Forestry frame

How can the obvious inconsistency be explained between the state forest administration’s investment of time and resources to collaborative processes on one hand, and the reluctance to address the fundamental causes of the conflict, on the other? How does the state administration perceive the dynamics of the conflict and its own practices to manage it? What, in fact, is the conflict about? These are the questions to which I will now turn.

“…we operate on the same areas to an extent, that is, reindeer herding and forestry operate on forest-, what we perceive as commercial forestry area. And when we, two such, in the end, different livelihoods operate on the same area…

when we log forest and create logging residue and remove old trees, the tree hanging lichen disappears and the braches cover the ground lichen, it means that the pasture conditions of reindeer herding are weakened in that respect. But what the consequences are on long term and how long they endure is another issue, but in principle, that reindeer herding has […] I mean, reindeer are short of food and we operate on the same areas, and reindeer herding perceives our operations as a significant harm, so that’s where the contradiction comes from.” (FDI08) In addition to balancing local interests regarding land use, underlying national and international causes to the conflict are also identified. These include the Sámi struggle for land rights and the conservation interests of the international environmental movement, in particular Greenpeace. However, in framing the conflict these factors remain secondary, for two reasons. First, the key obstacle to settling the conflict is not perceived to be at national or international level, but in the disagreement among the local people. The challenge in finding the solution is, according to this frame, that the local people simply fiercely disagree. As long as they disagree, it is impossible to find an acceptable solution to whatever national and international issues there are to be dealt with. ⁰ As a MAF representative notes,

“And another thing is that there is no local unanimity there. The Municipality, the workers, are of the opinion that people must have work, and there may be other… I don’t know in how many directions the opinions go. But it has been looked at for a long time, there have been arbitrators and there have been working groups and at this very moment even there is research going on, so all the time there are attempts to find an acceptable compromise.”(MAF 7)

The second reason for downplaying the role of the national and international aspects of the conflict is that the reconciliation between land use interests falls within the tasks of the state forest administration, whereas the national or international issues, such as Sámi land claims for instance, are the responsibility of other authorities, for instance the Ministry of Justice. Likewise, a third factor perceived to underlie the conflict, the overall poor economic profitability of reindeer herding in the Nordic countries, is a problem to be dealt with by the Fisheries and Game Department at MAF, yet another actor within the state apparatus. The balancing of local land use interests dominates this conflict frame in Metsähallitus and the Forestry Department of MAF, because this is the aspect of the conflict the state forest administration has the responsibility to deal with. On the other hand, the national and international factors are at time used as an explanation as to why the conflict management efforts of Metsähallitus are not always working: problems such as Sámi land claims and profitability of reindeer herding cannot be resolved in forestry planning, no matter how well designed the planning process would be. However, even in those cases, the key point remains: what is perceived to be at stake is two local, equally important ways of using the land that provide welfare to the local community.

0 The interviews were made in 00–00, before Greenpeace established its Forest Rescue Station in Inari in 005, which may explain why the role of international NGO campaigns gained relatively little attention in the interviews in proportion to the local disagreements.

This perception of the conflict defines the needs of both reindeer herding and forestry as legitimate and understandable, although the extent of damage from forestry to reindeer herding is considered a contested matter. According to the Forestry frame, the damage caused to reindeer herding by forestry operations is temporary and can be duly managed in forestry planning. It is considered both possible and desirable for logging activities and reindeer herding to co-exist in the same areas. One of the recurring expressions in the interviews is compromise: nobody can have it all, because land use planning is about making compromises. There is a limited amount of old forests left and they are important both as lumber and as pastures. The limited resources make the situation a zero sum or a fixed pie.

Thus, although significant reductions in forestry have been made because the rights of Sámi culture and reindeer herding are important and need to be recognised, the needs of other stakeholders (the majority) restrict the extent to which the views of reindeer herding can be taken into consideration. In particular, the demands of the reindeer herders have to be weighed against the employment of the forestry workers and the wood procurement of the local sawmill, which is considered important for the employment and regional economy in Inari. In the reviewed Natural Resource Plan it is stated that

