Legitimacy of Environmental Governance (LEG) Pertti Rannikko, Tapio Määttä, Arto Naskali, Jakob Donner-Amnell, Leila Suvantola

Transkriptio

1 Legitimacy of Environmental Governance (LEG) Pertti Rannikko, Tapio Määttä, Arto Naskali, Jakob Donner-Amnell, Leila Suvantola

2 Project Group Project leaders: Prof. Pertti Rannikko (Social Policy, University of Joensuu) and Prof. Juha Karhu (Law, University of Lapland) Senior researchers: Prof. Tapio Määttä (Law, University of Joensuu) Senior researcher Arto Naskali (Finnish Forest Research Institute) Project researchers (working months ): Tuomas Kuokkanen (Law, University of Joensuu) 1 (4 x 0,25) Jakob Donner-Amnell (Social Policy, University of Joensuu) 17 Tero Laakso (Law, University of Joensuu) 12 Kaisa Raitio (Social Policy, University of Joensuu) 18 Leila Suvantola (Law, University of Joensuu) 25 Mikko Marttila / Janne Luomala / Lasse Vuola /Matti Tjäder (Law, University of Lapland)

3 Objectives of the Project How the renewal and diversification of the environmental policy instruments influence the legitimacy of the use and conservation of natural resources? International comparative and multidisciplinary research The concept of legitimacy connects the points of view of research in environmental politics, law, sociology and economics. The hypothesis: the use and conservation of natural resources and their regulation are currently facing a legitimacy crisis and this has led to the adoption of new policy instruments. The project evaluates 1) how the new instruments have succeeded to solve the problem of legitimacy; 2) what new challenges of legitimacy have emerged following their adoption; and 3) does the legitimacy of the new voluntary policy instruments require additional regulation to govern the relationships of the parties?

4 Sub-projects 1. Legitimacy as a Theoretical Question 2. Regulation of Public Participation and the Legitimacy of Forestry Planning 3. Internationalisation and Legitimacy of the Use and Regulation of Natural Resources 4. Private Sector Initiatives and Economic Instruments in the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

5 Legitimacy as a Theoretical Question a joint multidisciplinary research on the concept of legitimacy which combines the points of view of legal theory and theoretical foundations of environmental law and environmental policy general objective of the sub-project is to construct a basis for discourse on the theory and methodology of multidisciplinary social environmental research and environmental law as a part of environmental research Tapio Määttä, Juha Karhu

6 Ympäristöoikeudelliset sääntelytekniikat, legitimiteetti ja vallanjako Legitimiteetin ulottuvuudet Poliittis-oikeudellinen legitimiteetti Perus- ja ihmisoikeudet oikeudellisen legitimiteetin määrittäjinä Taloudellinen legitimiteetti Yhteiskunnallis-kulttuurinen legitimiteetti Ekologinen legitimiteetti

7 Ympäristöoikeudelliset sääntelytekniikat, legitimiteetti ja vallanjako Ympäristösääntelyn kehityspiirteet ja legitimiteetti Joustava sääntely perinteisenä sääntelymallina Ylikansalliset metavelvoitteet Sääntelyn yksityiskohtaistuminen ja teknistyminen Säädösten integroituminen

8 Regulation of Public Participation and the Legitimacy of Forestry Planning What is the justification for the lack of legal regulation of public participation in forestry planning in Finland? How has the lack of such regulation affected participation in and the legitimacy of the planning? What impacts will the so-called new regulatory tools (see sub-project 4) have on public participation in natural resource planning and nature conservation in Finland? How is public participation in state forestry planning regulated in Sweden and the U.S.? What similarities and differences exist between Finland, Sweden and the U.S.? What is the relevance of legal regulation for the success of public participation and conflict management? Kaisa Raitio, Tero Laakso

9 Internationalisation and Legitimacy of the Use and Regulation of Natural Resources How is the tension between use and conservation of natural resources present in international law? How is the tension between use and conservation of natural resources present from the viewpoint of legislative power and sovereignty of states? What are the preconditions for the legitimacy of use and regulation of natural resources in the new, internationalised setting? How is legitimacy affected by the interaction between different regulatory levels and instruments? What is the role of international law and international market-based regulation in the regulation of the internationalisation process and the activity on the national level? Jakob Donner-Amnell, Tuomas Kuokkanen

10 WHY IS LEGITIMACY SO ESSENTIAL? The complex relation between economy and society has been conceptualised in many ways: trust, social capital, accountability,ethics, responsibility Legitimacy is about acceptance and acceptability of the use of power in society The basic question is: Can the use of power and the actors, goals, means and consequences (goods-bads) connected to it be justified/accepted? Legitimacy is a sum of these considerations, made by many different actors Through this, legitimacy can be seen as an empirical question However, to measure and evaluate the level/amount of legitimacy is not that easy States, corporations, other institutions, and even individuals need anyway a sufficient amount of legitimacy to manage well Loss or decrease of legitimacy can have both dramatic and silent consequences: loss of positions, markets, financial support, personnel, motivation, meaning, trust

