Ad hoc Dialogue Process between Metsähallitus, FANC and WWF

The campaign the ENGOs had driven since the early990s, to protect the remaining unprotected old-growth forests in Kainuu, continued throughout the second NRP process. Since the new Natural Resource Plan did not increase the amount of protected areas, the disputes regarding old-growth forests remained unaddressed.

In 00 and 00, Greenpeace’s markets campaign was particularly successful in Germany. In the fall of 00, representatives of German publishing houses and of the Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ) visited Kainuu where they met representatives of FANC, Nature League and Greenpeace, as well as ecologists from a regional research institute Friendship Park Research Centre and from Helsinki University.

The recurring visits of the publishing houses, and the consequential inquiries they made to Metsähallitus as to the causes of the endurance of the conflict, were becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. On the other hand the Greenpeace campaign was also causing fierce protests from forestry-dependent actors. A representatives of the Finnish Table 7. Criteria and indications used in assessing the alternatives in the second Natural Resource Planning in Kainuu (Hiltunen & Väisänen 00, ).

PERSPECTIVE CRITERIA (INDICATOR)

Economic Sustainable harvest level (in cubic meters) Net income for the state (million €)

Recreation Area of important recreation areas aged over 80 years (hectares, % of area)

Area of forests under 0 years (hectares, % of land) Nature

conservation Area of conservation areas (in hectares and as % of productive forest land)

Representativeness of the conservation network (grading)

Local economy Direct and indirect employment provided by Metsähallitus in Kainuu (man-years)

Metsähallitus turnover in Kainuu (million €)

private forest owners (MTK) likened Greenpeace to the Nazis, while the representative of wood workers defined Greenpeace as the “al-Qaida of the forest sector” (Suomen Kuvalehti 0..00 )

To deal with the increasing international attention, on December 0 00 Metsähallitus hosted a round-table discussion between ENGOs, ministries, forest industry and their European publishing houses⁵⁹on the issue of old-growth forests in Northern Finland.

WWF and Finnish Association on Nature Conservation (FANC) proposed in the meeting that a working group should be established to supplement the 996 Protection Programme. The German publishing houses said that receiving wood from the disputed areas was a problem and that any solution to the issue would need to include the support of WWF and Greenpeace. Without them, the policies would not have credibility in the international markets.

Despite of these statements, Metsähallitus’ Managing Director Jan Heino commented publicly that the status of forest conservation in Northern Finland was rather good and that the focus should now be on Southern Finland. He pointed out that Metsähallitus could not base its conservation policy on the demands of one stakeholder group. He was confident that the revised Natural Resource Planning – still in progress – would provide improved possibilities for reconciling the many interests. (Metsähallitus press release 0.. 00; Suomen Kuvalehti 0..00.)

Nonetheless, in April 00, representatives of Metsähallitus’ Forestry Division at the main office, Natural Heritage Services in Kainuu, WWF and FANC met in Metsähallitus in order to discuss the proposal put forth by WWF and FANC. It was agreed upon that a new round of negotiations between Metsähallitus, FANC and WWF would be started.

The purpose of the negotiations would be to improve the status of forest conservation in Northern Finland while respecting the rights and views of other stakeholders involved in the planning of state forest use in the area. The long-term goal was to resolve and reduce conflicts related to state forests. The rules of the process were defined and agreed upon together. They included writing mutually adopted protocols, joint media strategy, sharing of data from the forest sites and postponing logging when possible on the sites under discussion. Malahvia, Laamasenvaara and Jämäsvaara were defined as the priority.

After that, the negotiations would address the rest of Kainuu and then work northwards.

(Minutes of the Dialogue Process ..00.)

The following process became known as the Dialogue Process. The parties met every second week. One month later, Metsähallitus, WWF and FANC were able to publish a joint press release announcing that they had reached an agreement on the protection of Malahvia and Jämäsvaara forests. Some of the disputed areas would be released to logging while others were set permanently outside commercial forestry. Both Metsähallitus and the ENGOs expressed their satisfaction for the process and the atmosphere of the negotiations. Metsähallitus anticipated that the negotiations would last until the coming fall. (Metsähallitus joint press release with WWF and FANC .5. 00.)

However, the process turned out to be much longer. In June, FANC and WWF provided Metsähallitus with maps identifying 76 forest sites in Northern Finland, which they wanted to be included in the dialogue (Minutes of the Dialogue Process .6.00).

In the summer, Nature League conducted inventories in the sites, collecting additional information on the endangered species, primarily polypores dependent on decaying wood. In October, MAF sent Metsähallitus a letter urging that the process be opened

59 The publishing houses that attended the meeting included Heinrich Bauer Productions KG, Burda Procurement Centre, Burda GmbH, and the national associations VDZ and VDP. In addition the Swedish furnishing giant IKEA was also present.

up for input from other stakeholders. The group agreed that proposals for protection would be formulated jointly and presented unanimously by Metsähallitus and ENGOs to the enlarged stakeholder group. (Minutes of the Dialogue Process 5.0.00.) The stakeholder meeting was held in February 00. Representatives of altogether 0 different stakeholders were present. The group worked throughout the year of 00, with altogether 0 negotiations. New stakeholder meetings were held in April, September and December 00. The December meeting took place in Kainuu. (Metsähallitus press release 6..00; 8.9.00; 7. 00).

The Dialogue Process had proceeded well, but ran into problems in March 005, when another public hearing was organised in Kemijärvi, Lapland, where the northernmost pulp and paper mill in Finland has been situated. Metsähallitus presented an assessment that would exclude 55 km of forest from commercial use in Kainuu and other parts of Northern Finland and would reduce logging by 70 000 cubic meters annually. This information caused the local timber processing industry in Eastern and Northern Finland to protest. They collected a petition opposed to any further protection of forests, which was signed by the representatives of companies. They varied in size, from family businesses to firms with 60 employees. The petition stated that the undersigned wood processing entrepreneurs

“do not believe that the current on-going process to restrict the use of state-owned commercial forests will bring any benefits to the small and medium-sized wood processing industry or to the people dependent on it for their income.

