The climate crisis has increased the demands on Swedish forestry and given fuel to an already polarized debate concerning how Swedish forests should be managed and what constitutes sustainable forestry. Questions of ownership and who should have a say in the matter is at the center of this conflict. This essay examines the topic of ownership in the Swedish forest debate. The argumentation of stakeholders in the debate was analyzed to show which topoi contribute to the conflict and create inertia towards reaching mutual understanding. Thirty-nine opinion articles from Swedish news media, published between April and October 2021, were analyzed through a critical textual analysis. Two primary groupings among the debaters were found: those who argue to strengthen the rights of forest owners, and those who argue for more regulation or conservation. Identified topoi show that emotions and trust play a key role in the conflict. Ways of working with this and possibilities for discursive meeting places are discussed. Making explicit important values, clearly defining important terms, and focusing on the right subject matters are also suggested to enhance possibilities for mutual understanding.

Successful intercultural natural resource management collaboration is challenged by divergent worldviews and power disparities. Studies of non-intercultural collaboration efforts demonstrate that good outcomes emerge when procedural conditions are met, such as fostering open and high-quality deliberations, use of interest-based bargaining techniques and collective definition of the scope of the process. The applicability of these procedural conditions to intercultural collaboration efforts, such as negotiations between Aboriginal people, government resource managers and sustainable forest license holders, has not been explored. The aim of this thesis is to examine the outcomes and factors influencing two intercultural collaborations in the northeast region of Ontario. Semi-structured interviews with collaboration participants, negotiation meeting minutes and draft agreements are used as data sources. Following a general inductive coding approach and using QSR NVivo 2, the analysis of outcomes in both cases highlights improvements in relationships, increased understanding among the parties and the gradual definition of the scope of the negotiation. The findings also demonstrate that several barriers, including a lack of clear policy and legislative framework for collaboration and different definitions of the problem discourage intercultural collaboration. In one negotiation process, frequent and high quality deliberations, using an interest-based negotiation approach, and efforts to mutually define the scope of the negotiation prior to substantive negotiation do not overcome these systemic barriers to collaboration. However, in another negotiation process, the social and relational characteristics of the community and participants do contribute to the parties recognizing their interdependence, focusing on shared goals and undertaking joint action. This research demonstrates that the development of shared goals and acknowledgement of divergent problem definitions are more important to intercultural collaboration success than the development of improved relationships and establishing a mutually acceptable scope prior to collaboration. In the absence of a supportive legislative basis for the distribution of forest decision-making authority and responsibilities, this understanding of how Aboriginal, government and forest industry participants can collaborate is useful for developing more effective and equitable intercultural collaboration.

Successful intercultural natural resource management collaboration is challenged by divergent worldviews and power disparities. Studies of non-intercultural collaboration efforts demonstrate that good outcomes emerge when procedural conditions are met, such as fostering open and high-quality deliberations, use of interest-based bargaining techniques and collective definition of the scope of the process. The applicability of these procedural conditions to intercultural collaboration efforts, such as negotiations between Aboriginal people, government resource managers and sustainable forest license holders, has not been explored. The aim of this thesis is to examine the outcomes and factors influencing two intercultural collaborations in the northeast region of Ontario. Semi-structured interviews with collaboration participants, negotiation meeting minutes and draft agreements are used as data sources. Following a general inductive coding approach and using QSR NVivo 2, the analysis of outcomes in both cases highlights improvements in relationships, increased understanding among the parties and the gradual definition of the scope of the negotiation. The findings also demonstrate that several barriers, including a lack of clear policy and legislative framework for collaboration and different definitions of the problem discourage intercultural collaboration. In one negotiation process, frequent and high quality deliberations, using an interest-based negotiation approach, and efforts to mutually define the scope of the negotiation prior to substantive negotiation do not overcome these systemic barriers to collaboration. However, in another negotiation process, the social and relational characteristics of the community and participants do contribute to the parties recognizing their interdependence, focusing on shared goals and undertaking joint action. This research demonstrates that the development of shared goals and acknowledgement of divergent problem definitions are more important to intercultural collaboration success than the development of improved relationships and establishing a mutually acceptable scope prior to collaboration. In the absence of a supportive legislative basis for the distribution of forest decision-making authority and responsibilities, this understanding of how Aboriginal, government and forest industry participants can collaborate is useful for developing more effective and equitable intercultural collaboration.