finnish) names. Acronym English name Finnish name ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organization FANC Finnish Association for Nature Conservation Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto FFIF Finnish Forest Industry Federation Metsäteolisuus ry FMA Forest Management Association Metsänhoitoyhdistys FOU Forest Owner Union Metsänomistanjien liitto FSC Forest Stewardship Council NL Nature League Luonto-liitto PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Tapio Forest Development Center Tapio Tapio SFM Sustainable Forest Management WWF World Wide Fund for Nature (Finland) FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 7Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … behaviour (Rutherford 2007; Dean 2010). Thus, evaluating perceptions of actors and entities di- rectly linked to and involved in forest manage- ment provides information on the overall perform- ance of transnational and local forest governance. It further enables one to critically access claims about non-state market-driven processes of envi- ronmental forest governance via forest certifica- tion (e.g. Cashore et al. 2004, 2007). The two forest certification systems, FSC and PEFC, are utilized as instruments for SFM by mul- tiple actors, to varying degrees. Thus, these sys- tems can be seen as governmental technologies promoted by competing regimes of practice (Bald- win 2003; Dean 2010). According to Dean (2010), regimes of practice produce and distribute knowl- edge based on their internal, yet multiple ration- alities and thereby stress varying problematiza- tions related to the space to be governed. The lack of conservation in forest management stressed by ENGOs might be regarded as such. Regimes of practice with their knowledge networks can be a relatively stable set of relations which struggle for supremacy, possibly marginalizing competing re- gimes (Murdoch 2006; Dean 2010). However, due to the open character of space, these sets are prone to change and marginalization might be overcome (Massey 2005). Yet, if maintained and kept more or less together, a set of relations with its dominant regime of practice may appear increasingly natu- ral (Sheppard 2002). The institutional setting of FMAs, FOUs and Forestry Centres is the dominant regime of practice in the Finnish forest sector. Yet, the perceptions and rationalities of actors, for in- stance on environmental aspects of forest manage- ment, influence those regimes and guide their be- haviour (Dean 2010). Actors and entities in practical forest manage- ment guide their decisions about what they per- ceive as truth and what suits their rationality in terms of SFM requirements. These perceptions are influenced by the actors’ positionality within the respective space. Positionality as proposed by Sheppard (2002: 318) might be used “...to de- scribe how different entities are positioned with respect to each other in space/time”. Thereby, the actors’ positionality and the resulting rationalities are influenced by external influences. In terms of SFM, this means that rationalities concerned with the issue are not merely (re-)produced based on knowledge or perceptions directly related to the subject but include various aspects. For instance, economic reasons, personal values or institutional structures shape perceptions and thereby decision- making and management. Additionally, percep- tions about the drivers for environmental achieve- ment are possible indicators on how certain re- gimes of practice, based on their positionality and problematizations, promote various governmental technologies such as certification, forestry guide- lines or law for their aims. Evaluating perceptions of environmental achievements, changes and con- flicts, as well as investigating the opinions about their driving forces, enables one to integrate a lo- cal case into the wider processes of transnational environmental forest governance (e.g. Albrecht 2010a, 2010b, 2012). A qualitative case-study of North Karelian private forestry This study has been conducted as a qualitative case-study of the private and corporate owned for- est sector in North-Karelia, Finland. In-depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with man- agers and owners of three forestry contracting companies1 in North-Karelia and with the direc- tors of the North-Karelian Forestry Centre, the FMA and the FOU. Empirical data on corporate owned forests was retrieved from the forest com- pany Tornator, as it represents the largest private/ corporate ownership in the region. Group inter- views were conducted with the companies’ For- estry and Resource Manager, the Corporate Re- sponsibility Superintendent and a forestry team manager. Additionally, two visits to logging sites, one thinning and one final cut, with contractors and an extended visit to Tornator’s forests were conducted in January 2011. These forest visits pro- vided additional information from forest workers. Further, an ENGO representative for the regional forestry council was interviewed. Several institutions on the national scale have been integrated. Interviews were conducted with officials from ENGOs; the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC), the Nature League (NL) and the World Wide Fund for Nature Finland (WWF). Further, a certification and auditing expert from Tapio and the Head of forestry affairs of the Finnish Forest Industry Federation (FFIF) were in- terviewed. Altogether, 17 persons have been inter- viewed in direct relation to this study. To support the qualitative data and to provide, as stressed by Yin (2003), a multiplicity of data sources, position papers of the respective, as well as other institu- 8 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht tions, were evaluated and interview data from pre- vious studies was utilized (Albrecht 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Owing to the study’s main focus on the ac- tors’ perceptions of environmental related man- agement changes and their drivers, in-depth ex- pert interviews are most suited to provide valuable data (Yin 2003; Silverman 2006) and provide the bulk of information. Being a possible point of criticism, the choice to not include private forest owners’ opinions in the study is due to the fact that the focus is on forest management practice and the previously men- tioned low number of forest owners being in- volved in active management of their forests (Koneyrittäjät 2009). The forest organizations and contractors were chosen as the focus due to their deemed importance in relation to the topic (Cloke et al. 2004) and according to the administrational structure underlying Finnish forestry. Interviewees were asked to present their views on the state of SFM. In addition to providing an answer on the whether or not SFM is practiced in Finnish forestry, their views on specific achieve- ments and problems, as well as the related driv- ers for those issues were evaluated. Due to the in-depth, open-ended character of the interviews and the heterogeneity of involved entities no standardized set of questions was utilized but the interviewees were requested to tell about aspects of SFM they deemed important. Thereby, their perceptions, requirements and rationalities on their sustainable spaces