Areas proposed by the arbitrator to be excluded from forestry (red) and areas proposed by the Alliance of the reindeer herding co-operatives (blue)

91 The original statements are available at request from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. For an analysis of the process and the positions taken in the different statements, see Raitio & Rytteri (005).

92 Hammastunturi RHC, Muddusjärvi RHC, Muotkatunturi RHC, Paatsjoki RHC and their joint statement as the Alliance; The Reindeer Herders’ Association; Sámi Parliament

Representatives of forestry and the timber industry⁹, including the staff of Metsähallitus Forestry Division in Northern Lapland, opposed the plan. They emphasised Metsähallitus’ responsibility regarding forestry-based employment in Inari and opposed any further designation of set aside areas or reductions in the timber harvest levels. They argued that these would inevitably lead to less employment and to severe difficulties in the wood procurement of the local sawmill. While the groups did not object to the goal of securing the needs of reindeer herding, they considered this to have been well taken care of. (Raitio & Rytteri 005, .) The Regional Council of Lapland (which represents the municipalities of Lapland), the County Administrative Board (State’s office in the County of Lapland) and the Municipality of Inari shared the concerns voiced by the forestry-related stakeholders. They emphasised the need to respect the existing policies and valid land use plans, which were the result of reconciliation and balancing between all the affected local interests.

The two research institutions, Finnish Fisheries and Game Research Institute and Finnish Forest Research Institute, in contrast, considered the proposals by the arbitrator as a fruitful way forward in reconciling forestry and reindeer herding in Inari. This view was shared by the Ministry of the Environment and the various departments within Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry other than the Forestry Department that had ordered the report. They all considered the plan feasible. (Raitio & Rytteri 005, 5–6.)

Due to the “mixed response”, the Forestry Department of MAF did not implement the plan. Instead, it published an Action Programme for Northern Lapland in which it identified four interlinked causes to the conflict that each required its own solution:

() land ownership of the Sámi people, () nature conservation, () the economic viability of reindeer herding, and () the reconciliation of forestry and reindeer husbandry. (Ylä-Lapin…00, .) The issue of land ownership would be addressed by the Ministry of Justice, which had already commissioned an academic study on the land rights in Northern Lapland. The Ministry of Environment, responsible for nature conservation issues, considered the nature conservation status in Inari sufficient, and hence no further action would be taken on restricting forestry on the basis of nature conservation. On the issue of economic viability of reindeer herding, MAF stated in the programme that the reindeer herds had been very large until mid-990s, and the state of the pastures still reflected the previous herd sizes that had caused over-grazing. In addition, the viability of the livelihood was threatened by the fallen meat prices, which was due to the suddenly reduced export possibilities to Norway. The abrupt price reductions would be compensated by temporarily increasing the state subsidies. (Ylä-Lapin…00, 6–7, .)

On the reconciliation of reindeer husbandry and state forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not consider the arbitrator’s recommendations viable as such. The Ministry did not exclude any forest areas permanently from commercial forestry or make any reductions on PAC. Instead, Metsähallitus was given the task to update the Natural Resource Plan and to take decisions on these issues in the plan. While the process was going on, the areas defined in the maps in the arbitrator’s report would remain temporarily outside forestry operations. To assist in the updating of the plan, additional research on the reconciliation between reindeer herding and forestry would be commissioned from the Finnish Forest Research Institute and Finnish Fisheries and Game Research Institute. In addition, a new recreation area would be established in Inari and the Act on Metsähallitus would be renewed so as to include reference to the already

93 Local sawmill of Vapo Timber; Wood and Allied Workers’ Union, Forestry Experts’ Association METO, Forestry Transportation Union, The Trade Association of Finnish Forestry and Earth Moving Contractors, and Regional Forestry Centre

existing stipulations in the Reindeer Husbandry Act⁹. The possibilities of subsidising the collection of the logging residue would be looked into. (Ylä-Lapin…00, –5.)

Since the resolution of the conflict was, for the most part, again delegated to Metsähallitus, it invited the reindeer herding co-operatives to negotiations at the end of year 00. The co-operatives repeated their demand that the areas they had marked on maps – altogether some 700 km – needed to be set aside from forestry operations.

Metsähallitus would not commit to changes of such scale, and the negotiations ended without resolution in February 00.

Greenpeace Forest Rescue Station in Inari

Since no agreement was reached in the negotiations between the reindeer herding co-operatives and Metsähallitus, the campaigns by the environmental NGOs continued.