11 WHAT FACTORS EXPLAIN DECLINE OF LEGITIMACY? 1. The use of power has in many ways internationalised through changes in ownership, political regulation, NGO and consumer activity etc and new actors take part in it 2. The forest sector stands nowadays officially for a harmony between different goals - in practice there is a good lot of confusion and disagreement concerning goals 3. Also decisional procedures and other means for putting goals into practice cause criticism on different grounds 4. Results - in the form of export, employment, revenue, stumpage are not as large as before, their societal importance is smaller, and their distribution is criticised From being national champions before, big forest companies are now viewed differently In forest usage, a wide variety of old and new interests/views of different origin can be observed, causing a lot of debate and occasional conflict In the new setting, it is very difficult to reach national consensus on forest usage Forest sector policy has not changed very much - but a lot more unease can be found

12 SOME STRONG SIGNALS AFFECTING THE FUTURE OF THE SECTOR The production structure of the sector is changing because of over-capacity in paper production, rising costs, changed markets etc There seems to be no return to cheap energy and fibre - or to global expansion strongly built on such assumptions However, the forest sector also has many possibilities, especially in bioenergy, packaging, construction, biochemicals and forest-based public goods The new possibilities can come true, if many different actors can agree on sufficient investments and other measures to support their development Only by changing its activity/character the forest sector can preserve/increase its legitimacy and secure itself enough support, cooperation, commitment Legitimacy is strongly affected by the amount of benefits and public goods produced and how they are distributed in society (new versus old stakeholders)

13 Four different ways of viewing the future development of the forest sector Viewpoint: international BIOSOCIETY: Investments in the use of wood in energy production, bio-processing, and construction. Achieving a recognised level in the sustainability of forest use. Viewpoint: social NATIONAL INTEREST: Investments in the domestic forest industry and the increase of forest resources. NEW BUSINESSES: Investments in new products, e.g., liquid biofuels. Increasing free competition within the forestry and the forest industry. Viewpoint: business economics EXISTING STRUCTURES: Investments in the development of cost-efficiency, value-added productivity and raw material availability within the present sector. Viewpoint: national

14 HOW PROMOTE THE FUTURE AND LEGITIMACY OF THE FOREST SECTOR? - five different views - A. The industry-based view. Stresses strengthening the competitive capacity of the forest companies. (Q: How much does this really help?) B. The nationalist view. Stresses investments in domestic production and income flows to forest owners/countryside. (Q: What about all other actors?) C. The public goods view. Stresses production of public goods, because they are promising and have a wider importance. (Q: What about sector actors?) D. The neoliberal view. Wants to reduce public support or regulation of the sector, either to reduce criticism or to steer the forest sector into a more market-based direction. (Q: How well does this suit this sector?) E. The idealist view. All notable traditional and new forest-related benefits should be increased in a balanced way. (Q: Can this really be done without clashes between interests?) All views stress an increase of benefits but in different ways A different division of power, larger goals, more open discussion and different outcome are not discussed as much maybe it is time to?

15 Private Sector Initiatives and Economic Instruments in the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity What are the legal cultural questions (including duty of care of biodiversity) relating to the cost sharing of biodiversity? How much and in what form private sector nature conservation exists in Finland? How can they be best be promoted by the public sector? What kinds of incentives are needed for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources? Can perverse incentives be reassessed and reformed into positive incentives? What legal impediments there are for market creation in the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services and what legal solutions can be found to emerging problems? What is the role of regulation in new environmental policy instruments such as market creation? Can one or several legal models for economic instruments (markets, incentives) be created to be used in Finland? Arto Naskali, Leila Suvantola, researchers in Rovaniemi

16 Naskali Back ground: BD and Economy Nature conservation: incentives and efficiency, private sector involvemen Sustainable utilization of bd: piloting in sustainable bd business Ecosystem services: identification and market creation Sustainable use of natural resources: incentives to ecologically sustainability and identification of perverse incentives and their reformulation Arto - Hiedanpää, Juha - Suvantola, Leila: Biologinen monimuotoisuus talouskysymyksenä. Suomen ympäristö 48/2006. Ympäristöministeriö. Helsinki

17 Ekosysteemilähestymistapa ja legitimiteetti Luonnonsuojelufilosofia; ympäristöpolitiikka; tieteidenvälisyys Ekologinen taloustiede/oikeustaloustiede Ekosysteemilähestymistapa Ekosysteemipalvelut Ekosysteemipalvelujen tragedia Institutionaalisten rakenteiden kehitys ja vaikutukset

18 Ecological Compensation Duty to compensate adverse impacts on nature is an incentive to avoid impacts Argumentation for the adoption of this instrument to national legislation The duty to compensate (or restore) is extending the polluter pays (or impacter pays) principle to nature conservation Suvantola, Leila: Kun maailma ei riitä Luonnon monimuotoisuudelle aiheutettavien haittojen kompensointi. Ympäristöjuridiikka 3-4/2005 s Suvantola, Leila: Huominen ei koskaan kuole - Luonnonsuojelun ja ympäristönkäytön kilpailutilanteiden ratkaisemisesta. Edita. Helsinki Suvantola, Leila: Ympäristövastuudirektiivin luontovahingon käsitteen tulkinnallisuus. Oikeus 2006:4 s Suvantola, Leila: Luontovahinkojen korjausvastuun uudistus. Ympäristöjuridiikka 2/2007 s Participation in the Ministry of the Environment financed cluster project Kompensaatio infrahankkeissa