in forest management are displayed with a reduced danger to be pulled into a certain direction by the interviewers’ pre- conceptualized framework about the topic (Sil- verman 2006; Dean 2010). The following section describes these various perceived achievements and problems of environmental forest manage- ment and its related driving forces or technolo- gies. Hence, impacts and aspects related to forest certification will be scrutinized, as are the Finn- ish Forest Act and further means to achieve SFM or improve environmental performance in forest- ry. Perceptions of sustainability and its drivers in Finnish forest management Keeping in mind the twofold representation of Finnish forestry from the outset, it is important to be aware of some aspects concerning environ- mental issues and practices in Finland to under- stand and evaluate the actors’ perceptions. In Fin- land, about 95% of commercial forests are PEFC certified by regional group certification (FMA 2011b). Being a member of FMA, the private forest owners become automatically part of the regional group certificate. This system is criticized, as it lacks audits prior to certification and may include actors unaware of their certification (e.g. Harkki 2004; Greenpeace 2011). Regional forest manage- ment institutions or regional contracting compa- nies apply for participation in this regional group certificate. In early 2011, after a discussion that lasted almost 10 years (Albrecht 2010b), a Finnish FSC standard was approved and first areas of the global forestry company UPM-Kymmene have been certified (UPM 2011). Demanded by EN- GOs, this FSC standard should improve Finnish forestry towards SFM. The most prominent national debate concern- ing practical forest management concerns the is- sue of even-aged versus uneven-aged forest man- agement2. The former has been well-established practice for more than three decades and promot- ed by forest law, while the latter, being commonly practiced until the 1960s (Siiskonen 2007), has re- cently gained support as environmental and fur- ther non-economical management aspects in- crease. While a forest professional and academic discourse on the feasibility of the two approaches takes place (e.g. Tahvonen 2007; Kuuluvainen 2009; Laiho et al. 2011; Pukkala et al. 2011), the inclusion of uneven-aged forest management into forest law is being discussed by politics and sepa- rates the minds of institutions and actors related to forestry. A similar process is taking place in Swe- den (e.g. Axelsson & Angelstam 2011). Thus many of the perceptions presented below concerning environmental forest governance in Finland circu- late around these governmental technologies be- ing used to promote SFM. Forestry institutions’ perceptions According to the Forest Centre and FMA/FOU rep- resentatives, the current forest management sys- tem, backed by the Finnish Forest Act, Tapio’s rec- ommendations for SFM and PEFC group certifi- cates, is generally perceived as sufficient to achieve SFM in Finnish and North-Karelian for- estry. Environmental aspects addressed by law and the additional requirements by PEFC were de- scribed to be well integrated into the management system with only minor breaches appearing. FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 9Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … Hence, it was specifically pointed out that new ap- proaches, for instance stricter certification criteria through FSC or uneven-aged forest management as demanded by most ENGOs, are deemed unnec- essary. Accordingly, a recent proposal by a work- ing group of the Ministry of Agriculture and For- estry on liberalizing the possibilities of forest man- agement, thus including uneven-aged forest man- agement, is seen as critical. Nevertheless, it was mentioned that law as well as certification are minimum requirements for SFM from an environ- mental protective aspect, while the criteria could always be tightened, however related to massive cost increases on the forest owner and manage- ment side. The Finnish Forest Act, in particular its 10th sec- tion concerning the protection of valuable habitats is seen as a major driving force for guaranteeing SFM practices, while PEFC is seen as an extra top- ping, adding some criteria. For instance, valuable habitats, additional to the legal requirements found in PEFC criteria were mentioned in this re- gard. However, certification is also regarded as a cost-raising factor driven mainly by company de- mand. In the case of FSC, it was pointed out that companies only demand it to please the ENGOs. Both certification systems, particularly FSC, were said to require unnecessary bureaucratic efforts, while stricter environmental criteria could be im- posed without them if wished so by involved ac- tors. Market-driven influences aside certification demands by companies are based on economical aspects, as wood prices, and not in relation to di- rect changes in environmental management prac- tices, as stated by some interviewees. Private forest owners are not regarded as drivers for improved environmental protection in forestry; yet, hostile attitudes towards environmental as- pects and protection created by ENGO campaigns and the weakly planned implementation of Natura 2000 areas in the past are deteriorating. According to the interviewees, this development is mainly due to the METSO protection program with its vol- untary protection approach (see Table 2). In rela- tion to private forest owners, it was further stressed that their knowledge of environmental criteria or certification varies strongly. This owes much to the well-structured management system of Forest Cen- tres, FMA/FOU and contracting companies, while most forest owners rely upon that these manage- ment aspects are taken care of by professionals, who do the planning and harvesting of their for- ests. Acceptance of environmental regulations when directly explained is high. As to their own impact on the environmental performance of forest management, it was stated that environmental aspects, based on law, PEFC and Tapio’s SFM recommendations are integrated into several processes. For instance, environmen- tal issues are handled aside from economical as- pects, in the Regional Forestry Programme by the Forest Centre, while FMA follows all environmen- tal criteria deriving from law and certification in their forestry planning and harvesting. Further, the Forest Centre controls the environmental quality of regional forestry practices by recording breach- es of law, as well as the implementation of envi- ronmental criteria like retention trees and valuable habitat demarcation. Additionally, both institu- tions provide and organize education and infor- mation about environmental related forestry prac- tices to forest professionals and forest owners. The contractors’ view Information retrieved from the interviews with managers and owners of the three North-Karelian contracting companies displayed a cohesive pic- Table 2. METSO 2008−2016, overview (MMM 2010). METSO Forestry Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland 2008–2016 • compensation based protection scheme for private and state owned forest lands (voluntary forest owner agreements) • First step: 2008-2012, 180 million € funds • ~14.000 ha