External Conflict frame

According to the External Conflict frame, ENGOs did and do play a major role in the old-growth forest conflict. In fact, according to this frame, it is the ENGOs and their

“unreasonable” and “selfish” demands that were, and continue to be, the root cause of the conflict. While there may have been difficulties between the Forestry Division and NHS in the beginning, they would never have caused such problems to the extent that the campaigns by ENGOs have. The name given to this frame in this study –External Conflict – refers to two aspects. First, the conflict is considered external to Metsähallitus:

reconciliation between forestry and nature conservation would have been possible within Metsähallitus without major disagreements, if the resolution of the issue had been up to them. Those at the higher levels of the hierarchy within Metsähallitus underline the importance of several forms of co-operation between the units. There is the Executive Group consisting of the Heads of the different Units at the main office, an informal co-operation group between the Forestry Division and NHS in the head office, as well as regional co-operation between the regional Heads of Units. In addition to these come all the joint planning processes, most importantly LEP and NHS. However, according to this frame the internal agreement within Metsähallitus does not help, because what the conflict ultimately concerns is the conflicting views of the ENGOs on one hand and of forestry-dependent local and regional actors, on the other. What is really at stake in the conflict is the timber harvest and procurement that matter to the local employment and economy. Exaggerated nature conservation thus threatens the possibilities of the local people to make a living from forestry and in the forest industry.

Second, the conflict is external in the sense that the groups causing it are not from Kainuu. In particular, Greenpeace and Nature League, who have been responsible for the majority of the direct actions, lack local or regional associations and are therefore labelled within this frame as “outsiders” to the entire Kainuu forest debate. According to this frame, the current conflict, or levels of protection, would not exist if the people in Kainuu had the opportunity to decide amongst themselves how to use the forests.

The characterisation frame depicts ENGOs as narrow-minded and untrustworthy, because they are perceived as uninterested in the impacts of their actions and demands on other people. They are not willing to compromise, and do not respect the agreements achieved in legitimate processes, such as the protection programmes, NRPs and LEPs.

In particular, the ENGOs are considered ignorant of the needs of the local people in Kainuu. Not surprisingly, this frame concludes that there is no mutual trust between Metsähallitus and ENGOs. Greenpeace and Nature League are particularly disliked. This view is not restricted to Kainuu, but found equally in the interviews carried out at the main office of Metsähallitus. One of the interviewees explains:

“It bothers me personally many times that, that, environmental groups describe us [Metsähallitus], of course in order to achieve certain goals and purposes, to the world in a way that maybe somewhere in Namibia one can find as heavy destructors of nature as we are here in Finland. But if we think of everything Metsähallitus has done in this issue, and how it manages these issues, there is no other actor who would do it as well. But environmental organisations can never say a positive thing, how things are done really well in Finland, and that we are the top in developing these things. And when we all the time get mud on our faces on this issue, that nothing, nothing is done right, then it cannot lead to anything else than that you are always clenching your fists in your pockets when

you’re talking to these people. And we can never expect anything else from them except extremely negative, even distorted from our perspective, that’s how we experience it all the time. There is no hope for co-operation, none whatsoever.”

(FDT0)

Since the problem is considered external to Metsähallitus, the conflict management frame also emphasises solutions that involve the stakeholders, and seek to strike a balance between their needs. To meet the full extent of the ENGO demands is considered an impossible way to resolve the conflict, because that would leave many other stakeholders dissatisfied.

Therefore, the External Conflict frame underlines the importance of involving ENGOs in participatory processes where the groups hear the views of the other stakeholder groups. It is hoped that the communication between the groups will lead to an understanding that the conflict is not about the views of one stakeholder group against Metsähallitus, but the views of one stakeholder group against the other. By participating in the stakeholder working groups the ENGOs are hoped to notice to what extent their views are supported and to what extent they do not enjoy broad support in the local community. This interpretation of how to manage the conflicts is also the official policy of Metsähallitus and MAF (e.g. Loikkanen et al. 999; Piiparinen & Kotisaari 006).

The role of Metsähallitus in conflict management is, from this perspective, to act as a facilitator between the conflicting external interests (identity frame). Old-Growth Forest Protection Programmes, Landscape Ecological Planning and Natural Resource Planning have all sought to balance the different uses and conservation of the forests and they are considered as major steps forward in managing the conflicts and in achieving sustainable forestry. While interviewees adhering to this frame are of the opinion that enough forest has already been protected, they do not doubt that ENGOs disagree with this view. They refer to the amount of state forests in Kainuu that have been excluded from forestry and point out that it is higher than in most other parts of the country. Clearly, it cannot be the responsibility of Kainuu alone to take on the responsibility for biodiversity conservation in Finland.

Nature conservation is recognised as an important task for Metsähallitus, but additional forest conservation is perceived as contrary to the views of the majority of people living in Kainuu and in conflict with providing the local people with jobs and supplying the local wood and paper industry with timber. It is also pointed out that Metsähallitus needs to provide profit to the State Budget. Metsähallitus is frequently compared with “other forest companies” that it needs to compete with. At the same time Metsähallitus is considered more environmentally progressive than the other forest companies. The value of NHS is seen in this light: it gives the Forestry Division a competitive benefit as the manager of state forests in comparison to some other organisations. If the State was purely looking for a timber production organisation, maybe someone else could do it more profitably?

Or maybe Metsähallitus could be an easier target for international pressure for forest protection if it did not have NHS?

When assessing how well Metsähallitus has succeeded in dealing with the old-growth forest conflicts, there are two different variations of the External Conflict frame (Table 9.).