They targeted both Metsähallitus and the Finnish Government as well as the Central European customers of the Finnish paper industry, especially those of Stora Enso, the primary buyer of Metsähallitus timber from Inari. The situation in Inari was highlighted as a part of an international Greenpeace campaign on ‘ancient forests’⁹⁵. The ENGOs released a joint report criticising the revised standards of the Finnish Forest Certification System (Certifying extinction? 00). The Alliance of Inari RHCs also issued a statement regarding the Finnish Forest Certification Scheme applied in state-owned forests. They maintained that the criteria of this forest certification scheme had been developed without the consent of RHCs. According to the criteria of this forest certification scheme, consultations between the forest owner (State) and RHCs would not need to end in agreement. As such, the alliance of the RHCs felt the criteria did not safeguard the prerequisites of reindeer herding. (Saamelainen poronhoito… 005.)

The ENGOs took more journalists to Inari to meet the herders, and hosted meetings in Central Europe where the herders were invited (Suomen Kuvalehti 7..00, Lapin Kansa 8..00). Over a hundred authors from different parts of the world announced that they support the Greenpeace campaign to end the destruction of the world’s ancient forests, among them Günter Grass, Isabelle Allende, and J.K. Rowling, and some of the supporters of the campaigns were also taken for a visit in Inari (Greenpeace press release ..00). Again, the visits caused huge attention and fierce opposition locally and in the regional media.

In March 005 Greenpeace established a Forest Rescue Station in Inari, thereby taking a significant step to increase the pressure on Metsähallitus, Stora Enso and the Finnish Government. The purpose of the camp was to bear witness and to gain attention to the state forestry operations in the disputed forests (Greenpeace press release ..005).

As a part of the campaign, Greenpeace opened a website to document the events⁹⁶. A briefing in English (State of Conflict 005) and a joint report with Finnish Association for Nature Conservation in Finnish (Ahtaalle ajetut 005) were released. In contrast to usual Greenpeace campaigns with flashy direct actions, the only action taken locally was the demarcation of the winter pasture forests with signs saying “No Logging – Reindeer Forest Area” in North Sámi language, Finnish and English. This action was carried out jointly with some of the reindeer herders.

94 The revised Act came into force in 005.

95 www.saveordelete.com

96 www.weblog.greenpeace.org/forestrescue

The camp attracted huge media attention and debate. The Municipality of Inari opened a website in which it collected several thousands of names from people opposing to the Greenpeace campaign. The local forestry-dependent workers, in turn, established what was called the Anti Terror Info Center, next to the Greenpeace camp. The purpose of the camp was to raise awareness of the perspectives of the forestry-dependent people in Inari and to oppose to the Greenpeace campaign. Counter-demonstrations against Greenpeace were also organised. (Indigenous World 006; Linjakumpu & Valkonen 006.) A local forest activist and carpenter, who was working for the Greenpeace forest campaign, received a phone call threatening his life (Greenpeace press release 7..005). The core activists in the anti-Greenpeace campaign – amongst them staff from Metsähallitus Forestry Division – sent over a thousand letters to the sponsors of Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Nature League and WWF Finland, informing them of the consequences of the Greenpeace campaign and expressing a wish that the receivers would not in the future support work that had “such frightening impacts on the society” (Metsä.

fi. /005, ).

The Anti Terror Info Center had permission for the camp from Metsähallitus. In contrast, Metsähallitus considered the Greenpeace camp illegal, requested a police investigation and asked the District Court of Lapland to have the campers evicted (Korhonen 005). Greenpeace refused to remove the camp, which resulted in a written question addressed to the Government from seven members of the Parliament from diverse political parties enquiring what steps the government was planning to take to stop the illegal activities of Greenpeace in Inari (Kirjallinen kysymys 9/005). The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry replied by stating that eviction of the camp was possible only once there was a court order in place from the District Court. The logging operations would not be disturbed by the illegal camp, so local livelihoods were not being threatened. In April 005, Greenpeace took down the camp before the District Court had reached a decision in the matter.

Despite the strong local opposition to the Greenpeace campaign and the failure to reach a final solution, the campaign was successful in keeping the disputed forests from being logged. On March 7, Metsähallitus announced a temporary logging moratorium for the areas identified in the maps of the RHCs. The reason for the decision was, according to Metsähallitus, the pressure from the customers of the forest industry in Central Europe (Korhonen 005).

9.1.3 Revision of the Natural Resource Plan

Around the same time as Greenpeace built up the Forest Rescue Station and the forestry workers the Anti Terror Info Center, Metsähallitus began the process of revising the Natural Resource Plan for Northern Lapland, as decided in the MAF Action Programme.

Metsähallitus announced that a review was necessary because “forestry operations could no longer be carried out according to the existing plan due to the escalated conflicts between forestry and reindeer herding”. The most important goal of the review process would be the reconciliation of forestry and reindeer herding (Metsähallitus press releases ..005 and 0..005).