“Alternative D [based on the proposal by RHCs and Greenpeace] where the planned harvest level would be around 70 000 m/year would reduce jobs by the equivalent of 6 full-time jobs (from 87 to 6). Such a significant reduction in harvest levels will cause changes in the structure and practices of forestry that will further reduce the amount of jobs in forestry and timber sector in Inari. For instance, a steady and year round supply of timber would no longer be possible.” (Sihvo et al. 006, 68, author’s translation)

In addition, this frame includes an economic argument as to why the demands of reindeer herders cannot be fully carried out. As a state enterprise, Metsähallitus needs to be profitable in its forestry operations. While the annual profit target for Inari/Northern Lapland is not high, the expenses of the Forestry Division nonetheless need to be covered with the income from timber production. On the other hand, the frame downplays the role of the State’s budgetary interests as a driving force in the conflict and emphasises that state forestry in Inari is primarily practiced because of the benefits in generates to the local community in terms of employment and welfare.

This identity frame implies that Metsähallitus is a ‘conciliator’ between different local interests. As such, Metsähallitus is portrayed as an organisation that ‘looks at the big picture’ and seeks an optimal solution to the conflict from everyone’s perspective, as a neutral party. As a Forestry Division employee at the head quarters defined it:

“In my view, Metsähallitus always aims to look at the whole, that there are this many different views and out of them we just have to create a joint view and a whole, so that the package still works, that we still can say, I mean, that we can live and operate and be a part of this.” (FDT0)

On the other hand, Metsähallitus – and particularly the Forestry Division – is also perceived to have a vested interest in the conflict as one of the users of the contested forests. However, it is an interested party to the conflict not because it would want benefits for the organisation, but because it generates them to the local community.

It is not surprising to the interviewees adhering to the Forestry frame that reindeer herders are not satisfied with the extent of reconciliation between reindeer herding and forestry. The people working on a daily basis with the reconciliation are themselves aware of the problems and shortcomings of collaboration and conflict settlement so far, and wonder what could be done to improve the situation. While the representatives of reindeer herding are, according to this frame, capable of assessing the consequences of forestry on herding, their assessment is considered but one side of the story. Herders look at issue from their narrow, albeit legitimate, perspective.

The characterisation frame for the herders, then, is that of a typical interest group.

Some of the interviewees who frame the conflict as balancing of local interests were understanding of the demands of the herders and regretted the tragic situation with scarce resources, whereas others labelled the demands as selfish and short-sighted. It general, the interviewees recognised that there was no mutual trust between reindeer herders and Metsähallitus Forestry Division, although some maintained that the majority was content and that the conflict was about a few loud “individual herders” making a noise. The expression “some of the herders” is also used in the Report MAF has produced regarding collaborative processes in state forest use, implying that only a minority of herders are dissatisfied (Piiparinen & Kotisaari 006, 5). This view ignores the fact that the concerns have in fact been raised by at least four RHCs in Inari as their formal position, and that these positions have been adopted in the annual meetings or in board meetings of the RHCs.

In consistency with the conflict frame, local and regional collaborative planning is perceived as the key procedural tool for the prevention and mitigation of conflicts. Natural Resource Planning is the process where all the interested stakeholders can meet, provide their input, and learn about each other’s interests. The Regional Advisory Committees as well as Municipal Co-operation Groups are also part of the participatory toolkit at the local (Inari) and regional (Lapland) levels. The needs of reindeer herding and Sámi culture in general are, according to this frame, a high priority in Metsähallitus decision-making, although Metsähallitus does not use an ethnic criteria for prioritising the needs of the stakeholders. Instead, the status of different stakeholders is based on their dependence on the resources: the needs and interests of tourists and visitors are subordinate to those of the local population. Within the local population, those who are directly dependent on the natural resources, such as RHCs and the representatives of other traditional livelihoods⁰, are given priority over others. Consequently, the consultations with reindeer herding co-operatives (and the Sámi Parliament) are perceived as higher status than the input of

“regular” local interest groups, let alone of non-local actors.

The way to assess whether the balancing act between the livelihoods has been carried out fairly and successfully is, according to the Forestry frame, to compare the current geographical scope and harvest levels of commercial forestry on state land to what they have been in the past or what they could theoretically be if defined purely on the basis of sustained wood procurement. The extent to which forestry operations have been reduced from the potential maximum either in terms of area or of harvest levels illustrates the reconciliation between forestry and herding. The most commonly used geographical scope in doing such an assessment is Northern Lapland region, which is the operative unit for the Forestry Division. Commercial forestry is practiced on 9 – 0 % of the total land area in Northern Lapland, and on 8 % of the productive forestland (see Map ).

