The interplay between frames, institutions and practices .1 The challenge of convincing the sceptics

Metsähallitus has previously had a reputation as “a-state-within-the-state” that acted as it pleased. Particularly from 960s to 980s, its primary occupation was to maximise timber production through intensive silvicultural methods. In the early 990s the critique towards the old practices grew so fierce that changes become unavoidable. The major challenge for Metsähallitus during the past 5 years has been to convince its critics that the days of arbitrary decision-making and the dominance of timber production are now history. The

‘new’ Metsähallitus wants to be different; sensitive to ecological considerations, responsive to multiple needs and to stakeholder views. Some of the interviewees from the Forestry Division are frustrated that stakeholders still express critique and show scepticism that the staff finds outdated since long ago. The key question is, how to convince the public of the profoundness of the shift in the style and goals of planning and management? How to take into better account nature conservation and non-timber uses of the forest, while at the same time securing the economic and social benefits from timber production?

Collaborative consensus seeking with stakeholders means that the views of all parties need to be accommodated. In the case of Metsähallitus forestry planning, it is evident that the biggest challenge is to prove the inclusiveness of the planning processes to those parties whose interests are not related to timber production. They are the ones whose voice the old Metsähallitus paid least attention to. Of these, environmental NGOs are the most vocal and the group with the means to make things most difficult for Metsähallitus.

Looking at the past 5–0 years of forest conflict management in the case of old-growth forests in Kainuu, and at the conservation of forest biodiversity in Eastern and Northern Finland more generally, it is evident that a large number of processes and resources have been invested in resolving this highly controversial issue. Collaborative planning has been integrated into all Metsähallitus planning processes in order to improve the information base of the planning and to address the divergent views of the stakeholders in good time.

This has meant a significant investment of labour and time, and the work profile of many forestry planners has changed thoroughly. The Protection Programmes for Old-Growth Forests in Southern and Northern Finland were followed by Landscape Ecological Planning and two rounds of Natural Resource Planning in Kainuu. In addition, the Dialogue Process was established to specifically address the conflict between ENGOs and state forest administration. Taken together, these processes have meant that 5.5 % of the productive forest land in Kainuu is protected (Kainuun metsäohjelma 006–00, 0).

All in all, the state forest administration has taken many steps to reconcile forestry and nature conservation. This perception is supported by the Success Story frames found in the state forest administration. According to them, the transformation from the old to the new Metsähallitus has been successful and the integration of conservation and production in one organisation is beyond comparison internationally.

On the other hand, the analysis also shows that many of the changes have taken place against open resistance from Metsähallitus’ Forestry Division, particularly at the local and regional level. Significant changes have been made both in the process design of forestry planning and in forest use, but only after considerable pressure. It is evident both from the first NRP document, a number of Metsähallitus’ press releases and other statements during the open confrontations, as well as from the conducted interviews, that had the Forestry Division in Kainuu had the choice, the increase in forest protection in Kainuu would have been much more modest, had it taken place at all. NHS staff members have told how essential the pressure from the ENGOs was, for instance, in exceeding the estimate/limit set for set aside areas in landscape Ecological Planning. The Dialogue Process, in turn, was initiated and carried out from the main office. It is obvious from the interviews that the Forestry Division in Kainuu would never have initiated such a process.

The perspectives of the Forestry Division are no secret to any of the stakeholders. Many of the key individuals representing the ENGOs and the Forestry Division in the disputes are the same today as they were over ten years ago. The representatives of the Forestry Division have publicly criticised the demands of the ENGOs and have defended the forestry operations, even to the extent of open confrontations in numerous direct actions in the disputed forests. It is obvious that this has affected the ability of Metsähallitus as a whole to convince the ENGOs – and among them possibly other stakeholders sceptical towards Metsähallitus – of its transformation into a communicative and environmentally oriented resource management agency.

Another challenge has been the lack of coordination between different processes taking place at the regional and national levels. Formally speaking, Natural Resource Planning has been the key process for defining the strategic priorities for state-owned lands and for bringing the diverse actors together. Despite this, NRP has played a minor role in the old-growth forest conflict in Kainuu, and it has been both times over-run by national-level processes. It is clear from the interviews that this was upsetting to the Forestry Division’s staff in Kainuu, who felt that they – and the people in Kainuu – had been walked over.

