Location of Malahvia, Kukkuri and Laamasenvaara forests in Kainuu

The appeals of the ENGOs and the publishing houses fell on deaf ears. Stora Enso and UPM Kymmene, the paper giants sourcing from Metsähallitus and providing the Dutch publishing houses with their paper, never pushed Metsähallitus to adopt a moratorium.

Metsähallitus, at the same time, did not consider a moratorium necessary or realistic due to the adverse impacts it was estimated to have on the wood industry in Eastern Finland.

Many of the disputed areas in the ENGO maps were situated in Kainuu. Among them were the areas of Kukkuri, Malahvia, and Laamasenvaara, where open confrontations between Metsähallitus and ENGOs were to take place in 998–000 (Map7). All of these sites had been addressed at various stages of the old-growth forest conservation process, but remained unprotected, either partially or entirely. While other sites marked on the ENGO maps also caused conflicts during the years, the three areas dominated much of

the public debate. They gained wide attention nationally and internationally, and resulted in direct actions in the forests, and in court cases both against forest activists and harvester contractors. Furthermore, they played a significant role in the unfolding of a Dialogue Process between Metsähallitus and ENGOs in 00. Below, the main events related to these conflicts are shortly described.

The Working Group on the Protection of Old-growth Forests had proposed in 996 that Malahvia, situated in Suomussalmi municipality, be later established as a conservation area. The fairly young forests included in the area could be first managed in order to make the forest stands move uneven-aged.(Vanhojen metsien…996, 57.) ENGOs defined the area as to encompass some km of forests, peat lands and waterways. The regional environmental authorities (Kainuun ympäristökeskus) proposed that the area be included in the Finnish Natura 000 network. However, at the end of 998, Metsähallitus began logging in parts of the area, because according to the finalised Landscape Ecological Plan, the sites to be harvested did not host particular ecological values (Metsähallitus press release ..999).

Environmental NGOs disagreed with Metsähallitus’ judgement and protesting forest activists gathered to demonstrate in the area in January 999. (FANC press release ..999.) Nature League announced that the local people had collected over 00 names in a petition supporting the protection of Malahvia forest (Nature League press release 5..999). Some days later, Metsähallitus gave out a press release announcing that MAF, MOE and Metsähallitus had reached an agreement regarding Malahvia. Ten hectares (0.

km) would be logged, and the rest would wait until surveys of the ecological values would be carried out. (Metsähallitus press release ..999.) Inventory of the ecological values of the area had been required by the Working Group on the Protection of Old-growth Forests in 996, and it was to be carried out in summer 999 (see also Metsähallitus press release 7.5.999).

In December the same year, WWF, FANC, Birdlife Finland, Nature League and Friends of the Earth Finland presented a proposal to the Minister of the Environment for the establishment of statutory protection area in Malahvia and in another disputed area called Jämäsvaara. In the beginning of 000 MOE, MAF and Metsähallitus met to discuss the proposal. After the meeting Metsähallitus announced that Malahvia would be designated as a conservation area covering km (Metsähallitus press release ..000).

Later Metsähallitus also proposed Malahvia to be added to the Natura 000 network.

Nature League criticised the proposal for excluding one third of what they considered to be the Malahvia area, including dozens of occurrences of red-listed species. Nature League also criticised Metsähallitus for planning restoration loggings within the protected areas. (Nature League press release 7.9.000.)

In 999, direct actions moved to Kukkuri (Hyrynsalmi municipality), where Greenpeace protested against the logging for several months. Kukkuri had been defined by the Working Group on the Protection of Old-Growth Forests in 996 as a valuable old-growth area which, due to its small size, was better suited to be protected as a conservation area in Landscape Ecological Planning (Vanhojen metsien…996, 57.) Metsähallitus made a Landscape Ecological Plan for the area, in which it defined 0.5 km of the area to be set aside, and the rest to be managed so that the conservation values would be taken into account in the forestry operations (Metsähallitus press release 5.5.999). In March 999, Metsähallitus started logging in the areas designated for forest management, which resulted in Greenpeace activists arriving to protest in the area.

Metsähallitus argued that 70 % of the people in Hyrynsalmi municipality had signed a petition demanding Greenpeace to leave the area. According to Metsähallitus, the

local nature conservation association (Ylä-Kainuun luonto) supported these demands.

Nonetheless, Metsähallitus decided to postpone the logging, carry out ecological surveys in the area, and to establish a “support group” for the inventories. The group consisted of representatives from local people, loggers, regional timber industry, all ENGOs involved in the dispute, Metsähallitus themselves, and regional environment and forestry authori ties.(Metsähallitus press releases 6.6.999; 7.7.999.) Greenpeace ended its protest in June, but continued to follow and document the events in the area together with Nature League. Once the inventories had been carried out, the ENGOs published the results on the websites. Nature League quoted the statement of the Kainuu Regional Environment Centre, according to which

“Summary of the value of Kukkuri for species conservation. Regarding the species composition of tree-decaying fungi hosted by old-growth forests, Kukkuri represents top quality in Finland, also when comparing it to other carefully inventoried old-growth forest areas in Kainuu […]According to the fungi scoring system for old-growth forests developed by Niemelä & Kotiranta the target was categorised as an extremely valuable, unique area. Kukkuri hosts large amounts of endangered and old-growth forest indicator species in almost all of the assessed parts of the area (map ).”

