Summary:

Heikki Roiko-Jokela, The Forest Conflict of Murhijärvi

Center and periphery are concepts that are often used when studying different interrelations. They are used also in studies on Finnish forest-conflicts. The assumption in the research of forest-conflicts is that different groups have different ideas of the environment and of the interaction between man and nature. The points of departure of these groups are very different and behind their actions there were also different values, attitudes, images and information.

In this article I explain shortly, what was the matter at issue in the Murhijärvi forest-conflict and bring out the opinions, motives and rationale of arguments of the groups. I consider different visions of threats and alternative solutions from the point of view of the local and state levels as well as analyze the values of the contenders. In the analysis I utilize the theories of conflicts and estimate the social influences of the Murhijärvi forest-conflict in view of center-periphery dualism.

In the case of Murhijärvi the conflict sprang up from the discrepant expectations and aims of use which concerned the area as living environment. The parties of the conflict saw nature and its meaning differently, and consequently, also the motives and aims of their action were in conflict. Also the tensions in the debate and decision-making concerning the nature and aspirations concerning it meet the definitions of the term ‘conflict’.

The case of Murhijärvi is part of the wave of Finnish forest-conflicts from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. The conflict aroused strong feelings and reactions, and it captured also national media. At loggerheads were environmentalists, local people, representatives of culture and the National Board of Forestry. The main issue was protection the old forests and preservation of the ‘ancient culture of Kalevala’.