Locals tackling the challenges of peripheries

Crises stemming from the ecological unsustainability of society are shaking the world and various communities one after another. For example, crises related to the sufficiency of energy and natural resources as well as global warming are often addressed short-sightedly, driven by self-interest and selective use of expert knowledge. Decisions do not genuinely take into account citizen participation, even though their effects are felt far from the decision-making centers in the everyday lives of ordinary people. What kinds of factors should a sustainable future be built upon in different contexts? What should decision-makers understand about the needs and conditions of different regions and communities to build a sustainable life? 

The Kestävyysmurroksen marginaalit (’Sustainability transformation from the margins’) Argumenta project explores these questions during 2023 and 2024 by organizing, among other things, three separate events consisting of citizen workshops and expert seminars across Finland. These events approach the sustainability transformation and its associated marginalities from various themes, bringing together different citizen perspectives and expert knowledge. The first events were held at the end of August 2023 in Lieksa and Joensuu. In the Lieksa citizen workshop, eight local participants were invited to reflect on current and future global and local changes in land and natural resource use, and their potential impacts on the future of life in Lieksa. The seminar held the following day in Joensuu focused on the impacts of changes in natural resources use and labor in peripheral areas. What perspectives did these events provide on the challenges of peripheral regions and how to address them?  

Remoteness as both a challenge and a luxury in the middle of change  

Participants in the first citizen workshop associated many qualities with Lieksa that they particularly valued and considered worth preserving. ’The luxury of Lieksa’ was said to include clean nature, space, silence, and a sense of community. A wide range of current and potential future societal changes were identified. These factors of change were seen as posing many threats to Lieksa, but also as offering new opportunities—though the ability of Lieksa and its residents to take advantage of these opportunities was often questioned in the discussions.  

Securing food supply and self-sufficiency in food production were seen as essential.

Many of the changes were linked to the potential for increasing Lieksa’s societal significance and the emergence of new societal functions. Climate change was feared to bring new challenges to nature, but at the same time, it was believed that a longer growing season could improve conditions for agriculture and hunting in Lieksa. Securing food supply and achieving self-sufficiency in food production were seen as essential in a situation where food might no longer be available for import due to increasing social conflicts and climate change. In this vision, Lieksa was believed to become an important agricultural area. On the other hand, the potential halting of the Gulf Stream and the transformation of Lieksa’s climate into a ’Siberian climate’ were seen as possible risks, but at the same time, growing opportunities for winter tourism were also recognized.  

Based on the discussions held in the Lieksa workshop, the region suffers from similar peripheral issues as those identified in the Margistar project, presented by Juha Hiedanpää at the Joensuu seminar, concerning remote mountainous areas. These fundamental challenges of peripherality—such as population decline, weak service infrastructure, limited access to cultural services, land use conflicts, and accessibility issues—can, in times of change, hinder a region’s ability to adapt and renew itself.

Fears of loss

The green transition was seen as holding future potential through technological and skills development, alongside a growing appreciation for local natural resources. This was believed to foster new innovations—such as methane-based fuels and wood fiber textiles—that could benefit Lieksa, provided that the region could retain control over its resources and their processing. However, perceptions of both external and local decision-makers, as well as their motives and capabilities, were often quite blunt: a recurring concern among participants was that Lieksa would be relegated to mere extraction of minerals and biomass, leaving behind only environmental destruction for the local population. This vision was seen as a natural continuation of the current situation, where local industry has disappeared and raw materials are exported elsewhere—or, as one participant put it, ”companies come from abroad, do the work, and take the profits with them.” There was also concern that nature might already be so damaged that it may not recover, even if attitudes and practices were to change in the future. 

Who should be compensated—and how—when a specific industry and its jobs are shut down due to the environmental harm it causes

As Lauri Lahikainen highlighted in his seminar presentation, the sustainability transformation inevitably leads to the phasing out or radical transformation of certain industries and livelihoods. This raises societal questions about responsibilities related to the social and ecological impacts of these sectors, and the need for compensation. The key question often revolves around who should be compensated—and how—when a specific industry and its jobs are shut down due to the environmental harm it causes. However, the Lieksa workshop discussions also challenged participants to consider the reverse: who should be compensated—and how—if the pursuit of economic benefits from a particular industry leads to environmental degradation, the loss of valued qualities in residents’ living environments, and the undermining of other potential livelihoods and future development paths in the area. Maintaining the quality of the region and its environment, and proactively developing alternative options to adapt to societal changes, could be a more economically and socially sustainable approach than reactive compensation after the fact.  

Alternative futures 

As an alternative development path to growth-oriented raw material production, participants envisioned a more fundamental disruption of societal structures. This would lead to resource scarcity, significant structural changes in the economy and trade, and a redefinition of wellbeing. This post-growth trajectory was seen as potentially leading to a reorganization of society or local communities—such as the rise of sharing economies and direct sales, restrictions on ownership rights, reduced consumption, and a return to traditional uses of nature. Positive aspects of this path included increased appreciation for traditional skills, the environment, and available resources, as well as greater solidarity and community spirit, as people would be compelled to tolerate and cooperate with one another.  

Picture: Emmi Salmivuori

In some perspectives, declining consumption and population were also seen as supporting the preservation of Lieksa’s valued qualities, such as harmony, peace, and ”the opportunity for magnificent nature experiences.” One participant noted, ”It’s not necessarily a bad thing if a place doesn’t grow.” In less radical visions, the ongoing cultural shift in society and growing environmental awareness among people were seen as offering positive future potential for Lieksa. Appreciation for local production, responsibility, and clean nature was expected to increase. This was hoped to lead to, for example, new forest management practices, domestic control over raw material production, more environmentally conscious land-use planning, and the creation of genuinely local jobs and benefits in Lieksa.  

Cooperation and inclusive work culture support positive future visions 

Due to changing societal values, the rise of remote work, and migration driven by war and climate change, it was anticipated that new residents might move to Lieksa from Central and Southern Europe. However, participants questioned how attractive Lieksa would truly appear to newcomers if they had the freedom to choose where to relocate. Doubts were raised about whether local decision-makers understand—or even want to understand—Lieksa’s strengths and future potential amid ongoing transitions, and whether current decisions are supporting or undermining those future possibilities.

Areas for improvement were identified in Lieksa’s service infrastructure, accessibility, and cooperation between residents and various stakeholders. Participants felt that Lieksa’s unique characteristics and environmental potential should be made visible beyond the region so that potential newcomers could recognize the opportunities, create new activities based on them, and contribute to the area’s development. As one participant put it, ”Not everything needs to be ready or decided for the newcomers—let them decide what they want.” 

Transforming work culture to be more diverse, inclusive, and community-oriented. 

The definition of work was seen as facing pressure for change. In his seminar presentation, Lauri Lahikainen emphasized the importance of work in fostering experiences of meaning, uniqueness, community, and participation. Workshop participants also felt it was important that everyone in Lieksa should have the opportunity to participate, act, and find meaning— regardless of their background—rather than, for example, young people and immigrants being marginalized and left dependent on social support due to an overly restrictive work culture. Perhaps transforming the work culture to be more diverse, inclusive, and community-oriented could help peripheral regions adapt to change and create new opportunities for living, working, and contributing to the construction of local identity. 

EMMI SALMIVUORI AND ANNA MUSTONEN

Header photo: Emmi Salmivuori