Nature conservation conflicts emerge

During the first half of the 0^th century, Metsähallitus actively promoted the establishment of national parks and nature reserves for the purposes of research and preservation of samples of the national landscape. The decision in 956 to establish new strict nature reserves and 7 national parks covering 0.5% of productive forests in Finland was considered ambitious even by its proponents, many of whom were foresters. But at the same time it was deemed necessary in order to get the “nature conservation issues resolved once and for all”. (Rytteri 006, 87.)

Despite their positive approach to establishing nature conservation areas, forestry professionals did not consider it necessary or desirable to question the methods of timber production at a time when Finland was building up its economy largely through forest industry (Leino-Kaukiainen 997, 68, 80–8). Nonetheless, the environmental impacts of the industrial clear-cut based forestry model started to provoke critique from other directions in the early 960s. Draining of mires, large clear-cuts and soil scarification, failures in forest regeneration in Lapland as well as water pollution, were among the main issues that caused debate (Donner-Amnell 99, 8; Leino-Kaukiainen 997). Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, the biggest national environmental organisation, highlighted the need to establish more national parks already in the 960s. But it took until 977 before a National Parks Committee proposed the establishment of additional national parks and 6 new nature reserves. (Rytteri 006, 0–.)

The prime example, general incomes policy settlements between the labor unions, employers’

organisations and the state, is still happening today.

5 For similar regulatory negotiations, Reg-Negs, in the American policy making see Priscoli (1997, 77–78).

The proposal was faced with fierce opposition from the private forest owners (MTK) and the forest industry. Metsähallitus was divided in its opinion over the issue, but officially it stood by the forest industry that opposed the reductions of timber procurement from the state forests. The ‘classic nature conservationists’ in Metsähallitus could not digest the critique the new generation of environmentalists had towards modern forestry methods and the adverse impacts of economic growth on nature (Leino-Kaukiainen 997, 96).

Metsähallitus representatives were offended by the allegations that Metsähallitus was against nature conservation. After all, the existing nature conservation network was largely based on the initiatives that foresters had taken during the earlier decades. The disagreements were, Metsähallitus argued, simply due to the excessive demands by the new generation of environmentalists. (Rytteri 006.) Metsähallitus maintained that any additional forest conservation should take place in private forests. Rather than preserving forests ”as museums”, Metsähallitus promoted the concept of “active nature conservation”

that allowed the regeneration of the forests. (Leino-Kaukiainen 997, 06–0; Rytteri 006.) Eventually, the Finnish Government endorsed a scaled down version of the proposal put forward by the National Park Committee.

The new National Parks – as well as the continued designation of state land to private farms – reduced the area for timber production on state land considerably (Figure ). Yet the harvest levels were kept at the same level as before the decisions by increased efforts in forest management. The sustained timber harvest plans were based on the assumption that no new conservation areas would be established. Metsähallitus and the forest industry believed that the environmental issues would be a passing phenomenon. (Rytteri 006, .)Despite the opposition towards the establishment of new national parks in the 970s, environmental NGOs and dissatisfied citizens demanded more forest conservation in state forests, and the demands were supported by new kind of campaign tools. The late 980s witnessed the rise of the old-growth forest debate in Finland. From 987 to 99, there were several direct actions concerning old-growth logging on state land (Map ).

In Lapland, the discussion culminated around a forest area in Inari municipality called Kessi. As a part of the agreement to establish Finland’s biggest National Park Urho Kekkonen National Park in 98, the Kessi area had been designated for commercial forestry. The purpose was to compensate for the losses of forestry opportunities caused by the new park by increasing logging elsewhere. Despite the fact that the representative of the biggest Finnish ENGO, Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, had agreed to the deal, many forest activists could not approve of it. They organised themselves as the Wilderness Movement and demanded that Kessi, along with the other remaining wilderness areas in Lapland be protected for the sake of nature conservation, but also because of their importance for the culture of the indigenous Sámi people and their reindeer herding. (Lehtinen 99; Roiko-Jokela 00, 69–0.)