protected in 2008–2009 (3661 ha in private forests) • ~6.400 ha restored habitats (300 ha in private forests) Targets • improved protection/management of valuable habitats • improve network of protected areas in Southern Finland • halt decline of forest based species Main critics • insufficient funding • mainly active forest owners participate 10 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht ture about recent forestry practices and their ap- plicability for SFM with the associations’ percep- tions voiced above. Nevertheless, aspects of envi- ronmental forest management were stressed from the implementation side, while several problems or discourses concerned with the same were men- tioned. This relates to the aspect that contracting companies work for organizations in private, state or company owned forests, yet are not represent- ing those ownerships but merely providing servic- es based on the customer demands. Still, they are most concerned with the practicality of environ- mental criteria. According to the contractors, change concern- ing the integration of environmental aspects into forest management has appeared on two levels. First, practical issues, such as improved protection of valuable habitats, water protection through buffer zones and protection of waterways, as well as protection of retention trees, have improved the environmental quality of forest management. Sec- ond, parallel to the appearance of these practices, attitudes have shifted and the above-mentioned protection measures are described as becoming common practice while their purpose is being slowly understood among forestry professionals. One of the interviewees stressed that there remains a need to explain, especially to machine drivers, the importance of even small protective areas or habitats. Nevertheless, the current environmental criteria are regarded as sufficient for SFM, one contractor stating that some habitats such as “trick- les on hill slopes” do not need to be protected due to their abundance in Finnish forests. This state- ment must be understood in reference to require- ments laid down by the section 10 (2/1) of the For- est Act (MMM 1996) and PEFC criterion 10 (PEFC 2009). Describing the law as a basic and obligatory framework for environmental criteria, most spe- cific changes are attributed to PEFC certification. Hence retention trees and required buffer zones on lake shores, both not demanded by law, were mentioned as examples (cf. Forest Act 1996). The environmental quality of the former, consisting of a required minimum of 5−10 trees/hectare left standing after harvesting, were found to improve with increasing machine-driver understanding of their importance (cf. PEFC 2009). Still, in some cases, retention trees are logged in the post har- vesting period by misinformed private owners for fire wood. A contractor specialized in insular log- ging pointed out that the latter, while contributing to water protection measures in general, has posi- tive impacts on landscape protection values when moving on Finnish waterways. Regarded as a criti- cal aspect of Finnish forestry is the missing man- agement agenda of many private forest owners, which leads to neglected and bushy forest stands, a view commonly shared by Swedish foresters (Axelsson & Angelstam 2011). It was further mentioned that the protection of valuable habitats related to law and PEFC have led to a fragmentation of logging sites making the job of contractors more challenging as more and more aspects and restrictions have to be taken into ac- count. This results in smaller logging sites and constantly requires environmental education for machine drivers and planning professionals. To ensure proficient knowledge for machine drivers most large customers were said to demand an en- vironmental management degree of them. This de- gree, provided by Tapio in cooperation with Forest Centres requires 4−6 days of courses and an ad- ditional amount of self-study to prepare forest pro- fessionals to recognize valuable habitats and to take environmental aspects in forest management and harvesting into account (Tapio 2011). Con- tractors stated that most of their employees, if not all, possess this degree. In addition, the large com- panies, like Stora Enso or UPM-Kymmene, provide environmental education to keep their contractors up-to-date on environmental regulation or chang- es in law. Attitudes among contractors towards these trainings varied to some degree. On the one hand, it was mentioned that training should be made mandatory in general and that a lack of pos- sibilities for training exists, while on the other hand, the amount of training was regarded as too high. The additional costs (only educational costs are covered by the large companies) are criticized due to the loss of valuable working time if employ- ees have to take classes instead of being in the for- est logging. Information in general was presented as being of the utmost importance to guarantee the per- formance of SFM practices in forestry. Since har- vesting is done preferably in winter times with fro- zen soils, Finland’s often extensive snow cover restricts recognition of valuable habitats, such as small springs, rivulets or bird-nesting sites. Ma- chine drivers have to rely on their harvesting plans. Harvesting plans are mostly prepared in summer by the companies hiring the contractors’ work, based on management plans for the respective for- est sites. Thereby, quality of mapping was said to FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 11Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … differ. For instance, when harvesting for Stora Enso in a forest owned by Tornator, valuable areas were described as well charted and provided as a GPS map to contractors, partially even including pre- marked retention tree groups. Thus, it is easy for machine drivers to recognize the environmentally important areas by using their built-in GPS devic- es, while in private forests, even though for the same company, such digital maps are often ab- sent, which increases the risk of mistakes. Apart from its benefits, the continuous shift to digital maps and GPS is seen as critical, since marking in the forests ceases, and the abilities of machine drivers to use new systems were described as still limited. Generally, it was pointed out that harvest- ing guidelines provided by large companies take environmental issues of law and certification strongly into account, while at least for FMA this was questioned to some degree. As for the drivers, no specific group was men- tioned in relation to the increasing regulation and environmental criteria. Assumptions about envi- ronmentalists, some institutional authority and customer demands were provided as drivers for certification. The need for additional certification systems, specifically with stricter criteria was strongly denied and a critical attitude was ex- pressed concerning uneven-aged forest manage- ment. However, ENGO demands are partially seen as rightful, yet not a large problem for contractors and in most cases regarded as solvable. It ap- peared from the interviews that contractors and their association take a more neutral stance to- wards the larger political debates and leave those to politics, large forestry