**6. Conclusion**

248 Sustainable Forest Management – Case Studies

previously and point towards a 'win-lose' arrangement. Further, 'win-win' options cannot explain the dynamics of competition and negotiation between social actors before and after an agreement has been reached. The question is if there is any other possibility to conceptualize the interplay or contradistinction between nature conservation and economic development apart from naïve 'win-win' or tense 'win-lose' approaches. An alternative conceptualization might be indicated by the notion of distributive justice, which implies the allocation of benefits and burdens of an activity among affected social

Local residents' dispositions (Table 1; for a detailed description of the methodology see Hovardas, 2010) can be interpreted as a mixed-motive perspective, which diverges from 'win-win' and 'win-lose' approaches in that it envisages gain solutions for both nature conservation and economic development while acknowledging that there will always be a

Economic development Nature conservation

 Forest clearings in core areas would severely decrease the probability of

a forest fire Forest clearings would enable raptors to find their prey much easier

Investment in ecotourism should be enhanced as a supplementary source of revenue for locals

distributive aspect (Hoffman et al., 1999; Hovardas & Korfiatis, 2008).

provide significant additional income for local loggers

selected on biodiversity conservation criteria Extensive reforestation

programs should be banned

As solutions to forest management disputes require the balancing of interests among a complex array of participants, and because this can only be achieved through negotiations inevitably associated with costs and benefits (frame of reference in win-lose models), the mixed-motive model offers a theoretical and empirical alternative to the opposing 'win-win' and 'win-lose' perspectives. In this regard, the range of players' interests does not bifurcate into simply economic development and nature conservation coalitions but there can be a mutual recognition and appraisal of interests, which is necessary for reaching an agreement. This confrontation of social actors might increase complexity considerably but it tends to involve greater opportunities to expand the scope of the debate, finding solutions that will improve the potential outcome simultaneously for both parties (integrative principle of win-

Local people in Dadia claim that creating forest clearings would provide significant additional income for local loggers. At the same time, local people suggest that forest clearings in core areas would severely decrease the probability of a forest fire and enable raptors to find their prey much easier. In terms of distributive aspects, local residents accept that trees to be cut should be selected on biodiversity conservation criteria and that extensive reforestation programs should be banned. However, they expect investment in ecotourism to be enhanced so that ecotourism development will continue to comprise a

Mutual gain Creating forest clearings would

Distributive aspects Trees to be cut should be

Table 1. Local residents' mixed-motive approach

actors (Pelletier, 2010).

win models).

The Habermasian window of opportunity offered by the mixed-motive perspective is both timely and spatially delineated and guarantees the inclusion of all affected actors under a commitment of rational argumentative deliberation (Carvalho-Ribeiro et al., 2010; Durand & Vázquez, 2011; Kleinschmit et al., 2009; Ojha et al., 2009; Parkins & Davidson, 2008; Warren, 2007). However, conflict and negotiation should be acknowledged as indispensable constituents of a mixed-motive deliberation process. Foucauldian power differentials are not hidden between participating actors but have to be enacted to steer the negotiation or renegotiation process. This enables hidden power structures to surface and be contested and provides instances for shifting power balances and multiple empowering effects (Berman Arévalo & Ros-Tonen, 2009; Winkel, in press). Social actors that participate will have to recognize both conflicting demands as well as the need to come to terms after negotiation. In this direction, claims of objective truth and of a single rationality have to be singled out as inadequate to serve the democratic mandate (Winkel, in press). Starting from the fact that uncertainty is irreducible by science (Borchers, 2005), social consensus is necessary to guide forest management decisions (Parkins, 2006). The possibility of any hegemonic attempt or discursive practice to frame the issue at stake will be counterweighted by declaring

Can Forest Management in Protected Areas Produce New Risk Situations?