A round table chaired by the County Governor of Lapland, Ms. Hannele Pokka, was organised in March 005 in order to look for new ways forward. Most of the parties directly or indirectly involved in the dispute were present, including Greenpeace, the Sámi Parliament and the Municipality of Inari. In the meeting it was agreed that RHCs and Metsähallitus would re-negotiate in order to develop a 5-year timber harvest plans

for each co-operative’s area. The results of the negotiations would be presented to the different ministries and to the Sámi Parliament, after which the process would continue as part of the Natural Resource Plan review. Metsähallitus would refrain from logging on the disputed areas during the negotiations. (Reconciling the needs…005.)

When the new round of negotiations started in April, Metsähallitus’ representatives proposed a solution whereby the planned annual cut would be reduced from 50 000 m to 0 000 m (Reconciling the needs… ..005). According to the proposal, the surface area of forests used for commercial forestry would not be reduced whereby the needs of reindeer herding could be given better consideration across the whole commercial forestry area. (Korhonen 005.) The co-operatives and the herding group that had formed the Alliance were interested in continuing the negotiations, but could not accept proposed logging in the areas they had marked on the maps. In June, the negotiations ended without resolution. Metsähallitus and the RHCs jointly concluded that long-term solutions regarding forest use in Inari would not be reached in local-level negotiations (Sihvo et al. 006, 7). The co-operatives sent out a joint press release expressing their frustration that Metsähallitus continued to lack the mandate to make permanent decisions on forest use in Inari, because Metsähallitus claimed they could only negotiate a slight decrease in the timber harvest volumes. The co-operatives considered it unfeasible to continue the negotiations as long as Metsähallitus could not decide to exclude forest areas from logging. Since the negotiations had failed, the co-operatives of the Alliance repeated their earlier requests to negotiate directly with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in accordance with the Reindeer Husbandry Act. (Hammastunturi reindeer herding co-operative et al. press release 0.6.005; Inarin paliskuntien yhteistyöryhmä 005.)

Metsähallitus announced it would present the alternative scenarios of harvest volumes to the Stakeholder Working Group established for the review process of the Natural Resource Plan, based on which it would make the decision on the PAC. It also announced that in August it would resume forestry operations in the disputed forests that had been under moratorium since March. The operations would not, however, restart in the areas proposed by the arbitrator or in forests within designated Wilderness Areas⁹⁷. The interim PAC for 005 would be 5 000 m, that is 5 000 m less than defined in the valid Natural Resource Plan. (Metsähallitus press release 0.6.005.)

The discussions regarding the PAC to be adopted in the renewed Natural Resource Plan continued with the local stakeholders during the fall of 005 and the beginning of the year 006. The alternative scenarios varied between 70 000 m annually to 50 000 m. In a meeting in November, the Reindeer Herders’ Association⁹⁸ proposed a PAC of 0 000 m. According to Metsähallitus, the majority of the stakeholders present in the meeting were against the proposal and in favour of a higher PAC. Inari Municipality and VAPO sawmill repeated their demand that the harvest level remain at 50 000 m^. (Sihvo et al. 006, 7). Despite this, the proposal was taken as the starting point for discussions.

According to Metsähallitus, the purpose of this decision was to “calm down the tense situation and to achieve a truce in the region until ongoing research projects provide new information for the reconciliation of the key sources of livelihood” (Metsähallitus press release ..005). The actual decision would be taken in February 006. Eventually it took until November 006 before the revised Natural Resource Plan for 006–00

97 According to the Wilderness Act (6/99) timber harvesting is allowed in some parts of the Wilderness Areas, and some of these areas were among the disputed forests.

98 Reindeer Herders’ Association (Paliskuntainyhdistys) is a state-funded organisation operating under MAF. All Finnish RHCs are members of the association. It works as a link between the RHCs, helps to develop reindeer herding and promotes reindeer related research.

was released. The Planned Annual Cut was defined at 5 000 m and 00 km of forests within the Wilderness Areas were permanently excluded from forestry (Metsähallitus press release ..006; Sihvo et al. 006).

9.1.4 New law suits against Metsähallitus

Despite reduced harvest levels and new set aside areas, the process to revise the Natural Resource Plan did not succeed in providing a way forward in the conflict. This was due to two reasons. First, many of the RHCs did not participate in the process once the negotiations had failed in June 005, and hence did not commit to the outcome of the process. Second, Metsähallitus had announced that it would resume timber harvesting in some of the disputed forests while the Natural Resource Plan was being drafted (Metsähallitus press release .8.005). This led to the escalation of the conflict while the planning process was still on-going. In October 005, Muotkatunturi RHC and Paatsjoki RHC sent out a press release that logging was now taking place in controversial areas without their consent. They repeated their proposal to start negotiations directly with MAF and to reintroduce the logging moratorium until the new research results from the projects initiated by MAF would be published in 007.(Muotkatunturi RHC &

Paatsjoki RHC joint press release 7.0.005.)

