Park Service frame

Those who frame the situation in Inari through the Park Service frame underline that Northern Lapland is a vast area where forestry is only practiced on a small proportion of land. Most of Northern Lapland is fell and mires, not forest. Whatever the conflicts related to timber production, they are but one issue among many important challenges in the management of natural resources in the area where the rights of the Sámi people need to be taken into account. In the fell areas, off-road traffic, building of cottages in roadless areas and hunting of small game are major issues and sources of conflict. Also tourism and its impact on reindeer herding cause continuous debate. These are all issues that Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services needs to deal with.

Just like in the Forestry frame, collaborative planning and close contacts with the local people are considered essential for decision-making and conflict management in the Park Service frame. The special role of reindeer herding co-operatives and the Sámi Parliament in decision-making are emphasised. Again, it is mentioned that Metsähallitus does not use ethnic criteria in prioritising over different demands. But even when judged based on legislation and dependence on the land, reindeer herding and other traditional Sámi nature-based livelihoods are high on the priority list. Overall, collaboration with different local stakeholders and NHS is judged to work well, although disagreement is also considered understandable.

Although this frame emphasises the legitimacy of the views of RHCs and the Sámi Parliament, the overall characterisation frame for different stakeholders portrays them as proponents of their own – narrow – perspective and agenda, whereas the role of NHS is to look at the big picture and legality aspects in balancing the demands of the different parties (identity frame). NHS is clearly described as the representative of the State, as a neutral public authority:

“… to me it is self evident that all the parties look at the issue from their own perspective and when they do not get everything they demand then it has failed from their perspective.” (NHSI7)

In contrast to the Forestry frame, legal proceedings are an essential part of the conflict management frame. This is logical, because the regulatory environment of NHS’ planning differs from that of forestry planning. If agreement is not reached, the unsatisfied party has the opportunity to appeal the Management Plans of the National Parks, Wilderness Areas or Natura 000 areas that NHS has produced to the administrative court (closer analysis of this will be presented in Chapter 9.). Because the land rights are unsettled between the Finnish State and the Sámi people, it is most often the Sámi Parliament that appeals the plans.

Regarding the conflict between forestry and reindeer herding, the connections of the local conflict to national and international commitments of the Finnish State to indigenous peoples’rights are more present in this frame than in the Forestry frame. Consequently, the Finnish State is perceived also as a key party to the conflict. Yet the focus in terms of consequences of the settlement of the conflict remains at the local community level.

However, the primary perspective to the dispute is less focused on forestry than in the Forestry frame and more on the needs of the local community in general. Securing the employment of the local people is the major concern. How to resolve the dispute in a way that all the local people can stay in Inari and find a source of living? This is perceived as a challenge for Metsähallitus Forestry Division and MAF. Natural Heritage Services, in contrast, is not seen as an active party to the conflict, even though it is responsible for drafting the Management Plans for Wilderness Areas where limited forestry has been practiced. This is probably because NHS has no formal authority over most of the disputed areas. Because NHS does not perceive itself as a decision-maker, or even party to the conflict, it has little views on what should be a reasonable solution to the conflict, or how to measure success.

Overall, there is little variation within the Park Service frame (Table 5). The only clearer difference is how the interviewees perceive the role of NHS. In the Good Administration for Local Benefits frame, NHS in Inari is framed as the public authority whose task is to secure legality and promote benefits for the local people in the management of the vast protected areas. This frame was typical in the interviews of the local NHS staff. In it, the identity frame of NHS was a combination of local commitment on one hand, and of public authority on the other.

In the Park Service for Biodiversity and Public Benefits frame, Natural Heritage Services is likewise perceived as a public authority for managing protected areas, but the emphasis in the tasks is more specifically focussed on enhancing biodiversity and providing benefits for the public in general – not primarily to the local people – in the form of recreation and tourism. NHS is defined as an outsider to local communities in the positive sense that it can mitigate local conflicts from a neutral perspective:

“A good example of this is the issues in Northern Lapland, where it is entirely impossible to achieve any kind of solution on a single issue that everyone could be satisfied with. If you take Wilderness Area Planning or something, a major part of the parties always disagrees. And I feel that particularly in Northern Lapland people are quite content with the role of Metsähallitus [NHS], because it can balance these local conflicting interests. And maybe it is a familiar and safe party to blame for all the so called stupid decisions that are made, but…”

(NHST0)

Table 15. Two variations of the Park Service frame: ‘Good Administration for Local Benefits’ and ‘Park Service for Biodiversity and Public Interests’.

Name of frame GOOD ADMINISTRATION

FOR LOCAL BENEFITS PARK SERVICE FOR

BIODIVERSITY AND PUBLIC BENEFITS

Conflict frame The conflict between forestry and reindeer herding is about balancing local livelihoods. Sami land rights are an important part of the conflict. In the background there are also issues related to poor profitability of reindeer herding and international ENGO conservation interests.

Identity frame Do not perceive themselves as the primary responsible decision-makers in the dispute.

NHS is a public authority whose task is to secure legality and equal rights of local

people in regulation of the use of protected areas and Wilderness Areas.

NHS is a public authority whose task is to enhance biodiversity and to secure legality and equal rights of the public in regulation of the use of protected areas and Wilderness Areas.

Characterisation frame/ reindeer herding

Herders think of their own interests which is natural, but state forest administration needs

to look at everyone’s interests.

Characterisation frame/Sámi Parliament

It is almost impossible to get the acceptance of the Sámi Parliament for the management plans, as long as the land rights remain unsettled.

CM frame process Collaborative planning, regular consultations.

Legal processes if needed.

CM frame

substance Zoning of Wilderness Areas

(and protected areas) Not specified CM frame

relevant scale Northern Lapland/Inari