Around the same in Talaskangas in central Finland, a group of forest activists highlighted the poor conservation status of old-growth forests and protested against Metsähallitus’ plans to log what Metsähallitus considered to be regular commercial forest.

(Roiko-Jokela 00, –6.) The first “Evaluation of Threatened Species in Finland”

had been published in 985, in which it concluded that one third of all the species listed in the Red Data Book were dependent on decaying wood found in old-growth forests, and the primary threat to these species was commercial forestry. The committee urged Finland to carry out an inventory of the remaining old-growth forests in southern Finland. (Komiteanmietintö 985:, 8–, 9; Leivo-Kaukiainen 997, .) This was the demand of the environmental activists demonstrating in Talaskangas and of all of the major ENGOs in Finland, who were united in the dispute.

What these and several other disputes around the same time had in common was that they had been bubbling under the surface several years before escalating into open protests.

The forest activists, the involved local people, and the organised environmental NGOs had indicated their concern and tried for years to get their voice heard in Metsähallitus local and head office, in the ministries, and finally in the Parliament. Due to lack of response they needed to find new ways of attracting attention. They raised petitions, collected expert statements from the ecological departments of the universities, enacted hunger strikes, and demanded conservation programs for the last wilderness areas in Lapland and the inventory and protection of the remaining old-growth forests on state land elsewhere in the country. The impact of the disputes on the international reputation of the Finnish forest industry was also highlighted, as Greenpeace threatened a boycott of Finnish forest products. In Kessi, the Finnish environmental movement allied for the first time with activists from Central Europe. (Leivo-Kaukiainen 997; Roiko-Jokela 00; Rytteri 006.) In 989, ENGOs collected 0 000 names in a petition demanding protection of the last old-growth forests and more ecologically sound forest management methods. At Map 2. Direct actions against forestry operations in state forests have taken place in several areas since the late 970s.The map shows the most well-known direct actions prior to 99. Many of these conflicts became the icons of forest activism in Finland. (©

Genimap OY, Licence L59, © Metsähallitus 007)

the time, it was the third biggest public petition, and the biggest environmental petition, ever to have taken place in Finland. (Heimonen & Kaaro 999, 95.)

The role of the local population in the disputes varied. In some, parts of the local population were initiators of the whole dispute or actively engaged in opposing the logging, whereas in others their majority was opposed to increased forest protection. The reactions of the local municipalities ranged from pro conservation (Talaskangas) to pro logging (Kessi). Forest activists who got organised around Finnish Nature League⁶ and later formed its forest group played a central role in the conflicts. Another key player was Greenpeace, whose international campaigns and resources were crucial for the success of the forest movement. (Rannikko 00, 69.)

The standard reply of Metsähallitus to the demands of the conservationists and to the concerned MPs and researchers was that the disputed forests had been designated as commercial forests and thus the logging plans were legitimate. As far as Metsähallitus was concerned, all forest that had not been specifically designated to some other purpose was commercial forest. The Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, the governing ministry of Metsähallitus, supported Metsähallitus on this view. (Leivo-Kaukiainen 997; Roiko-Jokela 00; Rytteri 006.)

The public debates failed to stop Metsähallitus from pursuing the logging. This then led to open confrontations at the logging sites. The environmental activists climbed trees, blockaded roads, chained themselves to logging machines and refused to leave the logging site. In most cases Metsähallitus called the police and the activists were detained. They were later charged with coercion and disobedience, and typically sentenced to fines and compensations to Metsähallitus and/or to the harvester operators. (Roiko-Jokela 00.) In his study on the forest conflicts of early 990s, Roiko-Jokela (00, 57) states that the relations between Metsähallitus and the conservation movement were extremely tense due to the repeated conflicts. For Metsähallitus, all means were necessary to control the conservationists’ protests. Forest activism also provoked local opposition. According to Rannikko (00, 69–7) this was because the forest activists, through the direct actions, framed the conflict in terms of jobs versus conservation: rather than being directed against forest industry at large, the protests seemed to be targeted against the people working in forestry.