Once the results of the inventories were available, Metsähallitus decided to protect km of forest, while .5 km of the disputed forests were released to commercial forestry.

(Metsähallitus press release 5..999.)

Like the other conflict sites, also Laamasenvaara in Kuhmo municipality had been part of the old-growth forest inventories. In 99, the Working Group had proposed that .5 km of the area be protected by law as part of the programme (Vanhojen metsien…99, 5). The ENGO definition of the area was much larger, some 7 km, and this area included in the old-growth maps in 998. At the end of the same year, Nature League also filed a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court regarding the Finnish Proposal for areas to be included in the EU Natura 000 Network. Nature League referred to several old-growth forest areas that should be added to the Finnish Natura 000 network on state land, including Laamasenvaara (Valitus…9.0.998). In January 000, Metsähallitus started logging in the disputed area, and some weeks later forest activists from Nature League came to the area and took direct action against the logging for several days.

The usual practice of the protesting forest activists was to approach the timber harvesters and to get within their defined security zone of 50 meters. This would force the driver, according to the security regulations, to stop the machine, whereby the activists would win a time-out in the logging and increase pressure to resume negotiations with Metsähallitus about the fate of the disputed area. However, when the activists approached the timber harvester in Laamasenvaara, the harvester driver did not stop the machines.

Instead, he continued to work whereby, one of the cut spruces fell on one of the activists.

She managed to avoid major injuries by plunging into the harvester’s wheel track in the snow.⁵⁷ Nature League also reported three harvester drivers assaulting three forest activists, and called the police to come and calm down the situation.(Nature League press releases 9..000; 0..000; ..000; ..000.) One of the men was later condemned to fines for bodily harm (Nature League press release ..00).

57 Photos of the incident are available at http://www.luontoliitto.fi/metsa/forest/reports/00/laama000.

html [Cited May , 007]

Both Metsähallitus and the harvester contractor were charged for endangerment offence. Metsähallitus denied its part in the incident by stating that, as an independent entrepreneur, the contractor was solely responsible for the events in Laamasenvaara (Metsähallituksen valitus Itä-Suomen hovioikeudelle ..00). The Appeal Court of East Finland agreed with Metsähallitus and the activist had to cover the expenses of Metsähallitus. The contractor was condemned to fines and compensation to the activist for pain and suffering.

In all of the three cases, open confrontations between Metsähallitus and ENGOs eventually lead to additional areas being set aside from forestry, although not always at the scale the environmental NGOs had proposed. In most cases the Landscape Ecological Plans had been finalised prior to the logging and consequent direct actions, whereby the additional set aside required revision of the plans.

Results and Evaluation of Landscape Ecological Planning

Once the Landscape Ecological Planning had been finalised and supplemented, .7 % of the state-owned productive forestland in Kainuu was permanently set aside from forestry (the corresponding national figure was .6 %). The forests designated to restricted use in Kainuu totalled about 0.6 % of state-owned productive forestland (nationally 5.8 %). In addition to ecologically valuable sites, these included sited important for scenery, hunting and other multiple use goals. With existing conservation areas and LEP, Metsähallitus concluded that in 000, 5. % of state-owned productive forest land in Kainuu was permanently set aside from commercial forestry. (Karvonen et al. 00, 60, 65.)

When most of the Landscape Ecological Plans in different parts of country had been finalised in 000, Metsähallitus ordered an independent evaluation of the planning tool from Helsinki Consulting Group Ltd. In its report published in June 00 (Niemelä et al.

00) the evaluation group concluded that LEP was a major step forward in developing ecologically, economically and socio-culturally more sustainable forest management. LEP had been taken into practice quickly and efficiently and it was estimated to have positive impacts on the conservation of biodiversity. To further improve LEP, the evaluation group proposed that the theoretical and scientific foundation of LEP be strengthened and clarified and that the general goals of the planning should comprise of conserving the naturally occurring biodiversity in each planning area. The group also wished to see regional goals to be formulated based on the overall goals, allowing the assessment of the success of the plans in conserving the quantity and quality of the habitats.(Niemelä et al.

00.)

The group noted that the goals Metsähallitus had set for participatory planning⁵⁸ were not visible in practical guidelines given for the planners. Such discrepancies between the goals and guidelines could easily cause problems in co-operation with stakeholders. The group also highlighted the lack of consistency in participatory planning and the lack of influence the participants had on the plans. The evaluators reported dissatisfaction from the participants regarding the extent to which could affect issues important to them.

In particular, the participants considered the profit targets set for Metsähallitus forestry operations too constraining. The evaluation group pointed out that if the contested issues were not addressed, people would be likely to become frustrated and the acceptability

58 These were: increase the acceptability of the plans; anticipate and reduce conflicts; include different skills and data in the planning; and develop long-term co-operation with other actors (Loikkanen et al 999).

Picture 1.

Unprotected disputed old-growth forest in Suomussalmi municipality in Kainuu (© Greenpeace/

Liimatainen 007)

Picture 2. A harvested