Discourses in Finnish forest policy : Cherry-picking or sustainability?

(1)

https://helda.helsinki.fi

Discourses in Finnish forest policy : Cherry-picking or sustainability?

Pietarinen, Niina

2023-02

Pietarinen , N , Harrinkari , T , Brockhaus , M & Yakusheva , N 2023 , ' Discourses in Finnish forest policy : Cherry-picking or sustainability? ' , Forest Policy and Economics , vol. 147 , 102897 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102897

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/352754

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102897

cc_by

publishedVersion

Downloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.

This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Please cite the original version.

(2)

Forest Policy and Economics 147 (2023) 102897

Available online 28 December 2022

Discourses in Finnish forest policy: Cherry-picking or sustainability?

Niina Pietarinen , Teemu Harrinkari

^*

, Maria Brockhaus , Natalya Yakusheva

University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:

Forest policy

Forest-based bioeconomy National forest programme Discourse analysis Sustainability framings

A B S T R A C T

With the rise of the concept of a forest-based bioeconomy over the past decade, sustainability is simultaneously an underlying assumption and a key expectation. However, can we assume that a bioeconomy is sustainable simply because it emphasizes the use of forests as a renewable resource? And will a forest-based bioeconomy indeed lead to a more sustainable – and prosperous – Finnish society? In light of these questions, it is important to understand the relationship between Finnish forestry and sustainability as articulated in current and past forest policy documents. We ask how the concept of sustainability is framed and translated in forest policy objectives, and what ambitions are put forward when challenges and problems are defined, specific methods are proposed, and emphasis is given. Our findings indicate that although the language used in the policies generally refers to sustainability, the various dimensions of sustainability are not equally considered, with economic ambitions being particularly valued. There is a risk that a forest-based bioeconomy will simply continue forestry business- as-usual if current problematizations and proposed solutions reflected in forest policy remain unchallenged.

Our aim is to provide a more nuanced understanding of possible opportunities and risks for sustainability linked to a forest-based bioeconomy as currently promoted in Finland and elsewhere. We do this by analysing the meta-discourses which have been present in Finnish forest policy documents over time. Furthermore, we identify and discuss possible trade-offs and their implications for Finnish forests and society in informing current and future forest policy reviews and increasing transparency.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is one of the most popular terms in our times across social spaces, levels of governance and economic sectors. The stronger call for more sustainable economies and societies together with an ur- gent need to act to address the climate crisis suggests a need to search for alternative resources and ways to structure production (Schulz et al., 2022; Holmgren et al., 2020). Bioeconomy as one of the key alternatives is often in the spotlight of political agendas in both the European Union (EU) and nationally, linking increasing economic, environmental, and social sustainability with reliance on more efficient use of renewable biological resources through advanced technologies (Pfau et al., 2014;

Holmgren et al., 2020; Toivanen, 2021). At the EU level, this overall ambition to transition towards sustainability is set by the EU Green Deal (2019) and its implementation is defined by the EU Climate Law (2021) adopted and supported by the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030.

Furthermore, two editions of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy pave the way to implementing this alternative economic vision. In the EU’s first bioeconomy strategy, the European Commission defined bioeconomy as

‘the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy’ (European Commis- sion, 2012, p. 9). In addition, the innovation potential related to the bioeconomy was regarded as crucial. McCormick and Kautto (2013) found that the definitions of bioeconomy were evolving and varied between actors. In Finland’s National Forest Strategy 2025 bioeconomy was defined as follows: ‘Comprises sustainable use of natural resources and use of biological and biotechnological processes in production chains. In bioeconomy, natural resources are used in a sustainable manner, by applying and replicating biological processes’ (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2015a, p. 52). The European Commission complemented their definition of bioeconomy in the revised bioeconomy strategy published in 2018 by including sustainability and circularity as central features of the bioeconomy (European Commission, 2018). However, the understanding of sustainability, typically defined by its ecological, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions, which seems to drive the bioeconomy development in both Europe and Finland has been called out for falling short of recognizing ecological sustainability and societal well-being and the possible

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: teemu.harrinkari@alumni.helsinki.fi (T. Harrinkari).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102897

Received 10 January 2022; Received in revised form 4 December 2022; Accepted 6 December 2022

(3)

trade-offs with economic ambitions (e.g., Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010; McCormick and Kautto, 2013; Kleinschmit et al., 2014; Berg et al., 2019). Thus, bioeconomy proposals often heavily emphasize the economic development prospects associated with it.

The Rio conference in 1992 (United Nations Conference on Envi- ronment and Development, UNCED) acted as a hotspot for promoting a sustainability agenda by bringing governments, private companies, and marginalized groups together to the environmental policy arena to find ways to stop biodiversity loss and the overuse of natural resources (United Nations, 1997). With the help of all the outputs of the Rio conference, environmental issues were firmly anchored in the international policy agenda (Hrabanski, 2017). Furthermore, while there was no agreement on a global forest convention, forests and trees have taken a prominent spot in the climate change and biodiversity conventions. In addition, the Rio conference pushed for more participation in global governance as a crucial element in the response to environmental problems and to enhance sustainability. Almost 30 years later, the Rio conference is still relevant in global sustainability debates highlighting the importance of participation and the role of citizens in sustainability translations and transformations. These debates have been picked up and incorporated to different extents into various national policies.