The process also failed to gain the support of the key ENGOs, due to the abrupt political decision at MAF to end it before the negotiating parties had reached a consensus. It is understandable that the Forestry Division’s staff in Kainuu has been upset about the way the Dialogue Process was handled. ENGOs used an opportunity structure provided to them at the national level by the state forest administration itself. It seems that the top management of Metsähallitus’ Forestry Division wanted to find a settlement with the ENGOs, but was not prepared to defend this approach and to win support for it from its own staff – let alone the forestry stakeholders – in Kainuu and Lapland.

8.4.2 Mutually reinforcing frames and institutions

The frame analysis provides one explanation to the behaviour of the Forestry Division’s staff both in Kainuu and in the head office. The staff of the Forestry Division at the local, regional and national level continues to perceive forestry planning from a predominantly timber-oriented perspective. As the External Conflict frame shows, they continue to

associate Metsähallitus with the forest industry, and are strongly committed to timber production. Despite the official goal to integrate NHS and the Forestry Division into one Metsähallitus, the analysis reveals significant differences and even conflicts between the frames between these units. Those with the External Conflict frame have a clear “forestry identity” and speak of Metsähallitus as one organisation, while those with Internal Conflict frame show a “Park Service identity”. They too see the Forestry Division as a part of the forest sector and therefore make a clear distinction between NHS and the Forestry Division.

Considering the history of Metsähallitus, and the statutory task of the Forestry Division to make money from natural resources, the forestry-dominant frames of its staff are understandable, or at least not surprising. Since the short-term economic goals stipulated for Metsähallitus by the Parliament are dependent on timber sales, it is hardly surprising that this perspective also dominates the frames. The informal norm of full timber harvesting further contributes to the orientation towards timber production. All this would not be a problem were the only task of the Forestry Division to harvest and sell timber within the limits defined by an independent authority.

However, as the institutional design is today, the Forestry Division has the responsibility for leading and deciding over those planning processes that aim at building trust and mitigating conflicts with and between numerous stakeholders regarding the use and conservation of state-owned forests. The key to the success of such processes is that all the parties around the table consider the lead agency credible and trustworthy. In the case of Metsähallitus’ Forestry Division, this is clearly the Achilles’ heel of the organisation.

The Forestry Division remains strongly committed to timber production in its frames, in its statutory role and hence in its practices. The analysis of the decision-making during the Natural Resource Planning shows that () frames that reduce ‘economic goals’ to timber production goals, () the forestry-oriented preferences of Metsähallitus’ official representatives in the NRP process, and () the tendency to interpret the preferences of the stakeholders in a way that supports the economic (forestry) goals all resonate with the External Conflict frame and its forestry-dominated perspective. The conservation oriented frame of NHS regarding both the role of Metsähallitus, as well as the old-growth forest conflict, seem to not have played a visible role in the first NRP process at least. Furthermore, staff members of the Forestry Division from all different levels of the organisation show what can best be described as a bitterness towards ENGOs. This is unlikely to result in a more trustful response from the side of the ENGOs, although it is what the interviewees from the Forestry Division seem to be expecting. Against this background, it is difficult to perceive the Forestry Division as a credible conciliator and solution-seeker between diverse interests, be it inside or outside Metsähallitus.

One of the central arguments for having established NHS within Metsähallitus instead of integrating its functions within the overall environmental administration in Finland has been that it would reduce the confrontation between nature conservation and forestry on state land (HE 5/00 VP, 6). This is claimed to be due to the increased co-operation between the people working with the different tasks. As the frame analysis has shown, however, there are such differences in the perceptions of the staff in the different units that it becomes difficult to speak of one Metsähallitus and its position or policy on issues. According to the most critical frame found in NHS, Structural Conflict frame, the combination of nature conservation and forestry has not lead to an integration of these goals, but rather has moved the conflict to inside Metsähallitus.

While many NHS staff members see benefits in “one Metsähallitus” and none of the interviewees propose it to be split into two organisations, a true integration of the goals

and the units would require much more developed and systemic communication between the units regarding the different ways of framing the issues. As Tjosvold (99) maintains, conflict management must start within any organisation before it can succeed in dealing with external conflict. The reported lack of processes, whereby the staff of the different units in the state forest administration would learn about each other’s perceptions and create new ways of perceiving the organisation, is regrettable in this respect.

