Sistema de Havers

An ‘integrated landscape approach’ is needed to implement SFM policy (World Forestry Congress, 2009). The landscape approach has emerged to facilitate the development and conservation goals (Sayer et al., 2013). Sayer et al. (2013) highlights that one of the principles of the landscape approach is equal engagement of all stakeholders into the decision-making process. The trust building and clear division of rights are important component of the landscape approach. The landscape approach potentially could be used for governance of NWFPs. Paper IV lists five attributes of landscape approach. The first attribute is a sufficiently large area that matches challenges to deliver variety of goods and values, e.g., timber productions and variety of NWFPs. The second attribute is bottom-up governance of NWFPs, which requires multi-level and multi-sector stakeholder collaboration. The third attribute is to understand the importance of achieving sustainability in the forestry sector. Integrative transdisciplinary knowledge production is an important way to identify issues that involve SD. This includes strengthening the stakeholder involvement at the local level. The fifth attribute is sharing knowledge and positive experiences.

BR is one of several landscape approach concepts aimed at supporting sustainable development as a social process toward sustainability (Kraus et al., 2014; Bridgewater, 2002). However, the results from the policy analyses and interviews with stakeholders in the emerging Roztochya BR showed that the legislative domain of the BR concept had a clear negative impact on the different perceptions of what the BR concept is by different stakeholders in the case study. I thus contend that, in Ukraine, where peoples’ livelihoods depend directly on the use of natural resources (Stryamets et al., 2015; Elbakidze & Angelstam, 2007), the nature conservation orientation of BR management which is supported by the national legislation might also create economic constraints for the implementation of BR initiatives aimed at SD towards sustainability. For example, in my study area, local landowners and managers of state forestry enterprises perceived the plan to establish a BR only as another type of protected area that would limit nature resource use. This is likely to make BR implementation challenging and wrought with conflict among stakeholders.

This notion is also supported by studies in other countries, where promoters of BR initiatives often meet resistance from local people that recognize the BR as a pure nature conservation tool (Bosak, 2008; Phillips, 1995), which brings limitations in nature resource use and does not provide any economic benefits for local people. In post-socialist countries, there is also a legacy of private

land seizure by the state and control of natural resources that contributes to mistrust or suspicion. Such was the case under the Soviet system in western Ukraine. Later, during Ukrainian independence, after 70 years under the Soviet system, some of these lands were returned to previous owners. Land ownership is a source of pride and thus very important to people (Elbakidze & Angelstam, 2007). However, local people do not yet feel fully secure with their land ownership and are afraid that the government could take their property. This history, in combination with current social and economic insecurity, contributes to local stakeholder distrust of initiatives that originate outside of the community, such as a BR, and could potentially result in undesirable impacts on their livelihoods.

There are also a number of opportunities for the region with the BR creation (Wallner et al., 2007). Among them, the economic component includes rural territories development where green tourism is thought to have a large potential (Stryamets et al., 2010). New green technologies could be introduced in connection to the BR to the area as an example of sustainable resource use. Among other potentially beneficial issues for rural economic development is the transition to organic farming. The BR status might provide an opportunity to develop a labelling scheme for organic products, as done in some European BR (Kraus et al., 2014). For local stakeholders the BR status could lead to new funding opportunities, related for example to the treatment of old environmental issues related to previous large scale sulphur mining in the area.

As one of the initiatives towards implementing SFM policy on the ground, the MF concept emerged in Canada in the 1990s. There are 6 key principles of the Model Forest concept (IMFN 2008); (1) Each model forest is a neutral forum that welcomes voluntary participation of representatives of all stakeholder interests and values on the landscape; (2) A large-scale biophysical area representing a broad range of forest values, including social, cultural, economic and environmental concerns; (3) Stakeholders are committed to the conservation and sustainable management of natural resources and the forested landscape; (4) The model forest management process is representative, participative, transparent and accountable, and promotes collaborative work among stakeholders; (5) A program of activities that are reflective of the model forest’s vision and stakeholder needs, values and management challenges; (6) A commitment to knowledge sharing, capacity building and networking.

To strengthen contributions of landscape approach initiatives to SFM as a societal process, there is a need to integrate work among local stakeholders and develop a collaborative social learning (e.g., Leeuwis and Pyburn 2002; Green and Chambers 2006) with the aim of empowering local communities to steer

their own development rather than passively follow external directives. This requires a careful approach to collaboration and production of new knowledge.