As forests are important sources of renewable materials in many countries and maintain important ecological processes, the forest sector is regarded as one of the key sectors in the development of bioeconomy (Linser and Lier, 2020; Holmgren et al., 2020; Schulz et al., 2022). While bioeconomy is a global trend, we examine it at a national level, concentrating on the forest-based bioeconomy in Finland. Finland aims at being the global forerunner of a forest-based bioeconomy, which is expected to play a key role in achieving a sustainable society (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, 2014; Kr¨oger and Raitio, 2017).

Moreover, the advocates of a forest-based bioeconomy have suggested that bioeconomy will enhance societal well-being by boosting the national economy and employment (Kleinschmit et al., 2014). Simulta- neously, the sustainability of Finnish forestry seems to be assumed rather than assessed, as reflected in discussions related to the inclusion of forestry as a sustainable economic activity per se in the EU taxonomy, despite concerns over biodiversity loss (Nayh¨ ¨a, 2019; Toivanen, 2021).

In this context, and despite frequent self-references to its relatively small size, Finland maintains a globally influential forest industry and consequently, a role in global climate politics (Toivanen, 2021). Given these simplistic assumptions, aspirations and expectations, it is important to further examine how sustainability has been framed and incorporated into Finland’s forest policies, and how this relationship has evolved over time. As argued by the Rio conference, sustainability concerns should play a leading role in economic and societal changes to achieve a meaningful transformation and to avoid possible environmental harm. With all the expectations that the bioeconomy concept has raised, it will be important to understand how sustainability has been expressed in past and current forest policy documents. This would facilitate understanding of possible opportunities and risks that arise from a forest-based bioeconomy. From this point of view, we ask:

How is sustainability understood and framed in Finnish forest policies, and what are the implications of these framings for Finnish forests and society?

The research question is further operationalized by asking:

1. What are the meta-discourses in selected Finnish forest policy documents over time?

2. What are the implications regarding trade-offs, what is ignored and what is valued?

To answer these questions, we assume the importance of problem framing, i.e., whether an environmental problem is recognized as such is determined by problem framing and definition (e.g., Fischer and Forester, 1993; Hajer, 1995; Arts and Buizer, 2009; Leipold et al., 2019).

The paper first presents the theoretical underpinnings and our theoretical framework. It is then followed by a methods section which explains the research data and qualitative text coding scheme. The

results of our analysis are presented in the fourth section, and in the final section, the paper concludes by discussing the findings and implications for the future.

2. Research design 2.1. Conceptual framework

Since policy – and the making thereof – can be thought of as fundamentally political rather than a rational solution-oriented process (Bacchi, 2009), we acknowledge that policymakers and policy analysts alike are often anything but value-free and solution-oriented. Following Bacchi (2005), we understand policy as discourse. Discourse refers to

‘social’ knowledge, forms or reference frames that make thinking – and speaking – regarding people and social relations difficult beyond them (Foucault, 1994; Bacchi, 2009). As Yanow (1995) argued, policy means more than one thing, and those meanings are propounded in different ways within policy. This means that within a particular policy, we can identify diverse expressions of institutionally supported and culturally influenced interpretive and conceptual schemas (discourses) that pro- duce understandings and problems, and specific solutions (Bacchi, 2005).

Our main interest in this paper is not to ask how particular people within the Finnish forest policy arena shape policy, but what is expressed in policies. What are the meanings and reference frames within the Finnish forest policy, which then shape the Finnish forest policy practice?

In our approach to the analysis of policy documents, we decided to apply what Leipold et al. (2019) called ‘older’ discourse categories, such as ecological modernisation, and sustainable development as a means to examine forest policy and shed light on a more ‘new’ and emergent bioeconomy discourse. We argue that these ‘old’ discourses are still valid for our analysis of Finnish forest policy, even though they have evolved over time as core arguments and the distinct thinking related to these is still prominent, in policy text as well as policy analysis. This was demonstrated in a special issue on ‘discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited’ (Leipold et al., 2019). Specifically, we will apply the discourses identified by B¨ackstrand and L¨ovbrand (2006) in their millennial work on climate governance to our analysis of developments in Finnish forest policy, which is embedded in a socio-political context characterized by claims over sustainability and the democracy of a forest-based bioeconomy future.

Policy discourses tend to favour certain actors depending on the problem framing and definition (B¨ackstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). The ¨ framing of a problem validates the strategies and actions taken to tackle the problem (Arts and Buizer, 2009). The options for action change with different problem definitions; hence a problem can be reframed to legitimize a particular action. Revealing framings and discourses can then enable us to identify what is perceived as desirable as a priority in achieving sustainability, and what values and understandings shape such problematizations in Finland.

One way to identify such underlying framings and discourses is deductive, by building on pre-defined discourses that allow us to attri- bute (policy) text to specific discourses. In the case of forest governance and climate change, B¨ackstrand and L¨ovbrand (2006) identified three dominant meta-discourses: ecological modernisation, civic environmentalism, and green governmentality. These discourses are presented in Table 1.

Each of the discourses is characterized by specific meanings, references, problematizations and prioritization or preferences for specific action. The discourses are not sequential; they can overlap and be related to each other.