(October 2009), pp. 340–347, ISSN 1389-9341

ISSN 03007839

6226

509-531, ISSN 0959-3543

ISSN 0894-1920

1122, ISSN 0264-8377

1389-9341

A Mixed-Motive Perspective from the Dadia-Soufli-Lefkimi Forest National Park, Greece 251

Arts, B. & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions - A discursive-institutional

Badia, A.; Saurí, D.; Cerdan, R. & Llurdés, J.-C. (2002). Causality and management of forest

Berman Arévalo, E. & Ros-Tonen, M. A. F. (2009). Discourses, Power Negotiations and

Berninger, K., Adamowicz, W., Kneeshaw, D., & Messier, C. (2010). Sustainable forest

Borchers, J. G. (2005). Accepting uncertainty, assessing risk: Decision quality in managing

Bradley, B. S. & Morss, J. R. (2002). Social construction in a world at risk: Toward a

Brechin, S. R.; Wilshusen, P. R.; Fortwangler, C. L. & West, P. C. (2002). Beyond the square

Buizer, M. & Van Herzele, A. (in press). Combining deliberative governance theory and

Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A stateof-the-art review. *Tourism Geographies*,

Carvalho-Ribeiro, S. M.; Lovett, A. & O'Riordan, T. (2010). Multifunctional forest

Catsadorakis, G. (2010). The history of conservation efforts for the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli

Catsadorakis, G., Kati, V., Liarikos, C., Poirazidis, K., Skartsi, Th., Vasilakis, D., &

Vol.211, No.1-2 (June 2005), pp. 36–46, ISSN 0378-1127

Vol.1, No.1 (February 1999), pp, 7 – 25, ISSN 1461-6688

pp. 241-252. WWF-Greece, ISBN 978-960-7506-10-8, Athens

*Hazards*, Vol.4, No.1 (March 2002), pp. 23–32, ISSN 1464-2867

analysis of global forest governance. *Forest Policy and Economics*, Vol.11, No.5-6

fires in Mediterranean environments: an example from Catalonia. *Environmental* 

Indigenous Political Organization in Forest Partnerships: The Case of Selva de Matavén, Colombia. *Human Ecology*, Vol.37, No.6 (December 2009), pp. 733–747,

management preferences of interest groups in three regions with different levels of industrial forestry: An exploratory attribute-based choice experiment. *Environmental Management*, Vol.46, No.1 (July 2010), pp. 117–133, ISSN 0364152X Bernués, A.; Riedel J. L.; Asensio, M. A.; Blanco, M.; Sanz, A.; Revilla, R. & Casasús, I. (2005).

An integrated approach to studying the role of grazing livestock systems in the conservation of rangelands in a protected natural park (Sierra de Guara, Spain). *Livestock Production Science*, Vol.96, No.1 (September 2005), pp. 75–85, ISSN 0301-

wildfire, forest resource values, and new technology. *Forest Ecology and Management*

psychology of experience. Theory and Psychology, Vol.12, No.4 (August 2002), pp.

wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. *Society and Natural Resources*, Vol.15, No.1, pp. 41-64,

discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans. *Forest Policy and Economics*, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.02.012, ISSN

management in Northern Portugal: Moving from scenarios to governance for sustainable development. *Land Use Policy*, Vol.27, No.4 (October 2010), pp. 1111–

Forest National Park. In: *The Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, Greece: Biodiversity, Management and Conservation*, Catsadorakis, G., & Källander, H. (Eds.),

Karavellas, D. (2010). Conservation and management issues for the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park. In: *The Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, Greece:* 

willingness to reach an agreement (Van Gossum et al., 2011) and being committed to support the final decision, against which negotiating social actors will be held accountable (Brechin et al., 2002).

'Final' in this case does not imply the possibility of any permanent solution but wishes to denote the outcome of a process, which will guide forest management for a certain period of time within a culture of experimentation. The final decision will always be marked by its temporary character, being subject to scrutiny and critical reappraisal. Within this frame, deliberation has to be considered as an incomplete process under the need of regular revision (Buizer & Van Herzele, in press), which is perfectly compatible with adaptive management. The mixed-motive perspective can be used for scenario analysis and planning, which is a tool for assessing alternative strategies under conditions of uncertainty and for guiding adaptive management (Swart et al., 2004; Von Detten, 2011). Different scenarios can be developed as narrative descriptions of alternative hypothetical futures especially when managers cannot anticipate future conditions by extrapolating from past trends (Daconto & Sherpa, 2010). In these scenarios, all affected social actors will have the opportunity to claim their participation.
