1. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to a Conflict between Reindeer Herding, Nature, and Forest Management Experiences from the Upper Lapland Case Jyri Mustajoki Tampere University of Technology Mika Marttunen & Heli Saarikoski Finnish Environmental Institute The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland June 14, 2011

2. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Outline of the presentation  Background of the Upper Lapland conflict  Implementation of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis process  Special characteristics of the case  How did we dealt with these?  Pros and cons of our approach  Conclusion and lessons learned

3. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland  Main conflict between reindeer herding and forest management on state-owned forests  Adverse impacts of forestry to old-growth forests  Legal right for free grazing with certain restrictions  Conflict also concerns other issues  Old-growth forests valuable wilderness areas  Effects of forestry to tourism  Effects of forestry to cultural values  Situation has been sensitive for decades  Many legal proceedings initiated by reindeer owners  In spite of various research studies and conflict resolution attempts, solution has not been found until recently

4. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) process  Implemented with multi-attribute value tree (MAVT) method and decision analysis interviews (DAIs)  Carried out in collaboration with  Sustainable multiple use of forests in northern Lapland project of Finnish Forest Research Institute (FFRI)  Mainly responsible for the impact assessment  Initiated and partly funded by the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture  High level endorsement  Already a steering group with representatives from almost all the different stakeholder groups  Conflict over consensus project of Finnish Environmental Institute (FEI)  Mainly responsible for carrying out the decision analysis process

5. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Main objectives of MCDA Evaluation and comparison of the effects of different forest management alternatives in a common framework Evaluation of the importance of the objectives Illustration of the different views of the stakeholders Supporting the stakeholders’ learning Enhancing value-focused thinking Increasing the overall under- standing of the problem

6. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Value tree  Constructed in expert group meetings  Modified and accepted by the steering group  Stakeholders’ preferences in DAIs Local gross income effects Forest sector Reindeer herding Tourism Employment Forest sector Reindeer herding Tourism Sámi reindeer herding culture Vitality Control of grazing areas Recreational use of nature Outdoor activities Wilderness experience Hunting and berry picking Biodiversity Mutual understandingConsensus Alt. 1: 300 000 m 3 Alt. 2: 150 000 m 3 Alt. 3: 115 000 m 3 Alt. 4: 80 000 m 3 Alt. 5: 30 000 m 3 AlternativesSubcriteriaCriteria Overall goal

7. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Multi-attribute value tree method  Additive value function where n is the number of attributes w i  [0, 1] the overall weight of attribute i x i the consequence of alternative x with respect to attribute i v i (x i ) its score on 0–1 scale  Evaluation of the alternatives  Natural scale for employment (work years) and local income (€)  Constructed -5 – 5 scale for other criteria  Alternatives based on the amount of logging and the areas reserved for loggings

8. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 15 personal decision analysis interviews (2–4 hours each) Description of the objectives and phases of the interview Review of the background material Description of the MCDA approach Decision analysis interview Review of the value tree and definition of attribute-wise values of the alternatives Weighting of criteria and sub-criteria (and reasoning for weighting) Analysis of the results, sensitivity analysis and possible changes in evaluation Feedback

9. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Interviewed stakeholder groups Reindeer herding Reindeer Herding Co-operative of Hammastunturi Reindeer Herders' Association Sámi culture Sámi Parliament Sámi Council Local Economy Municipality of Inari (two representatives in a joint interview) Forest sector Finnish Forest and Park Service (Metsähallitus) Forestry Experts’ Association Upper Lapland Forestry Society Nature conservation and local nature use Association of the friends of Inari nature Nature Services of the Finnish Forest and Park Service Association of the Finnish Cross-Country Skiing Local Hunters' Association of Inari Authorities Forestry Centre of Lapland Employment and Economic Development Centre of Lapland Lapland Regional Environment Centre

10. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Results – Weights of the interviewees  Results analyzed collaboratively at the steering group meeting

11. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Results – Overall values for the alternatives  Each bar represents the overall value of one stakeholder for this alternative

12. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Challenges for applying MCDA  MCDA not applied earlier to conflicts between reindeer herding and forest management  Special characteristics of the case should be considered  The conflict has been going on for decades  Considerable distrust towards a yet new approach  MCDA carried out at closing stages of the FFRI project  Not tightly integrated in the process  What are the effects and limitations of this?

13. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Large differences in the estimated effects of alternatives  Initial effects estimated with expert evaluation  Some interviewees strongly contested these  On some criteria/alternatives almost opposite views  No time to collect new research information  Stakeholders allowed to change initial estimates to their own estimates +We could collect views about the estimates  Analysed jointly to gain deeper understanding of these differences −Gave stakeholders a venue for manipulation  Some stakeholders tended to give high estimates to their favourite alternatives

14. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Example about the estimates – Sámi reindeer herding culture  Variation due to many factors affecting reindeer herding:  Logging refuse  Snow conditions  Amount of lichen → additional feeding  Amount of reindeer  Location of grazing grounds  Forest roads  Centralization of reindeer husbandry  Etc.

15. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Use of mutual understanding as a criterion  Mutual understanding explicitly considered as a criterion  Often implicitly studied by comparing weights of stakeholders +Evaluation of how much the stakeholders actually appreciate reaching consensus  Important aspect of the decision making situation  Views about alternatives’ ability to improve mutual understanding −Quite a vague criterion  Especially on this criterion stakeholders tended to give high estimates to their favourite alternatives  E.g. versatile employment structure would probably have been a better criterion name  Essentially the same idea, but narrower scope for interpretation

16. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Mutual understanding  Generally quite highly or moderately weighted  Some stakeholders gave only little weight  Results indicate a desire for seeking solution  “Mutual understanding should be truly mutual” ”The main issue is the rights of the Sámi people, not the reconciliation of different sources of livelihood” ”Mutual understanding is extremely important for the development of the area”

17. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Time span of the alternatives  Logging takes place little by little  Effects of logging can only be seen after years or decades  A long enough time span needed to estimate the effects  Long-term logging plans are made on a strategic level  In long term, logging is affected by various external factors  Economic situation, structural changes, etc.  Not reasonable to specify exactly which forest stands are to be logged  Difficult to estimate plans very specifically

18. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 30-year time span selected for the model +Long-term effects of the logging included in the model −Plans are made on a strategic level  Effects of the alternatives on certain forest stands unknown  Makes estimation of the effects very difficult on some criteria  May reduce the credibility of the whole process −Caused confusion for some stakeholders  Forest grows continuously  Current situation is not the same as after doing nothing for 30 years  What is the zero point? Current situation or Situation after carrying out current strategy for 30 years or Situation after 30 years of doing nothing  On some attributes difficult to consider the effects that far

19. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Suitability of DAI approach to meet different objectives  Based on the questionnaire for the steering group members

20. The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Conclusions and lessons learned  MCDA with DAIs is an applicable approach for the case  Especially suitable for  identification and structuring of the central issues  describing the preferences of the stakeholders  Not very suitable for finding an agreement  Tight integration of MCDA to the planning process especially important  Characteristics of the problem better adapted in the model  We implemented MCDA as a separate process  Inability to fully respond to the issues characteristic to the case  Ambiguity of the alternatives in strategic planning is problematic  Estimation of some effects difficult without knowing the exact locations of the actions