Fig. 1 presents the theoretical framework of this study with meta- discourses and quotes from the policy documents analysed that reflect their core elements. In ecological modernization, economic growth goes together with environmental protection; ecological degradation is

(4)

disconnected from economic growth and there is a win-win situation in which new technologies and flexible policy-making makes industrialization environmentally friendly. Ecological modernisation is the pre- vailing discourse in industrialised countries but leaves developing countries out because of problems with equity and poverty (B¨ackstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). ¨

In green governmentality, science and new technologies solve environmental problems. According to this discourse, human behaviour and lifestyle choices can be shifted into a more favourable direction with the influence of authorities and rational thinking. This discourse ascribes an authoritative role to expert advisors and tends to marginalize alternative understandings of nature. In green governmentality, human control extends to the entire planet through human “stewardship of nature”, and natural resources are managed comprehensively (B¨ackstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). ¨

Civic environmentalism emphasizes local participation, a bottom-up approach, and inclusion of marginalized groups in environmental problem-solving. It is associated with the Rio conference where the language of participation and “stake-holding” entered the global environmental policy arena. While the active participation of non-state actors, NGOs and businesses is recognized, the international negotiation power remains with the governments. Civic environmentalism high- lights trade-offs between sustainable and economic development, which ecological modernisation often overlooks with win-win rhetoric. Civic environmentalism, which is critical of the commodification of natural resources and views power structures, such as capitalism as sources of environmental degradation, advocates a shift to a more participatory, bottom-up approach to environmental governance (B¨ackstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). Hence, we consider it the only meta-discourse that ¨ fundamentally re-orientates environmental problem-solving and can lead to a meaningful change towards more sustainable societies.

As pointed out earlier, discourses and how problems and solutions are framed have huge implications for what is then prioritised within overall ambitions for sustainability, what aspects are valued most, and what aspects will be the first to drop off an action agenda. In the light of this, we seek to find out where forest policy is silent, and what forest policy objectives are neglected. And finally, what will this all mean for the sustainability of a forest-based bioeconomy in Finland?

2.2. Forest programmes in Finland

National Forest Programmes (NFPs) evolved in the 1990s within the international dialogue on forest policy mediated by the United Nations as a response to the changed understanding of sustainable forest management (SFM) (Glück et al., 1999). The dialogue aiming at solving environmental issues related to forests was mediated by the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and later the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), followed by the United Nations Forum on Forests from 2001 onwards (Pülzl and Rametsteiner, 2002).

In Finland, forest programmes have been used as a guiding tool of the national forest policy since 1961 (Pohtila, 1999). Between 1961 and 1992, the programmes concentrated on timber production (HKNL programme 1961, following Teho programmes (1962 & 1964), Mera programmes (1964, 1966, 1969), Metsä 2000 programme (1985) and its revised version (1992), and Metsätalouden ympäristöohjelma [Envi- ronmental programme for forestry] (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland and Ministry of the Environment of Finland, 1994)).

The recent national forest programmes (2010 & 2015) set a new direction in Finnish forest policy (Kr¨oger and Raitio, 2017), aiming explicitly at increasing citizen well-being through diverse forest use while committing to the principles of sustainable development. The programmes were directed by the Department of Forestry of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

This study will analyse three forest programmes; the National Forest Programme 2010 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 1999), the National Forest Programme 2015 (Ministry of Agriculture Table 1 Three dominating meta-discourses in forest governance and climate change and their characteristics. Adapted from B¨ackstrand and L¨ovbrand (2006) in Pietarinen (2020). Objectives Challenges Methods Emphasis Fundamental re- thinking Ecological modernisation Forests are a tool for low-cost climate mitigation Environmental concerns hinder economic development Innovative technologies, market driven strategies, flexible policy-making Flexible, cost effective environmental problem- solving No Green governmentality Forests are a tool for carbon sequestration and act as carbon storage Nature is an infrastructure that must be protected and managed New innovation, knowledge and expertise, forest carbon Human stewardship over nature, climate management No Civic environmentalism Forests are a source of biodiversity, culture, and livelihood Power structures such as capitalism and patriarchy generate environmental problems Participation, biodiversity preservation, result-based problem-solving Collaborative decision-making and participation solves environmental problems Yes

(5)

and Forestry of Finland, 2008), and the National Forest Strategy 2025 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2015b), that followed the National Forest Programme 2015. National Forest Strategy 2025 is an operationalization of the Government Report on Forest Policy 2050, which directs Finnish forest use until 2050 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2014). Our selection of these three as key documents for the analysis is based on the time span they cover with an emerging bioeconomy agenda, and their strategic and action-oriented character, guiding forest policy and practice (Fig. 2).

2.3. The selected forest programmes 2.3.1. National Forest Programme 2010

National Forest Programme 2010 was the first Finnish forest programme formulated after the major Forest Act revision (1994–1996), in which the environmental aspects were incorporated into the national

legislation as a response to the Rio process. The programme was established in 1999 and, for the first time, it also considered the environmental, social, and cultural aspects in addition to economic aspects of forestry (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 1999). The vision of the programme is: ‘Sustainable well-being from diversified forests.’ The programme has six priorities, and 68 million Finnish marks were assigned for the implementation of the programme. Most of the funds were allocated to silvicultural and forest implementation, forest management planning, education of forest owners, and ecosystem management. The major programme objectives were to increase domestic roundwood use, double the value of forest product exports, and to increase the amount of wood used in energy production.

The programme claims to be a response to international forest policy and to be formulated following the criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry in Europe (the Helsinki process). However, these principles are not explained in the programme, which claims to have been prepared Fig. 1. Theoretical framework: Meta-discourses by B¨ackstrand and L¨ovbrand (2006), the core elements and policy quotes that reflect each meta-discourse.

Fig. 2. The documents, their time span and content description.

(6)

following the principles of openness, cooperation, and a bottom-up approach. During the process, 59 citizen forums were held (approx.