and wood-based product companies and forest owner associations while concentrating on the practical issues of SFM. Company perceptions: Tornator Oy With forest holdings of 595,000 hectares in Fin- land, Tornator is the third largest forest owner in Finland while its focus on Eastern Finland makes it the most important non-state owner in North- Karelia. Managing the forests formerly owned by Stora Enso which still holds 41% of Tornator shares, between 80−85% of cutting rights from its forests are sold to Stora Enso (Tornator 2011). For- est maintenance and planning is largely carried- out by the own forestry professionals while har- vesting activities, specifically final felling, is car- ried-out by external contractors, mostly by Karel Wood, Stora Enso’s main contractor in North- Karelia. The companies own forests are complete- ly PEFC certified. Planning and maintenance serv- ices are further offered to private owners in the vicinity of Tornator’s forest areas. In addition to commercial management, Torna- tor has recently set aside some 1,250 hectares of its forest as part of several state promoted protec- tion programmes, terminating negotiations with the Ministry of Environment lasting almost two decades. Additionally, two areas have been in- cluded within the Metso programme since 2009, the latest being a 74 hectare storm damaged area in North-Karelia (Tornator 2011). The Metso pro- gramme has been a focus of Tornator’s own envi- ronmental responsibility programme in 2009 and its forest superintendents have been trained to identify its habitats (Tornator 2010). As burning over criteria have been tightened in PEFC, trials to burn over retention tree areas in each forestry team have been promoted as part of METSO habi- tat management (Tornator 2011). Tornator representatives regard the major changes of integrating environmental aspects into forest management in a similar way to the con- tracting companies. Primary, specifically PEFC certification is said to have united the efforts of dif- ferent actors to work on and integrate environ- mental aspects into forestry. It was stressed that forestry organizations, contractors and private owners are now collected within a single frame- work to handle environmental aspects. Second, in relation to practical changes which promote and improve SFM, retention trees, protection of valua- ble habitats, water protection and nature manage- ment of commercial forests (e.g. Metso) were men- tioned. Forest and related environmental laws are considered to provide means for most of these practical changes, while specifically retention trees are credited to PEFC. Another effect brought about by the different environmental regulations is a concentration on economically valuable forest areas away from less productive stands, thus in- vestment in, for instance, peat land has ceased. SFM is stressed as an important aspect in Torna- tors’ own forest management activities. Hence, re- quirements by Forest Law, PEFC and Tapio’s rec- ommendations for SFM are always integrated into forestry activities. For that purpose, own contrac- tors for forest maintenance and Stora Enso’s log- ging contractors are obliged by agreement to par- ticipate in training programs organized by the two companies, often taught by the Forest Centre or Tapio specialists. Contractors are provided with 12 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht GPS maps entailing valuable habitats and other areas restricted for harvesting practices. Informa- tion on retention trees might be provided and re- spective areas should already be delineated at first thinnings. Nevertheless, this relatively new prac- tice was described as being in need of improve- ment. Despite the digital support, the above-men- tioned trainings should enable machine drivers to decide upon and recognize valuable areas also by themselves. It follows that Tornator perceives PEFC as widely sufficient, while, for instance, FSC is recently per- ceived as too strict and based on complicated cri- teria, and thus it is regarded critically. Yet, imple- mentation would be possible and requests from Stora Enso were received concerning this issue. Nevertheless, increased costs due to logging losses and additional costs in administration are expect- ed and require evaluation, while being a matter of debate between Stora Enso and Tornator concern- ing plans for FSC certification. FSC demand by Stora Enso is perceived to be customer driven. One aspect highlighted as endangering SFM in Finnish forestry is a decreasing knowledge and ac- tivity among a growing number of forest owners. Consisting mainly of young owners living in long distance to their forests, these owners were found to neglect their holdings, which might lead to in- sufficiently managed forests. Being eventually positive for biodiversity in the short term, this de- velopment reduces forest productivity and value for forest owners; both considered aspects of SFM as well. Despite its acclaimed achievements in SFM in its forests (e.g. Tornator 2010, 2011) Tornator, aside from UPM-Kymmene, is blamed by ENGOs for neglecting the protection of valuable habitats based on Metso criteria. The NL in cooperation with its parent organization FANC and with Green- peace Finland mapped large areas of Tornator and UPM-Kymmene owned forests in 2008 and 2009 delineating 77 exemplifying areas, valuable for protection, 20 of which are situated in Tornator’s forests (Luonto-Liitto et al. 2009). Not being pleased by these ENGO demands, it was agreed to evaluate the areas marked using one’s own discre- tion. No concrete details were provided in the in- terviews. However, it was mentioned that some areas do meet Metso criteria while others, a marked sapling stand was described as an exam- ple, lack any protective values and are not consid- ered for possible protection. It was further men- tioned that Stora Enso, as buyer of most logging rights, is closely following the happenings and re- quests full information if respective stands are marked for cutting. Interestingly, opposite to the often mentioned “carrot and stick” approach (e.g. Cashore et al. 2004) FSC was not regarded as a means to avoid such campaigns but was more ex- pected to increase the level of demands brought forward by ENGOs. ENGO protests and market campaigns are rec- ognized as drivers for environmental changes and seen as a push factor for FSC. Parallel to this, ENGO attention is described as shifting from Lap- land to southern Finland, where forest owning companies appear as major targets for such cam- paigns. On the other hand, rethinking in forest policy is regarded as an important driver as well, since certain environmental measures have posi- tive economical impacts in today’s forestry-based business environment. NGO perceptions: countering claims of SFM Perceptions of Finnish ENGO on achievements and the state of SFM in Finland counter most atti- tudes expressed by the three actor groups above. First, none of the ENGO representatives regard Finnish forestry to be managed in a sustainable manner. On the contrary, most issue a quite low performance for Finnish forestry in terms of SFM and environmental protection. Within their criti- cism, the interviewees mentioned improvements and at least some positive