103 In Finnish, luontaiselinkeinot

The annual regeneration loggings (final felling) cover only 0. % of the total productive forest area. State harvest levels reached their record high in 980 when the annual harvest was 70 000 m (Luhta 999, 75). Since then, the harvest levels have decreased more than by half.

Alternatively, the extent of forestry vis-à-vis reindeer herding is assessed as the percentage of the total land area of each co-operative that is used for commercial forests. These percentages vary between and 50 (Table ). Such a geographical scope is most often presented simultaneously with the Northern Lapland perspective in formal documents such as the Natural Resource Plans. It is clearly less common in the press/website material in Finnish and non-existent in the material in English.

The conclusion from this assessment is essentially the same as that of looking at the situation on the regional scale: the compromises made by forestry have been substantial and hence reindeer herding has been given adequate consideration. According to the Forestry frame, this has been proved by the numerous national and international court rulings (Metsähallitus press releases 9.5.005; 07..005; 0..005; Korhonen 005). It is questionable whether further reductions to forestry would be reasonable or fair, or lead to any noteworthy improvements for reindeer herding:

“What is significant harm then? If 90 percent of the land area of a co-operative is already excluded from commercial forestry, should forestry be restricted on the remaining 0 percent as well? […] How well have we succeeded in it, if you compare that the harvest -- or the harvest calculations in Natural Resource Plan, without the agreed upon restrictions based on the input from reindeer herding through public participation. So there would be 0 to 0 percent more logging.

So this is for multiple use, whether it has been taken into consideration. And conservation in addition to that.” (FDT0)

Map . The relevant geographical scale for assessing reconciliation between reindeer herding and forestry according to the Forestry frame.

According to this frame, the profitability of the forestry operations is a key source of legitimacy for forestry in Inari. It would make no sense to harvest logs with taxpayers’

money. To be able to operate profitably, it is maintained that forestry requires sufficient forest areas. This is why, according to this frame, it is impossible to reduce further the area of forests available for timber production.

There are some aspects where it is possible to distinguish different variations of the Forestry frame. I have identified three variations and call them ‘Profitable Forestry for Local Benefits’, ‘Marginal Dispute’, and ‘Over-grazing is to Blame’. Each will be described below, and summarised in Table .

Profitable Forestry for Local Benefits is the frame that is apparent, particularly in the way the local staff of the Forestry Division in Inari describe the conflict. This frame highlights commitment towards the local community as a motivation for all the choices made in order to mitigate the conflict between reindeer herding and forestry.

Some of the local Metsähallitus’ representatives even explicitly say that they work for the local people more than they work for Metsähallitus. For them, the whole meaning of forestry operations in Inari is to provide the local people with employment and hence the community with a future. Profitability of forestry is not interpreted as a threat to the local needs. On the contrary, profitability brings continuity to the operations and hence prosperity to the local community, either directly or by providing income to the state budget that funds the welfare state. This frame also underlines the duty of Metsähallitus locally or regionally to take responsibility for resolving the conflicts, in so far as it has the formal authority to make decisions. Interviewees adhering to this frame describe in detail the different attempts to mitigate the adverse impacts of forestry on reindeer herding, which have been developed in Northern Lapland. These include new forest management methods, timing of logging, and dividing the harvest quota among the RHC areas so that possible delays or reductions in timber harvesting on one RHCs area do not cause increase in another’s area.

Table 13. The amount of commercial forests per RHC in those RHCs in Inari in which commercial state forestry is practiced (Northern Lapland Natural Resource Plan 000, 8).

Reindeer herding

co-operative Total land

area, km² Commercial

forests, km² Forests in restricted commercial use, km²

% of all commercial forests

Hammastunturi 60 00 0

Ivalo 50 0 50 50

Muddusjärvi 00 00 0 6

Muotkatunturi 80 0 0 6

Sallivaara 860 70 0

Paatsjoki 650 0 0 9

Total 12700 1970 580 20

Name of frame PROFITABLE FORESTRY

FOR LOCAL BENEFITS MARGINAL

DISPUTE OVER-GRAZING IS TO BLAME Conflict frame The conflict is about balancing two locally important livelihoods.