It has already been seen that the costs of protection are paid by the society and in particular by the local industry and population. They are not paid by the ENGOs or the customers that rely on false information and demand more protection, nor by the large companies that are being pressured, and not to any extent by the ignorant signatories who, blinded by false information, put their names on different letters and petitions.” (Minutes of the National Forest Council meeting /005, Appendix , author’s translation)

The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry reacted immediately by stating that the Dialogue Process had exceeded the limits originally set in terms of duration and scope.

He underlined the duty of Metsähallitus to consider employment and economical development in Northern Finland, and maintained that it was time to end the process.

(Minutes of the National Forest Council meeting /005; Rytteri 006.) Yet nothing in the record of the subsequent meeting between ENGOs and Metsähallitus indicated that the process would end.(Minutes of the Dialogue Process 8.6.005.)

Nonetheless, only some days later Metsähallitus made a press release announcing that its Executive Group had decided to end the Dialogue Process and to set 550 km of productive forestland (000 km of forests and mires) permanently outside commercial use in Northern Finland. Half of the area had already previously been identified as set aside areas as part of Landscape Ecological Planning. According to Metsähallitus, the decision included all those sites that the parties had reached an agreement upon (two thirds of all discussed areas). In the 996 decision to protect old-growth forests in Northern Finland, 5 km of productive forestland had been designated to be protected as part of Landscape Ecological Planning. As a result of the Dialogue Process, the figure was now 550 km. In Kainuu, the process increased the amount of protected productive forestland with 5 km in comparison to the earlier decisions made in LEP.

WWF and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation expressed their disappointment over Metsähallitus’ unilateral decision to end the dialogue. (Minutes of the Dialogue Process .6.005.) FANC nature conservation manager commented:

“We have put a lot of time and effort in these negotiations. Together with WWF we have delivered over 0 000 verified coordinate points of habitats of Threatened and Near Threatened species to Metsähallitus. We could have reached a decision acceptable to all parties but now we have to return to the starting point: an open conflict on old-growth forests. Two years of work will be wasted”

(FANC press release .6.005, author’s translation)

According to Metsähallitus, the dialogue would continue in the Natural Resource Planning processes in different pats of Northern Finland (Metsähallitus press release .6.005.) Metsähallitus explained that during the process it had become apparent that the process would not result in the intended “forest peace” for Northern Finland, because Greenpeace had not accepted the results being achieved in the Dialogue Process. Instead, Greenpeace had continued to demand a logging moratorium for a total of 5000 km of forest. At the same time the National Forest Council, amongst others, had highlighted the need to take into account the other affected stakeholders, such as the local sawmills. (Metsähallitus press release .6.005.) Metsähallitus estimated that its supply of wood in Northern Finland would decrease by 50 000 cubic meters annually due to the Dialogue Process.

This was estimated to cause a direct job loss equivalent to one year’s full-time work for 70 people. (Metsähallitus press release .6.005.)

Metsähallitus informed FANC and WWF it would produce maps where the selected sites would be indicated, and that the ENGOs would be given an opportunity to comment on those maps. WWF joined Metsähallitus in producing the maps, whereas FANC declined the invitation. In February 006, WWF and Metsähallitus held a press conference announcing that an agreement had been reached to complement the 996 decision regarding the protection of old-growth forests in Northern Finland (WWF and Metsähallitus joint press release ..006). The agreement was described by WWF as

“internationally significant”. The press release concluded that

“Bearing in mind also all the previous decisions regarding old-growth forests, the negotiated agreement means that the essential ecological values of old-growth forests situated on state land within the examined area and managed by Metsähallitus have been secured.”(author’s translation)

FANC and Greenpeace welcomed the agreement as a step forward in forest conservation.

However, they called it a partial solution to the problem, highlighting the unresolved issues in Lapland and also to a lesser extent in Kainuu (FANC press release ..006;

Greenpeace press release ..006). Both FANC and Greenpeace considered it necessary to establish statutory conservation areas of the forests included in the agreement.

The decision by Metsähallitus received criticism also from other actors, albeit for different reasons. Several members of the parliament asked the Government how it was possible that Metsähallitus made such a major decision concerning conservation on its own, and what the Government was going to do to safeguard wood procurement for the timber industry in Northern Finland. The implementation of Metsähallitus’

decision also turned out to be somewhat complicated. A representative of MAF pointed out that Metsähallitus could not unilaterally move forests that were registered in its business balance sheet to protected areas. Such a decision would need to be taken by the

Parliament. (Kirjallinen kysymys 60/005, Rytteri 006.) The Provincial Government in Kainuu announced that it objected to any additional forest conservation in Kainuu based on agreement between Metsähallitus and ENGOs and that it opposed to any such an agreement being endorsed by the State. (Kainuun Sanomat 0..007.) At the time of writing this study, the process is still underway.

In 006 and 007, the open confrontations in Kainuu diminished, but intensified in central Lapland.The debate regarding state forestry in Kainuu continued, although with somewhat different focus. 0 active citizens in Kainuu representing nature-based tourism, forestry, research, education, arts and politicians, wrote a petition in January 006 to express their concern for the fate of landscapes and recreation possibilities in state forests. They considered the revised Natural Resource Plan inadequate in terms of preserving and promoting these values, although enhancing recreation had been one of the primary goals of the new plan. The signatories of the petition proposed that important recreational forests and sites with scenic significance would only be selectively logged.

(Kainuulaiset vetoavat metsämaiseman puolesta ..006.)