development. It is inter- esting to note that they pointed out the very similar improvements mentioned by the previous actor groups; however they regard them as insufficient to reach SFM according to their definition. Addi- tionally, these improvements, like retention trees, buffer zones and valuable habitats, are commonly attributed to law or the SFM recommendations by Tapio then to PEFC, despite being part of PEFC cri- teria. In general, PEFC is rejected as a system provid- ing SFM in Finland, due to its weak criteria, and lax implementation and control. Criteria exceed- ing law, like retention trees or lakeside buffer zones were deemed a nice thought but too weak to bring about significant changes. Only the repre- sentative of WWF Finland attributed improve- ments and certain positive aspects to PEFC as a system to refer immediately to the high amount of loopholes, and inferiority to FSC. Despite its an- nual regional audits, PEFC was described more as a toothless tiger, as several breaches of criteria dis- FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 13Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … covered by NGOs remained with no consequenc- es for the certificate holders. Apart from these as- pects, ENGOs criticized the fact that the minor improvements achieved with retention trees, buff- er zones and the protection of some valuable hab- itats are promoted by forestry associations and partially by industry as the solution to the problem of insufficient SFM. According to the representatives of ENGOs, Fin- land’s forestry is in need of restructuring on a larg- er scale then with beauty corrections such as five retention trees per hectare. Therefore, the debate of even-aged versus uneven-aged forest manage- ment was more prominent in their talks. Opposing the positions of forest associations and some con- tractors, ENGOs promote uneven-aged forest management as the better alternative. In addition to environmental aspects such as improved biodi- versity, economic gains through savings in forest regeneration and planting are presented to back their claim. In this regard, the political sphere was described as moving towards more possibilities for forest owners, however in a slow manner with FMAs opposing changes to the recent system. The campaign which aimed at Tornator and UPM-Kymmene differed widely to the public pro- test campaigns related to old-growth forest de- struction in Lapland. Instead of large publicity or protests to blame the respective companies, pro- posals based on fieldwork findings by NL concern- ing valuable habitats were submitted to the com- panies. While the data was published in Finnish online, no large publications (cf. Greenpeace 2009) have been prepared to target an internation- al audience as compared to the Lapland forest conflict. Mapping of valuable habitats was con- ducted based on Metso criteria and on the im- proved connection of protected networks (Luonto- Liitto et al. 2009). The response of UPM-Kymmene was described as cooperative; Tornator, on the other hand, was described as more reserved on the issue. It was stressed though that for Tornator, with its main revenues deriving from forest manage- ment and wood sale, decisions on excluding areas from exploitation weight heavier than for a tran- snational, integrated forest-product company like UPM-Kymmene. Yet, to increase pressure, propos- als were sent to Stora Enso, the main customer of Tornator. As company owned forests were described as thoroughly managed, yet not sustainable in most cases, the situation for private forests was de- scribed as strongly variable. Criticized by the re- gional forestry institutions and contractors, the for- est owners’ lack of a management agenda was coupled with positive effects for biodiversity (e.g. no thinnings). Concerning certification, Finnish ENGOs expect the major companies to certify their forests with FSC in the future, UPM taking the first-mover role. Private owners, especially due to the negative attitudes of their associations are seen as less likely to switch to FSC in the coming years. Surprisingly, and contrary to the public chorus of international ENGOs, like WWF or Friends of the Earth, FSC is not regarded as the sole solution to achieve SFM in Finland. Although it would im- prove forest management in commercial forests, it was described as unsustainable with regards to forest energy harvesting, while increased political efforts were stressed in order to improve the net- work of protected areas. Thus while Finnish EN- GOs’ perceptions on Finnish forestry varies from that of most other forestry related actors, it also differs from the international, public NGO chorus. The above-mentioned examples display the var- ious rationalities, based on the differing position- alities of actors, which aim at stabilizing or includ- ing their regimes of practice in local and transna- tional forest governance. Political technologies (e.g. Baldwin 2003; Dean 2010) are thereby pro- moted to different ends and attributed with varying effects. The following critically discusses the per- formance of these various perceptions and their possible effects on the processes of transnational environmental forest governance. Discussion The twofold public promotion of Finnish forestry practices is (re-)produced throughout the inter- views as all actors, apart from the Finnish ENGOs, regard Finnish forestry as sustainable on their ac- count. Yet, keeping in mind that those perceptions about SFM are closely tied to the actors’ rationali- ties and influenced by various regimes of practice (Dean 2010), a more diverse picture unfolds. Ra- tionalities of actors are co-produced by their posi- tionality (Sheppard 2002), which makes actor groups or regimes of practice to focus on prob- lematizations from their perspective (Dean 2010). Hence, perceptions expressed by the interviewees relate to a heterogeneous playing field despite an apparently unified arena. So, the question is not merely if there is SFM in Finland but which aspects of forestry are included in the rationalities of in- 14 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht volved entities to decide upon that matter and how varying positionalities of corporate and pri- vate forest owners affect the processes of forest governance. The actors in this study are largely concerned with commercial forestry and its sustainability. Thus, they access forestry with regard to commer- cially utilized forests and aspects of their manage- ment (see also Axelsson & Angelstam 2011). EN- GOs, on the other hand, see forests from a more universal, environmental perspective. Hence, one must assume a variety of underlying definitions concerning the criteria and values of SFM on which the delineation of sustainable spaces rests (Hudson 2005). While an in depth evaluation of those definitions is not the aim of this paper, the utilization and promotion of different political technologies promoted on the basis of those is ac- cessed. PEFC certification, Forest Law and Tapio’s SFM recommendations are the most prominent technologies mentioned in the Finnish debate. Yet, they are attributed with various achievements to- wards different ends. Supported by the dominant regime of practice consisting of Forest Centres, FMA and FOU