2900 participants) and working groups heard 38 expert views. In the first round of forums, the goals and vision of the NFP were discussed, and 49 written comments were received, these being applied in writing the first version of the NFP. During the second round of comments, 91 written comments were received to the first and second version of the NFP. It was noted that it was possible to consider only approximately half of the comments received. The open process of writing the NFP was regarded as mostly positive, but the strict NFP schedule meant that not all issues were sufficiently discussed in the working groups and forums.

It was also stated that consensus and trust were lacking in certain parts of the process. The working groups that participated in the preparation of the programme are listed in Appendix A and were listed in the programme without naming the organizations they represented, which are listed in the Appendix A.

2.3.2. National Forest Programme 2015

The National Forest Programme 2010 was slated for revision in 2005 because of the significant changes in the operating environment of the forest sector since 1999 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2008). The National Forest Programme 2015 was approved by the Government together with the Resolution on the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO) 2008–2016. The revision process was described in the final document as having followed the principles adopted after the UNCED held in Rio 1992, but the argument was not elaborated. The vision of the programme was: ‘More welfare from diverse forests.’ The programme had six priorities. The key short- term programme objectives included increased use of domestic wood, an improved transportation network, and enough skilled labour for the forest sector. In addition, increasing the bioenergy production, mitigation of climate change, execution of the METSO programme and mini- mizing the damage that forest management caused to nature were crucial to the programme. Opportunities for the multiple use and management of forests were expected to increase, which was anticipated to benefit forest related businesses, forest owners and citizens.

Diversified programme content, broad-based preparation (including a comment round for stakeholders) and implementation processes were highlighted as examples of the reasons why the Programme was considered internationally as an excellent example of a forest programme promoting sustainable forest management and use. The working groups that participated in the preparation of the programme are listed in Appendix A. The programme contained one dissenting opinion.

The organizations and their representatives participating in the revision were listed in the programme.

2.3.3. National Forest Strategy 2025

The National Forest Strategy 2025 (referred to as NFS later in this article) was published in 2015 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2015a). It is based on the Government Report on Forest Policy 2050 (referred to as the Report later in this article) (Ministry of Agri- culture and Forestry of Finland, 2014). The Report was a Finnish government response to national and global changes and megatrends, such as climate change, population growth and urbanization, new technologies, resource scarcity and structural changes in the global economy (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2014). The Report directs the use of Finnish forests until 2050 by setting three strategic objectives, operationalized in the NFS:

1) Finland is a competitive operating environment for forest-based business.

2) Forest-based business and activities and their structures are [sic]

renewed and diversified.

3) Forests are in active, economically, ecologically, and socially sus- tainable and diverse use.

The NFS states that the implementation of its strategic project portfolio will enhance the preconditions for increasing the welfare

derived from forest-based business and activities in addition to safeguarding economic, social, and ecological sustainability.

The NFS claims to be a product of broad-based stakeholder cooperation directed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and supported by the National Forest Council. The vision of the NFS is ‘Sustainable forest management is a source of growing welfare.’ The strategy formulation process is not described in the document. Based on the background material of the preparation process, a request for stakeholders to comment on the draft was arranged, and the programme draft was also elaborated in participatory meetings of the National Forest Council (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2015b). The NFS formulation participants were not listed in the NFS document.

After this initial step of identifying the documents, a discourse analysis was conducted to identify the dominant sustainability frames in Finnish forest policies.

2.4. Qualitative text coding

The data were coded, visualized, and analysed with ATLAS.ti soft- ware. A code book was developed in order to structure the analysis (Table 2). The coding was conducted in stages, proceeding from broad topics to the more detailed and less obvious ones. The first level of coding consisted of identifying the descriptive information of each document, such as document name, publication date, and type. The second level of coding consisted of identifying the content of each document - the goals of each programme, and measures to attain the goals. The goals were categorized into economic, environmental, and social (Table 3) by the following, non-exhaustive criteria:

1. Economic – Market-driven goals, and themes, such as industry, marketization and new products, trade (materials, products, carbon), employment, efficiency, innovations, and the energy sector.

2. Environmental – Ecological and “green” goals, themes, such as the enhancement of biodiversity, soil, water systems, carbon, conservation and protection of natural habitats, and climate change mitigation.

3. Social: Goals and themes related to Finnish people’s lifestyle and culture, such as traditions, recreation, consumption habits, participation in decision-making, education, level of income, employment, and equality between men and women.

The documents show that livelihood and forest-based employment was regarded as both an economic and social theme and we follow that categorization in this research.

Table 2

Code book for qualitative data analysis.

Code groups Code

Civic environmentalism Biodiversity

Bottom-up Culture Openness Participation

Green governmentality Expertise

Stewardship Carbon storage

Forest sector Positive image

Ecological modernisation Decision-making

Flexible Market orientation Marketisation New technology Taxation Win-win

Goal is Social

Environmental Economic

Variables Specific-funding

Specific-Goal Specific-m&e Specific-ref level Rhetorical

(7)

We then determined the goals which were prioritised and directed towards action, and which were set without an implementation plan.

This was done by looking at the reference and target levels, the monitoring and evaluation procedure and funding allocated for each goal. If these variables had a numerical value, the variable was coded as “specific”. If a numerical value, or the variable itself, was missing, it was coded as “rhetorical”. This procedure was designed to identify the de- gree of integration of economic, environmental, and social ambitions in the documents as follows:

1. Prioritised – Prioritised over other dimensions of sustainability.

2. Equal – Considered equally among other dimensions of sustainability.

3. Integrated – Integrated into goals with a partial implementation plan.

4. Rhetorical – Integrated into goals without an implementation plan.

5. None – Not integrated at all.

To determine which of the previously introduced meta-discourses was the most prominent, we used a deductive coding procedure. Each document was coded with a set of predetermined key words that describe the core themes of each meta-discourse (Table 2). If a predetermined theme did not appear in the document, the code was removed, enabling identification of the meta-discourses appearing in each document. Whether there were changes over time was also inves- tigated. This was done with ATLAS.ti’s cross tabulation function by comparing code occurrences between the documents.