19 Market Creation Duty to compensate bd impacts has been solved in US, Germany, Australia with banking instruments Research on examples on the criteria of effectiness, efficiency, fairness and acceptability (legitimacy); indentification of opportunities and challenges Suvantola, Leila: Kun maailma ei riitä Luonnon monimuotoisuudelle aiheutettavien haittojen kompensointi. Ympäristöjuridiikka 3-4/2005 s Suvantola, Leila: Regulatory Concerns of the Biobanking Scheme (NSW) (to be published in Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy) Suvantola, Leila: Biobanking järjestelmä (NSW, Australia) esimerkkinä markkinoihin perustuvasta maankäytön ohjauksesta (to be publised in Ympäristöoikeuden ja politiikan vuosikirja 2008)

20 Key Results of LEG Combination of legal and social sciences research has produced new information on the change of natural resources policy instruments and the legitimacy of nature conservation and use of natural resources. 2 (+1?) doctoral dissertations 7 refereed articles / 1 international (+ 3 to be published / 2 international + 1 international co-authored submitted to author) 2 posters in international scientific events 16 presentations in international scientific events 14 presentations in national scientific events 18 presentations on research results in national events (societal impact) synthesis of the project has been submitted to publishers evaluation (Gaudeamus)

21 Researchers have actively communicated their results to decision-making and social discussion 1) Arto Naskali (Juha Hiedanpää) and Leila Suvantola have participated in the discussion on economic environmental instruments 2) Jakob Donner-Amnell has participated in the discussion on the renewal of the forest sector through the Future Forum on Forests (Metsäalan tulevaisuusfoorumi) 3) Kaisa Raitios doctoral dissertation and the proposal on the reorganization of the Forest and Park Services (Metsähallitus) was well publicized in the media. 4) Leila Suvantola and Antti-Jussi Lankinen carried out a comparative research on new instruments in waste avoidance and resource efficiency which relates to the revision of the national waste legislation (YMra 24/2008 Jätteen synnyn ehkäisyn uudet ohjauskeinot (YM )

22 Key Publications 1. Pertti Rannikko & Tapio Määttä (eds.) (2009): Millä oikeudella? Luonnonvarojen hallinnan legitimiteetti. Gaudeamus, Helsinki. (manuscript submitted for publishers review) (subproject 1) 2. Raitio, Kaisa (2008). You can t please everyone conflict management practices, frames and institutions in Finnish state forests. University of Joensuu, Publications in Social Sciences 86. (doctoral dissertation) (subproject 2) 3. Donner-Amnell, Jakob (2009). Doctoral dissertation? (subproject 3) 4. Suvantola, Leila (2006). Huominen ei koskaan kuole - Luonnonsuojelun ja ympäristönkäytön kilpailutilanteiden ratkaisemisesta. Edita, Helsinki. (doctoral dissertation) (subproject 4)

23 MILLÄ OIKEUDELLA? Luonnonvarojen hallinnan legitimiteetti I JOHDATUS LEGITIMITEETTITUTKIMUKSEN KÄSITTEISTÖÖN - Ympäristön ja luonnonvarojen käytön legitimiteetti (Simo Kyllönen) - Ympäristöoikeudelliset sääntelytekniikat, legitimiteetti ja vallanjako (Juha Karhu & Tapio Määttä) II LUONNONVARAPOLITIIKAN OHJAUSKEINOJEN UUSIUTUMINEN - Ekosysteemilähestymistapa ja legitimiteetti (Arto Naskali) - Markkinoihin perustuvien ohjauskeinojen hyväksyttävyyshaasteet (Leila Suvantola) III OIKEUSKÄYTÄNNÖT JA LEGITIMITEETTI - Kansainväliset ympäristökysymykset ja legitimiteetti (Tuomas Kuokkanen) - Tuomioistuimet ja legitimoiva kommunikaatio (Kai Kokko & Leila Suvantola) IV LUONNON KÄYTÖN MUUTTUVAT MUODOT - Metsäsektorin hyväksyttävyys murroksessa? (Jakob Donner- Amnell & Teijo Rytteri) - Leipäpuu viihdekäyttöön? (Pertti Rannikko) JÄLKISANAT (Tapio Määttä & Pertti Rannikko)

24 Potential Follow-up Academy funding for game research Of Moose, Wolf and Man: Ecosystem Services, Institutions, and Creative Governance ( , leader Pertti Rannikko) other researchers New research idea together with Rauno Sairinen (PERILUC) on new rise of natural resources economy and vulnerability of socio-ecological systems Research idea on regulation of ecosystem services