the role of PEFC is the one of the defending champion, while FSC is yet to rise to become a contestant in the same weight class in Finland. The unifying role accredited to PEFC in environmental issues in the interviews is an important aspect of its strength. Since it is backed-up by the monopoly like struc- tured institutions of Finnish forestry it has a large capacity to promote itself. This was supported by an ENGO forestry expert who stressed the one- sided, pro PEFC information provided throughout this monopoly system to forest owners and profes- sionals. However, based on positive third party audits, as well as on checkups carried-out by its supportive institutions, PEFC has been able to im- prove forestry and, further, to strengthen forest law enforcement, as pointed-out by a forest industry representative (see also Indufor 2010). While EN- GOs oppose this claim, some of the advertised im- provements are accepted, yet attributed to differ- ent drivers. Achievements such as retention trees, lake-side buffer zones or additional habitats are af- filiated with Tapio’s SFM recommendation rather than to PEFC, despite PEFC criteria being theoreti- cally binding rather than Tapio’s recommenda- tions. This shows how even insufficient deemed achievements are attributed to another political technology rather than to run the danger of creat- ing an eventual support/agreement with an op- posed regime of practice. Generally, ENGOs de- scribe the achievements mentioned throughout the actor groups as green-washing of forestry prac- tice by forestry institutions and companies, while distracting from the larger problem such as de- creasing biodiversity due to a lack of protected areas. With respect to these wider problematizations stressed by ENGOs, it has to be taken into account that this plays only a marginal role within the con- tractors’ or forest owning companies’ perceptions of SFM. Exemplified by a Tapio forestry expert statement that not all species can be expected to cope in commercially used forests, wider aspects such as large protected areas, or high biodiversity rankings are not necessarily regarded as part of their business. At least not without sufficient com- pensation paid (e.g. METSO). This stresses the im- portance of positionality effects related to actors’ rationalities and their resulting practices (Albrecht 2010b), and is akin to findings in Swedish forestry (Axelsson & Angelstam 2011). Thus, as the debate about SFM includes multiple forest images, the common attempt by ENGOs to kill two birds with one stone, for instance with FSC, buries risks of rejection. These spheres are separated in the per- ceptions of contractors, institutions and Tornator. Thus, while PEFC, forest law and Tapio’s SFM rec- ommendation provide sufficient means for SFM in commercial forests, increasing a protected area network seems to not be affiliated within their di- rect range of tasks. While, compared to the global FSC equals SFM chorus by many ENGOs, Finnish ENGOs, on the contrary, are aware of that issue and try to avoid accusations of confusing SFM with forest conservation, an accusation mentioned in an interview with a large Finnish forestry com- pany. With rationalities related to SFM being influ- enced by deemed external relations as well, for instance distrust in ENGOs or private ownership aspects (Albrecht 2012), PEFC, while deemed suf- ficient, is not promoted as the solution to all prob- lems, even by its supporters. Problems like varying quality of retention trees due to changing forest professional knowledge and interest, or their post harvesting removal by forest owners for their fire- wood are acknowledged. The latter is a common problem in Sweden, despite its FSC and PEFC for- ests as well (Hysing & Olsson 2005). However, the achievements in commercial forestry, the felt frag- mentation of logging sites due to habitat and buffer zone protection, and the high amount of environ- FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 15Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … mental related education requirements for forest workers are relations that shape rationalities and provide most forest professionals with the percep- tion that they are doing their share to improve for- estry. As even PEFC certification is regarded a bur- den, requiring costs, education and changed prac- tices, the attitude towards increased restrictions and regulations, be it FSC or any other involuntary measures, are prone to be rejected for the time be- ing. This also seems to relate to perceptions of Finnish SFM practices in global comparison. Inter- viewees from FMA, FOU, FFIF and Tapio regarded them as top level, while, for instance, forestry in Russia was not seen as being superior despite its FSC certification. Additionally, the demand for certification by the large buying companies is seen as only being for their reputational sake, and not necessarily based on altruistic attitudes to save the environment. The fact that UPM refrained from FSC certification of all its forests, due to low market demand, and dis- connection to its own processing facilities, sup- ports these claims (Woodmark 2011). It was criti- cized by contractors and by Tornator that many costs remain with them while the companies which demand certification restrain from paying higher prices for those sustainable products. This aspect additionally shapes a positionality that cre- ates rationalities which rejects further regulations. Thereby, PEFC, in concert with Finnish forest law and Tapio’s SFM recommendation based on the positionalities of most Finnish forest actors, con- tinues to (re-)produce itself as the dominant re- gime of practice (e.g. Dean 2010). This, in turn, has strong implications for transnational forest governance. As the majority of Finnish forestry products are exported (FFIF 2011b), PEFC products continue to dominate the certified product market by numbers. Yet, as stated by Massey (2005) on account of the relative instability and openness of space, such domination is constantly challenged. In Finland, the debate of even- vs. uneven-aged forest management is just such an unfolding prob- lematization which affects the various regimes of practice and the space they aim to govern (Dean 2010). Thereby, even-aged forest management, which, following Sheppard (2002), is concurrently promoted as the “natural” regime of practice by Forest Centres, FMA and FOU is in jeopardy. The opening up of forestry practices, thus in- cluding uneven-aged forest management on a large scale, is also related to the dismantling of the monopoly structure of the Forest Centres and FMAs. Thus, forest owners not only should be ena- bled to choose their mode of harvesting but have free choice from where to acquire consultation and management services. As such a change is currently politically debated, it is highly welcomed by ENGOs and is further supported by the FFIF and, to some degree, the FOUs, based on the right of forest owners to do as they wish with their forest property. Further, the increased distance of forest owners from their holdings diminishes the influ- ence and informational flow deriving from region- al Forest Centres or FMAs, thus detaching the owners from those still dominant regimes of prac- tice. While