3. Results

3.1. National Forest Programme 2010

Sustainability had three dimensions in the National Forest Pro- gramme 2010; economic, environmental, and social. The economic and social goals had a leading role in the NFP 2010 with numerical goals, whereas environmental goals had a more rhetorical role, since instead of setting numerical goals, the environmental ones were considered to be achieved through updated legislation, up-to-date guidelines for forestry, and a working group to be established for developing forest conservation for Southern Finland. Cooperation, stakeholder participation and a bottom-up approach were acknowledged in the preparation and monitoring of the programme, which had eight main goals which are listed in Table 3. Six of these were identified as economic (1, 2, 3, 5, 8), four as social (1, 3, 6, 7), and three as environmental (1, 4, 5). Ecological modernisation discourse dominated the programme’s economic and social aspects (Table 4). The central discourses for economic, environmental, and social themes of the programme are listed in Table 4.

The main objectives of the programme are economic: to increase the domestic roundwood consumption by 5–10 million cubic metres by 2010, to double the value of wood industry exports by 2010, and to increase the use of wood for energy production from 0.8 million up to 5 million cubic metres by 2010.

Environmental aspects of the programme were considered in the light of the green governmentality discourse. Safeguarding biodiversity and the environment were inter-related themes in environmental aspects, which were seen as issues that needed to be managed to maintain and increase forest productivity. Environmental impact assessment of the programme was conducted only tentatively, the programme Table 3

The main policy goals classified into economic, environmental, and social categories. The numbering of the goals follows the numbering applied in the documents.

Goals

Policy Economic Environmental Social

NFP 2010 1. Forest sector supports sustainable development;

2. Opportunities for growth in the forest industry;

3. Forestry should be profitable and provide employment;

5. Forests should be well-managed;

7. Strengthening forest know-how;

8. Finland is active in international forest policy.

1. Forest sector supports sustainable development;

4. Securing ecological sustainability;

5. Forests should be well-managed;

1. Forest sector supports sustainable development;

3. Forestry should be profitable and provide employment;

6. Forests for recreation and natural products;

7. Strengthening forest know-how;

NFP 2015 1. Securing a competitive operating environment for the forest industry and forest management;

2. Enhancing the climate- and energy-related benefits of forests;

5. Strengthening skills, expertise of forest professionals, and acceptability of the forest sector;

6. Promoting sustainable forest management in international forest policy arenas.

2. Enhancing the climate- and energy-related benefits of forests;

3. Protecting the biological diversity and environmental benefits of forests;

4. Promoting the use of forests as a source of culture and recreation;

5. Strengthening skills, the expertise of forest professionals, and acceptability of the forest sector;

NFS 2025 1. Finland is a competitive operating environment for forest-based business.

a. Forest sector grows, enterprises and business are renewed, and new and growth enterprises are developed.

b. Supply of raw materials allows for increased use of forests and new investments

c. EU and international forest policy promote sustainable use, acceptability and competitiveness of forests and wood

2. Forest-based business and activities and their structures are renewed and diversified.

a. Forest-based business and activities is diverse and responds to changing needs

b. Administration is flexible, effective and customer- oriented

3. Forests are in active, economically, ecologically and socially sustainable and diverse use.

a. Forestry is active and business-oriented

1c. EU and international forest policy promote sustainable use, acceptability and competitiveness of forests and wood,

3. Forests are in active, economically, ecologically and socially sustainable and diverse use.

b. Forest biodiversity and ecological and social sustainability are reinforced

2. Forest-based businesses and activities and their structures are renewed and diversified.

a. Forest-based business know-how and activity is diverse and responds to changing needs 3. Forests are in active, economically, ecologically and socially sustainable and diverse use.

b. Forest biodiversity and ecological and social sustainability are reinforced

(8)

claimed, because of lack of time. According to this ‘quick assessment’ of environmental impacts, the programme did not have a noticeable effect on forest biodiversity. However, a positive effect on the carbon sink was identified. The programme based its approach to environmental aspects on New Environmental Programme for ForestryPF (1994) but did not contain a strategy from planning to action. Nevertheless, it stated that a broad-based working group investigating the needs of forest protection in Southern Finland was to be established. Thus, environmental sustainability in the programme was classified as integrated, while economic and social aspects were seen to influence the consideration of safeguarding the environment to a great extent.

Improving livelihoods in the Finnish countryside was one of the main focuses of the programme. This was claimed to be achieved with more intensive forest management and increased use of wood since it was presented to improve employment in the countryside. Cultural values and appreciation of forests were enhanced through research and training. Producers and users of information were brought together in an innovation. Finland would promote its interests in forests and the environment through participation in international forest policy processes, research, training, and efficient communication.

The green governmentality discourse also influenced the economic and social aspects of the programme. Interestingly, the formulation and follow-up processes of the programme with broad-based involvement of stakeholders and citizens reflect the civic environmentalism discourse, even though this discourse was not apparent in the programme content.