At the end of the same month, Metsähallitus also began logging in the disputed areas within the winter grazing ground of the Nellim herding group in Ivalo RHC. The following day, three herders from the group, the Paadar brothers, delivered an urgent petition for temporal procedural remedy to the District Court of Lapland. The herders announced their attention to file a civil lawsuit against Metsähallitus and asked the court to order Metsähallitus to refrain from logging while the court considered their case.

Without such an order, there would be little point to file a suit against Metsähallitus: if the logging continued during the process, the disputed forests would be logged by the time the court would rule on the matter. The following day the court issued a temporary decision and ordered Metsähallitus to refrain from logging in the areas in question. Would Metsähallitus not follow the order, it would be fined (so-called conditional imposition of a fine⁹⁹). The implementation of the decision required, however, that the applicants place a due security⁰⁰, the amount of which would be decided by the execution authority. The court informed Metsähallitus of its decision, but while the security had not been placed, the Court’s decision was not formally valid, and the logging continued. After having heard Metsähallitus’ proposal, the execution authority defined the security at one million (€ 000 000) euros. (Metsähallitus press release ..005 in Finnish and 0..005 in English.)

The herders were unable to place such a security, which meant that the temporary procedural remedy by the court would become void. The herders therefore appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and asked the Committee to request Finland, as an interim measure of protection, to refrain from any further logging in the Nellim area while the process was on-going. On November , the Committee made a decision in accordance with the appeal and recommended that Finland refrain from logging in the disputed areas in Nellim. Finland was given six months to deliver its reply, after which the Committee would re-assess the matter. (HRC communication no /005, see also

99 Uhkasakko, in Finnish

100 The purpose of defining a security is to discourage people from filing civil lawsuits against other parties unless they have serious grounds to do so.

Johanna Ojala press release 6..005; Metsähallitus press release 6..005; Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release 6..005.)

The UNHRC’s intervention did not, however, result in the immediate cessation of logging activities in Nellim. Logging continued for several days before it was finally called off by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release 6..005).

“From Monday November to Wednesday November 6, at pm, the Forestry Service had all its logging staff, around 0 people, logging in the area.

At pm, Helsinki finally made a phone call to Nellim and told its Forestry Service [Metsähallitus] to stop logging. During the almost three days when the Finnish Forestry Service knew about the Committee’s decision but before Finland had actually called a halt to the logging, large areas of important grazing land were destroyed for the foreseeable future, perhaps forever.” (The Indigenous World 006, 8)

The decision by the UNHRC was opposed by seventeen of Metsähallitus’ forestry workers and forestry machine workers from Inari, who were ethnic Sámi. They sent a complaint to the Committee, in which they argued that the interim logging moratorium was an infringement of their constitutional and human rights, since their right to earn their living by legal means, in the way they choose, was made impossible. The appellants argued that the Committee “does not have the authority to determine of behalf of the Saami what values the Saami must approve”. They further claimed that since majority of the Sámi in Nellim village were not opposed to logging, the Committee had made its decision “using false and inadequate information and exceeding the Committee’s authority”. (Saami forest workers…. Press release 0..005.) UNHRC had not replied to this appeal at the time of writing this study.

Simultaneously with the appeals to UNHRC, Greenpeace took direct action against the loggings by embargoing a cargo ship shipping paper from Stora Enso mill to its customers in central Europe. Once the ship approached its destination in Lübeck, Germany, on November 7 005, it was stopped by Greenpeace activists and was forced to return to sea. The Greenpeace campaign caused several actors from the forestry sector to express their outrage. The Trade Association of Finnish Forestry and Earth Moving Contractors required that “society must intervene in Greenpeace’s unscrupulous operations aimed at stopping forestry in Northern Lapland” (Press release 7..005). Forestry Experts’

Association METO in Lapland and The Wood and Allied Workers’ Unions’ district in Lapland went as far as to conclude that

“Such irresponsible disregard of the society’s democratic decisions making system and the continuous disturbance of economic activities as well as trampling on the rights of local people show that the international environmental movement has become terrorism.” (Press release 7..005, author’s translation.)

The Municipality of Inari repeated the point made by the labour unions that the activities of Metsähallitus in Northern Lapland were in full compliance with Finnish law and sustainable development and were based on a valid Natural Resource Plan. The Municipality condemned Greenpeace actions as an extremely harmful agitation. The Municipal Executive Board required that Metsähallitus continued the timber harvest according to the PAC of 50 000 m, and that Greenpeace immediately stop the actions