In the background there are national and international-level issues related to Sámi land rights and international ENGO conservation interests. Poor profitability of reindeer herding is also blamed on forestry.

This is an issue of utmost importance (for the local community).

The issue is marginal (from the national perspective).

Over-sized reindeer herds are the real problem in the conflict.

Identity frame Metsähallitus FD aims at reconciling multiple, conflicting local interests. State forestry operations provide local people with benefits and welfare and the state with a profitable enterprise.

Metsähallitus at local level is a decision-maker (within limits).

Characterisation frames/ reindeer herding

Herders think of their own interests, but state forest administration needs to look at everyone’s interests. Herders’ demands are selfish, and would lead to everyone’s ruin, including reindeer herding.

There is no mutual trust between the representatives of reindeer herding and Metsähallitus. There are some individuals who are making trouble, majority is satisfied.

Characterisation frames/Sámi Parliament

It is almost impossible to get Sámi Parliament’s acceptance to the forest management plans.

CM frame process Collaborative planning, regular consultations.

CM frame

substance Overlapping use of the same areas New forestry methods,

timing of logging, harvest quota per RHC.

CM frame relevant

scale Northern Lapland/Inari

Total land area of a RHC CM frame measure

of success Amount of area/harvest potential excluded from forestry

Table 14. Three variations of the Forestry frame: ‘Profitable Forestry for Local Benefits’,

‘Marginal Dispute’, and ‘Over-grazing is to Blame’

The Marginal Dispute frame is in most aspects similar to the Profitable Forestry for Local Benefits frame, but there are some important differences in defining the conflict and in identifying those responsible for dealing with it. In the case of the Marginal Dispute frame, ‘local’ conflict means the same as ‘remote’ or ‘marginal’. In part this is explained by the simple fact that the interviewees with this frame are either from Metsähallitus headquarters or from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and hence Inari is far away from where they sit. But remoteness is not only a physical attribute in the frame, it also describes the level of priority of the issue. Inari with its northern conditions, fells, lumberjacks, reindeers and Sámi people is an unusual case, an anomaly in the average forestry professional’s mental and physical landscape in Finland. It is at the same time as being difficult and marginal, it is something that people with the Marginal Dispute frame clearly do not want to have on their table.

Consequently, while the state forest administration is the decision-maker in the dispute, it is Metsähallitus “up there” who must deal with the issue, not people “here”

(identity frame). This way of framing the dispute is reflected in how the interviewees from the Forestry Division in the headquarters and in MAF emphasise that the regional/local offices in Metsähallitus play in fact a key decision-making role in state forest administration and have much more power than people often think. For instance, when asked about whether anyone at the head office of Metsähallitus is working on the issues related to reindeer herding, one of the Forestry Division managers replied that the responsibility is solely at the regional level:

“FDI0: It [reindeer herding] is just one issue among many within the normaloperations, but regional chiefs are surely the ones who lead these collaborative negotiations […]

KR: So it is seen as an issue where the scope is such that it can be dealt with there…?

FDI0: Or rather it is such a big issue that it must not be taken to Tikkurila [head office].

KR: Okay, can you clarify that logic?

FDI0: Well why the heck should we start addressing reindeer herding issues, it is a northern issue. There is no such wisdom here, it is purely a local issue up there.”(FDI0)

Also in this frame, Sámi struggle for land rights, low profitability of reindeer herding and nature conservation interest are perceived as underlying causes for the dispute. But just like the balancing of the local livelihoods, these issues too are to be dealt with by

“somebody else”: by the Ministry of Justice (land rights), Ministry of Environment (nature conservation), or by another department at MAF (subsidies to reindeer herding).

Since the resolution of the conflict is not considered one’s own problem, the conflict management frame remains on a rather general level: collaboration and negotiations are considered important, but concrete methods for reconciling the livelihoods on the ground are not specified, or they are quoted directly from Metsähallitus at the local level.

According to this frame, forestry needs to continue in Inari because it is important to the regional economy and employment. The special status of reindeer herding in legislation is recognised, but at the same time it is weighed up against other local interests.

In the MAF Action Programme this argument is presented in the following way :

In document "You can’t please everyone" : conflict management practices, frames and institutions in Finnish state forests (sivua 188-197)