3.2. National Forest Programme 2015

The economic goals were emphasised and prioritised in the six priorities of the NFP 2015 (Table 3). Four of the six main goals of the programme were identified as economic (1, 2, 5 and 6), two as environmental (2 and 3) and two as social (4 and 5). Environmental and social goals were integrated into the programme. The ecological modernisation discourse was the dominant one, especially in the economic and environmental issues (Table 4). Since the approach of the programme was market-oriented, in addition to economic aspects, ecological modernisation discourse also influenced environmental issues alongside the green governmentality discourse. Each of the six priorities of the NFP 2015 had its own objectives, and measures to achieve them were proposed.

The desired economic and social impacts of the programme were presented in a specific and positive way. Environmental impacts of the programme were presented only in vague detail, implying that they might be negative. The Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland 2008–2016 (METSO programme) was described as the main tool of the NFP 2015 in conserving biodiversity.

The programme set 27 target levels for the year 2015: 15 of these were economic (12 were set on a specific level with numerical indicators, and three were set on a rhetorical level without numerical indicators). There were nine social target levels (six specific, three rhetorical) and three environmental target levels (two specific, one rhetorical).

3.3. National Forest Strategy 2025

The economic goals had a leading role and were prioritised in the strategy (Table 3 and Table 4), and environmental and social goals were integrated into it (Table 4). Ecological modernisation was the dominating discourse in the economic, environmental, and social aspects of the strategy, and the green governmentality discourse was used to support the argumentation by designating aspects regarded as needing administration. The participatory preparation process of the strategy reflected the civic environmentalism discourse, although it was less obvious than in the two previous programmes.

Achieving economic growth was the main goal of the strategy.

Forest-based businesses (‘Finnish bioeconomy’) were regarded as play- ing a prominent role through increased forest use. The strategy also aimed at intensifying the use of other ecosystem services related to forests, including landscape preservation, carbon sinks, water, and biodiversity. These intangible goods were expected to constitute significant business opportunities in the future. Maintaining the demand for forest-based products was regarded as a prerequisite, which was to be achieved by supporting the social acceptability of forestry (ecological and social sustainability). The strategy was written based on the Gov- ernment Report on Forest Policy 2050, and its implementation was closely linked to other national strategies and programmes, such as the Bioeconomy Strategy, Energy and Climate Policy Strategy and National Biodiversity Strategy.

The strategy contained 28 objectives and established a strategic project portfolio of 11 projects on which the public sector especially should concentrate on between 2015 and 2020. These projects aimed to meet the objectives and overcome the economic, social, and environmental challenges identified in the strategy. New natural resources were expected to be employed and the resources were expected to be used more efficiently as a result of technological development.

The implementation and success of the strategy was assessed using 27 indicators which had target levels to be reached by 2025, each being compared with the initial level in 2013. However, some of the indicators were missing the initial value, making it difficult or impossible to evaluate whether the trend was growing or declining. Two of the 11 economic indicators, seven of the ten environmental indicators, and none of the six social indicators were numerical. The rest of the indicators showed a general trend, such as ‘increasing’, ‘declining” or

‘meets the need’ and were, thus, regarded as “rhetorical” in the analysis because without numerical indicators, it is difficult to assess whether the goal has been reached.

4. Discussion

Three Finnish Forest policy documents guiding forest policy published between 1999 and 2015 were analysed, the results indicating a strong emphasis on a win-win narrative and the dominance of economic values in all these documents. Through time, the view remains anthro- pocentric rather than ecocentric. In the 2000s, new technologies and technological fixes, rather than fundamental re-orientation and change in practices, started to play a bigger role in what was thought of and put forward in forest policy as environmental problem-solving. In the Na- tional Forest Programme 2010, the green governmentality discourse was the main one related to environmental aspects, but the ecological modernisation discourse emphasising business-oriented approaches to solving environmental problems started to influence the environmental aspects of the National Forest Programme 2015 and National Forest Table 4

Strengths (ranging from integrated to prioritised) of economic, environmental and social goals expressed in the three policies, and related discourses.

Goals

Policy Economic Environmental Social

NFP 2010 Prioritised Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality

Integrated Green governmentality

Integrated

Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality, Civic environmentalism NFP 2015 Prioritised

Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality

Integrated Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality

Integrated

Green governmentality

NFS 2025 Prioritised Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality

Integrated Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality

Integrated

Ecological modernisation, Green governmentality

(9)

Strategy 2025 (Fig. 3). Core ecological modernisation ideas became increasingly apparent in the 2010s as the bioeconomy started to gain more ground. This, our analysis shows, gave way again to the legiti- misation of industrial forestry. Interestingly, while civic environmentalism is not visible in the narratives articulated in the programmes, one could argue it is particularly reflected in the preparation process of the National Forest Programme 2010 through attempts to achieve a participatory and collaborative bottom-up approach faded out ever since. Moreover, we question the quality and nature of participation in the Finnish forest policy processes, an issue also identified in an earlier study by Tikkanen (2018).

As Fig. 3 shows, as growth oriented and opportunistic ecological modernisation terminology strengthened, the operationalising and managerial terminology of green governmentality took a smaller role and that of participatory civic environmentalism diminished over time.

In addition, our findings show that whensocial sustainability iscon- sidered, it is mainly perceived through the idea of generating welfare by increased forest exploitation. The analysis showed that this well-being was expected to be the consequence of employment and tax revenues from forest use. Cultural values related to forests were acknowledged in the selected forest policy documents and were mainly viewed as a prospect for commodification. Notions related to education, occupa- tional training and research aimed at business creation and boosting forest-based bioeconomy. To legitimize the use of forest resources, the importance of forests for national well-being was to be communicated to children. The role of public participation, an integral part of social sustainability, was supported in the NFS 2025 by arranging regional hearings, and a web-based inquiry for the citizens in addition to the procedural request for stakeholders to comment on the draft. However, it is difficult to judge how far different opinions have been considered.