such a shift might provide more possi- bilities for FSC and other alternative practices to be integrated, it by no means equals an abrupt end to the dominant regime consisting of the amalga- mation of forest law, PEFC and Tapio’s recommen- dations. Additionally, influences on forest man- agement and utilization are not merely seen as positive for SFM or biodiversity. The lack of a management agenda by private forest owners and the resulting increase in unman- aged, bushy forests criticized by contractors was to some degree affiliated by ENGOs with the one- sided management possibilities of the current sys- tem. As these areas often entail increased biodi- versity, due to their natural character, opening up new management possibilities might lead to a re- integration of such areas into commercial forestry, thereby resulting in a possible loss of biodiversity, as stressed by a Tapio expert. Further, a possible decrease of dead wood was described as a possi- ble effect, while missing expertise regarding large scale uneven-aged forestry was stressed to be the main hindering factor (see also Axelsson & Angel- stam 2011). Nevertheless, while being probably less productive, uneven-aged forestry is seen as less costly since reforestation and clear-cut site management costs lapse. The fact that forest re- generation is Tornator’s largest single expense fos- ters that claim (Tornator 2011). Nevertheless, une- ven-aged forestry is seen as more likely to be inte- grated into private forest holdings by the inter- viewees compared to corporate holdings, due to their focus on wood production. Yet, implications on the certification systems as political technolo- gies for SFM performance (Baldwin 2003; Albre- cht 2010b) in Finland remain tied to the position- alities of the implicating actors in their local set- tings. Being recently promoted due to business de- mand through large companies like UPM-Kym- 16 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht mene and Stora Enso, both being supportive for PEFC in Finland at the same time (Albrecht 2012), the awaited opening-up of forestry management services adds possibilities for FSC to gain its share of the previously dominated PEFC market. This es- pecially accounts for corporate holdings, as they are prone to ENGO campaigns and market pres- sure, while implementation of complex standards is facilitated due to their large-scale and profes- sional management. The recent certification of UPM-Kymmene forest areas is a good example of this. Yet, the rationalities of implementing forest actors are (re-)produced by their positionalities (Sheppard 2002; Murdoch 2006). Thus, despite the new possibilities opening up, the current sys- tem of Forest law/PEFC seems better suited to tar- get the sustainable spaces perceived by most im- plementing actors. Hence, the strong and positive role affiliated by most interviewees to the state driven METSO programme counters the all-in-one market driven SFM alternatives, to some degree. It separates the struggle for SFM in commercial for- ests, according to most actors sufficiently man- aged by Forest law/PEFC, and improves protection measures through state funds on a voluntary basis. The METSO programme, based on its wide recog- nition, apart from the criticism of insufficient fund- ing by ENGOs and FFIF, has managed to be a sup- ported political technology that fits the rationali- ties of most actors belonging to opposing regimes of practice. Thereby, from a local perspective, it strongly influences market driven aspects such as certification demand and further highlights the im- portance of local steering mechanisms for transna- tional environmental forest governance. Conclusions The debate on sufficient measures for SFM will continue in Finland, with an expected increase in its complexity, due to the integration of wood en- ergy aspects. The system’s current restructuring opens up possibilities for previously excluded al- ternative political technologies to be integrated into Finnish forestry since positionalities change and with them the rationalities of involved entities. It is, however, questionable if these changes will bring the awaited improvements hoped for by EN- GOs or if the current dominant regime of practice entails the resilience to maintain its position. While FSC is expected to increase on corporate owned land, due to business demand, the posi- tionality of forest owners in Finland is preventing such a sudden change and there can be doubt if it will rise to become the dominant system in Fin- land. On the other hand, uneven-aged forest man- agement is more likely to be integrated into pri- vately owned forests. Thus, it remains to be seen if respective forest owners choose FSC in concert or if Forest Centres, FMAs and FOUs provide une- ven-aged aside from even-aged forestry with a continuous reliance on PEFC as the more pragmat- ic and forest owner trusted system. Thus, will they adjust their system to remain the dominant regime of practice? Following the research aims presented in the in- troduction, this paper has displayed how local perceptions based on the positionality of actors (re-)produce the various rationalities of actors on SFM. Further, they display these rationalities’ influ- ence on decision-making and practices for SFM and transnational forest governance per se. While the positionality of corporate forest owners, tied to market demand and vulnerable to ENGO cam- paigns, is more strongly affected by market driven aspects of forest governance (Cashore et al. 2004; Albrecht 2010b), private forest owners are strongly influenced by their locally embedded relations which (re-)produce their positionality. These in- clude governmental instruments (e.g. METSO), knowledge networks or practicalities which all play their role in influencing and shaping transna- tional forest governance practices, and the utiliza- tion and promotion of its political technologies as forest certification schemes. Thus, local regimes of practice in resource peripheries with their affiliat- ed knowledge networks have the strength to resist and shape market-driven domination in forest gov- ernance. Based on the theoretical approach of this paper, it is likely that these findings can be gener- alized to other areas of natural resource manage- ment (e.g. sustainable bioenergy), as long as pri- vate ownership exists alongside corporate and state owned premises. However, to strengthen this claim further research is required. NOTES 1 One of the companies, Anaika Wood had just changed its focus from forestry contracting to bioen- ergy production, nevertheless it was active in con- tracting during recent years. 2 Even-aged forest management is commonly prac- ticed by a rotational process of thinnings, clear-cuts FENNIA 190: 1 (2012) 17Perceiving sustainable forest spaces: governance aspects of … and reforestation. Uneven-managed forest manage- ment refers to practicing continuous growth forestry (uneven aged tree cover) with selective loggings and mostly natural regeneration (e.g. Axelsson & Angel- stam 2011). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research has been funded as part of the Academy of Finland project (no. 14770) “Transnationalization of Forest Governance” and by the University of East- ern Finland (project no. 931429). Special thanks go to Eija Kärkkäinen for her valuable help with the Finnish interviews and translations. Further I like to thank the North Karelian forestry companies, Institu- tions and Finnish NGOs who have participated in this research. REFERENCES Albrecht M 2010a. Sustainable forest management through forest certification in Russia’s Barents re- gion: Processes in the relational space of forest certification. In Fryer P, Brown-Leonardi C, & Sop- pela P (eds). Encountering the changing Barents: Research challenges and opportunities, 24−34. Arctic-Centre, Rovaniemi. Albrecht M 2010b. Company positionality and its ef- fects on transnational forest governance: Two companies and their approaches to forest certifi- cation. Geographische Zeitschrift, 98: 2, 116−132. Albrecht M 2012. Public procurement and forest gov- ernance: A German case study of governmental influences on market-driven governance systems. Social Sciences, in press. Axelsson R & Angelstam PK 2011. Uneven-aged for- est management in boreal Sweden: local forestry stakeholders’ perceptions of different sustainabili- ty dimensions. Forestry, 84: 5, 567–579 Baldwin A 2003. The nature of the boreal forest: Governmentality and forest-nature. Space & Cul- ture, 6: 4, 415−428. Cashore B, Auld G & Newsom D 2004. Governing through markets: forest certification and the emer- gency of non-state authority. Yale University Press, London. Cashore B, Egan E, Auld G & Newsom D 2007. Re- vising theories of nonstate market-driven (NSMD) governance: Lessons from the Finnish forest certi- fication experience. Global Environmental Poli- tics 7: 1, 1−44. Castree N & Braun B (eds) 2001. Social nature: theo- ry, practice, and politics. Blackwell, Oxford. Cloke P, Cook I, Crang P, Goodwin M, Painter J & Philo C (eds) 2004. Practising human geography. SAGE, London. Dean M 2010. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. 2nd ed. SAGE, London. FFIF 2010. Extensive forest conservation network en- compasses Northern Finland. 10.08.2011. FFIF 2011a. Paper and Wood Insights. 10.08.2011. FFIF 2011b. Basics of forest industry. 16.08.2011. FMA 2011a. Forest Management Associations. 10.08.2011. FMA 2011b. Metsien sertifiointi. 11.08.2011. Forest Centre PK 2010. Metsänomistus. 10.08.2011. Forest Centre 2011. Forestry Centres − The Finnish Regional Forestry Network. 10.08.2011. FSC 2011. FSC Standard for Finland. Finnish FSC As- sociation, Helsinki. Greenpeace 2009. Kein Kahlschlag für Kopierpapier. Greenpeace, Hamburg. Greenpeace 2011. On the ground: the controversies of PEFC and SFI. Greenpeace. Harkki S 2004. Certifying extinction? An assessment of the revised standards of the Finnish Forest Cer- tification System. Greenpeace, Helsinki. Harkki S 2008. Out of Control: high Conservation Value Forest logging und FSC controlled wood in Finland. Greenpeace, Helsinki. Horne P 2004. Forest owners‘ acceptance of incen- tive based policy Instruments in biodiversity con- servation – A Choice experiment based approach. Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Melbourne. Hudson R 2005. Towards Sustainable Economic Practices, Flows and Spaces: Or is the Necessary Impossible and the Impossible Necessary? Sus- tainable Development 13, 239−252. Hysing E & Olsson J 2005. Sustainability through good advice? Assessing the governance of Swed- ish forest biodiversity. Environmental Politics, 14: 4, 510−526. Hänninen H & Kurttila M 2004. Metsänomistajien tiedot luonnon monimuotoisuutta vaalivan met- sänhoidon velvoitteista ja suosituksista. Metsätie- teen Aikakauskirja 3, 285−301. Indufor 2010. Comparison report on the changes in the revised PEFC FI 1002 standard and their im- pact on forest management. Indufor, Helsinki. Karppinen H 1998. Values and objectives of non-in- dustrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32: 1, 43−59. 18 FENNIA 190: 1 (2012)Moritz Albrecht Koneyrittäjät 2009. Forestry contracting. 20.12.2010. Kuuluvainen T 2009. Forest management and biodi- versity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in northern Europe: the complexity challenge. Ambio 38: 6, 309−315. Laiho O, Lähde E & Pukkala T 2011. Uneven- vs even-aged management in Finnish boreal forests. Forestry, 84: 5, 547–556. Luonto-Liitto, Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto & Green- peace 2009. 20.06. 2011. Massey D 2005. For space. SAGE, London. Merlingen M 2003. Governmentality: Towards a Foucauldian framework for the study of IGOs. Co- operation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic In- ternational Studies Association 38: 4, 361−384. METLA 2010. Statistical Yearbook 2010. Finnish for- est research institute, Vantaa. Metsähallitus 2009. Metsähallitus − Annual Report 2009. 08.08.2011. Mielikäinen K & Hynynen J 2003. Silvicultural man- agement in maintaining biodiversity and resist- ance of forests in Europe-boreal zone: case Fin- land. Journal of Environmental Management 67, 47−54. MMM 1996. Forest Act (1093/1996). Ministry of Ag- riculture and Forestry, Helsinki. MMM 2010. The Forest Biodiversity Programme METSO 2008-2016. 13.08.2011. Murdoch J 2006. Post-structuralist geography: A guide to relational space. SAGE, London. Parviainen J & Västilä S 2011. State of Finland’s For- ests 2011. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki. PEFC 2009. Criteria for group certification; Level of Forest Centre or a Forest Management Associa- tion. PEFC Finland, Helsinki. PEFC 2011. On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace (Annexes). 18.08.2011. Pukkala T, Lähde E, Laiho O, Salo K & Hotanen J 2011. A multifunctional comparison of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in a boreal region. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41: 4, 851−862. Rutherford S 2007. Green governmentality: insights and opportunities in the study of nature’s rule. Progress in Human Geography 31: 3, 291−307. Schlyter P, Stjernquist I & Bäckstrand K 2009. Not seeing the forest for the trees? The environmental effectiveness of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 5−6, 375−382. Sheppard B 2002. The spaces and times of globaliza- tion: Places, scales, networks and positionality. Economic Geography 78: 3, 307−330. Siiskonen H 2007. The conflict between traditional and scientific forest management in 20th century Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 249, 125−133. Silverman D 2006. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. 3rd ed. SAGE, London. Tahvonen O 2007. Optimal choice between even- and uneven- forest management systems. Wor- king Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institu- te, 60. Tapio 2011. Metsäalan luonnonhoitokortti: luonnon- hoidon tietotaidon varmistaja. 19.05.2011. Tornator 2010. Annual Report 2009. Tornator, Imatra. Tornator 2011. Annual Report 2010. Tornator, Imatra. UPM 2005. Parallel field testing of forest certification standards. UPM Forestry and Wood Sourcing En- vironmental Forestry Affairs, Valkeakoski. UPM 2011. UPM awarded FSC Certificate for com- pany’s forests in Finland. 28.09.2011. Woodmark 2011. Woodmark forest certification pub- lic report: UPM-Kymmene Corporation. 28.09.2011. Yin RK 2003. Case study research: Design and meth- ods. 3rd ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.