8.4.3 Structural challenges in changing frames and practices

The combination of business activities and public authority in one organisation has been challenging not only in terms of integrating the different frames regarding state forests, but also legally. Internationally speaking, Metsähallitus’ structure is unusual. In fact, in its country report on Finland in 997, OECD remarked that Finland is unique among OECD countries in subsuming a nature conservation agency within a state-owned enterprise. The report recommended that

“The institutional arrangements should be reviewed with an eye towards assessing the relationship between conservation and commercial functions and arriving at more focused, independent and transparent arrangements for delivering public nature conservation services.” (Environmental performance reviews Finland 997, 0).

The same issues were highlighted by the Government as the main reasons for why the Act on Metsähallitus needed to be reformed in 00 (HE 5/00 vp, 9). Transparency, as well as economic and organisational independence was increased by clearly separating the money flows between the units and by defining more precisely the social obligations and the public administrative duties.

However, when the two units, their tasks and even the land and water areas managed by them are clearly separated, what is left of their integration except the public statements of Metsähallitus that hide the organisational and conceptual separateness of the two units? The argumentation throughout the Government bill (HE 5/00 vp), as well as the structural solutions, reflects the mixed motives of integration and separation in the division of tasks between NHS and the Forestry Division.

The whole idea of integrating short-term economic goals and long-term ecological goals by combining them into one organisation has also been questioned in other contexts. In his study on Finnish waste management, Hukkinen (999) identified a special feature related to Finnish environmental management, which he calls environmental corporatism. Environmental corporatism has a systemic property of integrating conflicting environmental policy interests to the extent that their open political resolution becomes impossible. Such institutional mixing of conflicting interests, he argues, leads to a situation where short-term economic goals prevail whenever there is a contradiction with the long-term goals.

As the analysis of defining the profit targets shows, Metsähallitus’ Forestry Division plays a major role in defining the very constraints within which it operates, and the extent to which the long-term social obligations are taken into account in commercial forestry.

It is faced with inherently mixed motives in its decision-making. Its primary task is to be a profitable business, yet in the planning it needs to restrict this task by interpreting the limits, set by itself, in regards to social obligations. NHS, on the other hand, is the unit that has the statutory role to carry out nature conservation and many of the social tasks

given to Metsähallitus. Although its negotiating capacity is constrained by the budget funds allocated to it by MOE, it need not make profit from timber production. It could therefore choose forest management scenarios that limit timber production in situations where the forests provide locally more employment and income from other sources, such as tourism, than from timber production. However, because NHS has no legal authority over the activities of the Forestry Division in reality, the order of priority between the social obligations and commercial tasks – as defined in the Act – is actually reversed in practice. The combination of NHS and the Forestry Division into one Metsähallitus gives an appearance of integration, without any real means to do so in its legal structure.

The de facto organisational and legal separateness of the business and conservation tasks means that the institutional framework reinforces, rather than challenges, the internal frame differences.

The discrepancy between the legal (non)regulation of Metsähallitus’ participatory planning and the overall development of environmental regulation in Finland is equally striking. If the purpose is to provide the public a real role in the decision-making regarding state forests through Natural Resource Planning, why are neither NRP nor public participation therein legally regulated? The official from MAF who was earlier quoted on why the Metsähallitus Act has not been reformed in this regard (Chapter 8..) confirmed Hukkinen’s (999) argument about environmental corporatism: the economic interests of the State override its need to convince the public and to guarantee the citizens meaningful participation. The same explanation is supported by the recent definitions of policy prepared by Metsähallitus, MAF and MOE and endorsed by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy. The staff employed by the Forestry Division has decreased since the 990s while the revenue paid to the State Budget has increased, and is now expected to increase even further. The efficiency of NHS operations is also expected to increase and even more so than in the state administration in average. In other words, the resources are decreasing while the need to convince and engage with the public and the different pressures on what to do with the state forests are, if anything, increasing.

With decreasing resources and increasing demands for profit, how will Metsähallitus succeed in convincing the critics?