The overall absence of civic environmentalism in the programme content, and the growing dominance of the ecological modernisation narrative indicate that the ‘Spirit of Rio’ reached its peak at the begin- ning of the 2000s and has faded out ever since. The intention to have participatory writing processes and citizen forums in preparing the policy documents is not sufficient to compensate for the disappearance of calls for a fundamental reorientation and participation over time. The development reflects the resurgence of a top-down approach and the dominance of business-as-usual in Finnish forest policy and practice considering the challenges to come (see also Tikkanen, 2018). Moreover, as Peltomaa (2018) noted regarding the initiatives for participatory preparation of national bioeconomy strategies in Finland, there is a risk that efforts concentrate on informing rather than co-producing strategies together with citizens.

The results of this research are in line with earlier research findings which argue that the dominant bioeconomy discourses globally (B¨ackstrand and Lovbrand, 2006), within the EU (Kleinschmit et al., ¨ 2017; Albrecht et al., 2021) and in Finland (Kr¨oger and Raitio, 2017;

Toivanen 2021) prioritise economic considerations over social and environmental ones. The findings also correspond with research from

McCormick and Kautto (2013) and Kuhlman and Farrington (2010) who found that while economic, social, and environmental aspects might be considered, economic aspects tend to dominate the other aspects in environmental decision-making. Our findings suggest that although the language generally used in the policies refers to sustainability, on closer inspection, the understanding of sustainability focuses more specifically on economic aspects. Similarly, in an analysis of bioeconomy narratives advanced by Finnish newspapers, Peltomaa (2018) found that the most prominent narrative was the resource-centred bioeconomy narrative.

The author states that this narrative considers growth acceleration the underlying logic and leans towards the capitalist growth paradigm over sustainable resource use. These observations correspond with Kleinschmit et al. (2017) who pointed out that the integration of environmental concerns into bioeconomy policies is often weak and rhetorical. In the Finnish case, this seems to be even more pronounced.

Following Katila (2017), it seems that the launch of the METSO programme enabled outsourcing of the environmental aspects from the national forest programmes into their separate sub programmes.

Furthermore, our findings resonate with findings from Harrinkari et al. (2016) who showed that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland is the principal actor in an administrative coalition which seeks to combine all aspects of forest use, albeit inclined towards increased use of forests, and driven by economic goals. In light of the existing Finnish forest policy literature, our findings do not come as a surprise, but they do complement in a policy document analysis what others, such as Katila (2017) with a WPR analysis focussing on problematisations, or Harrin- kari et al. (2016) with a focus on actors’ advocacy coalitions have already pointed out. While calls for transformations in the forest (and wider land use) sector might become louder in society at large, there is a risk that in the forestry sector, business-as-usual becomes more dominant, facilitated by policy that moves away from rather than towards the ideals and concerns articulated by the Rio conference in 1992.

In addition, within the wider sustainability arena in Finland, our findings corroborate other analysis in Finland indicating that while sustainability is incorporated into policies, the leading interest is economic growth, or as Berg et al. (2019) found, while sustainability is an accepted policy goal in Finland, other goals, such as short-term economic gains, surpass environmental sustainability. Furthermore, in line with Berg et al. (2019), our study found that short-term economic goals dominate the policies over long-term goals, and policy decision impacts are not evaluated in the policies sufficiently, as reflected in cases where environmental and social aspects are integrated into strategies, but evaluation methods and tools are missing. In that sense, the latest programme, the NFS 2025, responds to these concerns with its strategic approach and set of indicators, which are followed annually. However, the question remains how insights from monitoring beyond economic indicators will then be used to re-evaluate forest policy and potentially lead to a re-formulation of current forest policy.

Scholars, such as McCormick and Kautto (2013) and Kr¨oger and Raitio (2017), have argued that the realization of bioeconomy comes

Fig. 3.The influence of various discourses on the policy objectives. The size of the shapes reflects the frequency of language related to the discourses.

(10)

with trade-offs. Our analysis of the policy documents revealed many trade-offs between economic and environmental goals which are already embedded in current and past forest policy. One example is the tension between protection of biodiversity and the recreational value of forests versus increased productivity goals and intensification of the use of forest resources, or, as one could argue, favouring selected economic interests versus wider societal and environmental ones. Another example, as argued by Toivanen (2021) and Schulz et al. (2022), is the increase in harvesting levels as proposed by forest programmes, which would reduce the current carbon sink and thus make short-term carbon neutrality targets hard to achieve. According to our analysis, there is a lack of reflections and discussion on the trade-offs and their implications. Given the economic growth orientation of the programmes analysed, the lack of consideration of trade-offs is perhaps not surprising.

However, ignoring trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental goals will most likely be at the expense of environmental goals and ambition, so that sustainability then risks being an empty buzzword.

Trade-offs are, however, a regular experience for forest owners in their decision-making, and the recent scholarship on forest owners reflects this polarization rather than a reconciliation of diverse interests to the benefit of social-environmental aspects of sustainability. Heinonen et al. (2020) emphasize that private forest owners’ varying forest management objectives may potentially be an obstacle to achieving the harvesting targets of Finnish bioeconomy. They suggest that to increase timber supply to meet bioeconomy demand, forest owners oriented towards conservation and recreation should be informed about different silvicultural methods. By contrast, Takala et al. (2021) state that pro- ductivist Finnish forest owners should be made more conscious of their own ideologies with the help of forest professionals, to allow trans- formative environmentalist voices to advance environmentally and socially more sustainable forest use.