According to the more optimistic Success Story frame, Metsähallitus has been the forerunner of public participation and of integration between timber production and nature conservation, both in its organisational structure – by combining NHS and the Forestry Division - and in its planning and forest management practices. Overall, the new Metsähallitus with its equal emphasis on ecological and economic aspects of forest use,

EXTERNAL CONFLICT Local Distress Success Story

Conflict frame The conflict is about nature conservation versus regional employment and well being provided by forestry.

The conflict is about the unreasonable demands of ENGOs against nationally and locally negotiated balance between nature conservation and employment.

The internal conflict between nature

conservation and forestry is still bubbling under.

There was an internal conflict within MH but since LEP those conflicts have been resolved. Now the co-operation is close and the units well integrated, despite some conflict between the goals.

Identity frame Metsähallitus is part of forestry sector and industry.

“Other forest companies”

Critical towards MH as an employer (“they”).

Has left the employers alone with difficulties.

Strong commitment to Metsähallitus (“we”)

Characterization of NGOs

ENGOs are narrow-minded and selfish.

The only way to satisfy ENGOs is to do exactly as they say.

There is no mutual trust between ENGOs and FD.

CM frame process Public participation in all levels.NRP in Kainuu.

But few people are interested locally and PP does not seem to help with “external” ENGOs.

Public participation in all levels.

NRP in Kainuu. Dialogue process with ENGOs. Metsähallitus has been the forerunner in Finland, participatory planning has been developed voluntarily.

CM frame substance

Old Growth Forest Protection Programs, Landscape Ecological Plans, Natural Resource Plans, new forest management methods, environmental guidelines, certification.

CM frame Measure of success

Feedback from stakeholders: no news is good news;

open conflicts mean we have failed.

Amount of forests excluded from commercial forestry.

Table 9. Two variations of the External Conflict frame, called ‘Local Distress’ and ‘Success Story’

and the new, collaborative planning system, are considered as great successes to which there is no comparison in Europe or even in the world. The fact that the conflicts with ENGOs remain, despite the alleged success story, is explained with the unreasonable demands of the uncompromising ENGOs. No planning system could have succeeded in satisfying the ENGOs, without selling out the needs of all other stakeholders.. ENGOs’

accusations that the profit targets restrict conservation or multiple use are rejected as ungrounded accusations. ENGOs are defined as an exception to the rule, where the majority of participants and stakeholders are content with the way Metsähallitus is operating. Those interviewees framing the conflict management as a success story show a strong commitment to Metsähallitus and are proud of its achievements. They are people employed in mid and high level positions in the Forestry Division or in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

I have named the more pessimistic version of the External conflict frame Local Distress, because this frame portrays the situation as largely unsustainable for the forestry planners working at the local level. While this frame also puts the primary blame on ENGOs, NHS is still perceived to an extent as a threat, because any joint projects with NHS are likely to lead to reductions in the amount of forests available for commercial forestry.

While both the Success Story frame and the Local Distress frame include scepticism as to the possibilities of ever reaching an agreement, or forest peace with the more radical ENGOs, the difference is that according to the Local Distress frame, Metsähallitus leadership has dealt poorly with the situation and left the local planners to face it alone.

When areas that have been planned for harvesting have been “frozen” abruptly, based on on-going conflicts or processes to define new set aside areas, the forestry planners have had to quickly find new areas. What is worse, is that a number of the staff members of the Forestry Division were laid off due to cost reductions around the same time as the old-growth forest conflicts began in mid-990s.

“...the remaining organisation was forced to very quickly find wood elsewhere, and it was a completely unreasonable request, and nobody paid any attention to it.”(FDK)

Another planner recalls how, for instance, during the Laamasenvaara dispute, the harvesters were moved between logging sites to avoid protesting forest activists. And how, despite all the efforts, the activists found the machines and came to stop the logging, and how that resulted in the tree being felled on one of the activists.

“And then when a young girl or a boy, in his twenties or even younger, comes from inside the Ringroad [highway around the capital area, Author’s note], walks on the winter road with the coat open and tells us what to do, that you know nothing, it, it...it is a wonder if people do not explode.[...] so the harvester contractor reached a limit, his tolerance was out.” (FDK)

Overall, the local planners of the Forestry Division describe a trend of declining resources and a tendency to delegate more and more demanding tasks to lower and lower levels in the organisation. This has led to a situation where people have less training for the tasks they are assigned to, there are less people out in the forest, and there is less time and resources to carry out the increasingly complex tasks. The amount of people employed in the Forestry Division has decreased, although environmental considerations in planning and the collaboration with stakeholders would require more resources than previously.

One of the planners explains that the commitment the Forestry Division employees

seem to show by staying in the organisation for most of their working lives is more caused by lack of alternative employment in Eastern and Northern Finland, than by real commitment to Metsähallitus.

What frustrates the Forestry Division employees interviewed in Kainuu is the way the local perspectives and the regionally run Natural Resource Plan was ignored when settling the old-growth forest conflict through the Dialogue Process:

“...So first ENGOs were along in the Natural Resource Plan, and when it had been accepted by all, then they distanced themselves from it....and started, started to demand that things are discussed one more time. And now, if the local active people in Kainuu knew this, they do not know yet, I think they would feel humiliated and tell us that the whole participation in NRP is just bullshit, because after the process one party has been accepted to re-negotiate, and they have been given new goals and given in to. And others do not get this chance.”

(FDK )

In contrast to the Success Story frame, the Local Distress frame includes critique towards the economic profit targets set for Metsähallitus. One of the logging planners maintains that the profit targets do in fact constrain the possibilities of reconciling different interests, and also make it tougher for planners to plan enough logging sites on time. He would like to see a bigger gap between what is logged and what is possible to log. On the other hand, creating such a gap would mean even further reductions in harvest levels on the short run.