The low prioritization of environmental concerns and the discon- nection of environmental degradation and economic growth can potentially lead to short-sighted political measures that can contradict sustainability objectives. According to Berg et al. (2019), Finns already perform poorly in their carbon footprint on consumption. Given this, society needs a transformational change away from over-consumption instead of making the current consumption patterns greener with the utilization of biomass. The policy documents perceive that growing revenues from forests create welfare for Finnish citizens. However, a perception that social welfare is tied to growing incomes is problematic, as the improvement of social conditions should be assessed by multiple indicators, not just economic ones. Furthermore, the distribution of the expected increased income is not explicitly defined, making it difficult to assess who will benefit and to what extent. Given the narrow integration of environmental ambitions and the dominant position of the economy, there is a risk of bioeconomy being used to legitimize an exploitative agenda for commercialization of natural resources. The research findings demonstrate that the forest-based bioeconomy supports a conser- vative economic model of industrial growth in the forest industry, overlooking the intrinsic value of nature and benefits associated with it, as well as its long-term sustainability. According to McCormick and Kautto (2013), in order to realize the benefits of the bioeconomy, sustainability should be the guiding principle instead of the business-as- usual approach. Otherwise, there are significant risks and trade-offs embedded in a large-scale increase in biomass utilization.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we examined how sustainability has been framed in Finnish forest policies and what the implications of these framings for Finnish forests and society are. We used discourse analysis to analyse forest policy documents that were published between 1999 and 2015.

We found that the dominant meta-discourse is ecological modernisation, which disconnects economic growth from ecological degradation, and manifests a win-win situation in which industrialization is made

environmentally friendly with new technologies and innovative products. Our analysis suggests that the forest-based bioeconomy is synonymous with and used to further legitimize industrial forestry. While the main findings of our analysis are corroborated by the wider literature, the study has a number of limitations because of the focused selection of policies and textual analysis. These limitations could be overcome by expanding the scope of the policies integrated into the analysis and by complementing this by interviews to further unpack the politics in play.

The bioeconomy development both in Finland and Europe has been criticized for falling short of recognizing environmental sustainability and societal well-being as well as for its narrow understanding of sustainability (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010; Berg et al., 2019; Holmgren et al., 2020). Our analysis of three Finnish forest policy documents adds to these concerns, as forest policy and its promotion of economic ambitions at the expense of environmental ones and an ambition for change is explicitly linked to a forest-based bioeconomy framing. The motiva- tion for forest nature management in these documents is to increase the productivity of forests rather than to create biodiversity-rich forest resources for the benefit of nature, that would also have better prospects of facing the effects of climate change. The societal importance of forests and nature is recognized in the policies examined, as well as the cultural values inherent in forest landscapes, but are treated as prospects for commodification. Moreover, the policies seem to seek social acceptance and legitimization of a further intensification of the current Finnish forestry and growing forest resource use. Drawing from this, although various dimensions of sustainability are taken into consideration, forest industry needs are prioritised.

Our analysis shows that the three most recent Finnish forest programmes advocate continuation of the already contested forestry model in Finland without properly assessing the long-term sustainability of forest-based bioeconomy. To strengthen environmental and social sustainability of Finnish forest policy, the assumption that forestry is inherently green and synonymous with bioeconomy needs unpacking.

The forest policy-makers should acknowledge the complexity of the forest-based bioeconomy, and various opinions and voices should be incorporated into the policy process. In addition to the optimistic, growth-oriented talk about the forest-based bioeconomy, the trade-offs, challenges, costs, and possible consequences of extensive forest use should also be communicated. The citizens, including forest owners and environmentalist groups, should have more channels through which to contribute to policy-making, and more time and resources should be allocated to the participatory policy process to create meaningful outcomes.

In the light of the research findings, the forest-based bioeconomy in Finland risks becoming an extension of recent forest policy which emphasizes industrial forestry, and, as such, will not facilitate any of the larger changes required to make progress towards long term sustainability.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Niina Pietarinen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Teemu Harrinkari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Writing – review &

editing, Supervision. Maria Brockhaus: Conceptualization, Methodol- ogy, Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Natalya Yakusheva: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

(11)

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all reviewers of the paper, in particular Jukka Tikkanen who provided very helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Appendix A. The working groups that formulated the programmes

NFP 2010 NFP 2015 NFS 2025

Ministerial committee

6 members The Forest Council (24 organizations

represented)

1 chair +1 vice chair +1 secretary +20 members (& 20 vice-members)

‘National Forest Strategy preparation relied on broad-based stakeholder cooperation that was directed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and supported by the National Forest Council.’ (National Forest Strategy, p. 7)

Executive committee

(1 chair +13 members [at a time]

+1 general secretary)

Secretariat of the Forest Council (12 organizations)

1 chair +1 vice-chair +11 members at a time

Operating committee

(1 chair +9 members) Working Group 1. Economic sustainability of forest sector

17 organizations (20 members) 1 chair +1 vice-chair +2 secretaries +16 members

Committee on forestry and forest protection

(1 chair +12–13 members +3 secretaries)

Working Group 2. Ecological sustainability of forests 14 organizations (16 members) 1 chair +1 vice-chair +2 secretaries +12 members

Committee on forest use and markets

(2 chairs +9 members +3 secretaries)

Working Group 3. Social and cultural sustainability of the forest sector 30 organizations (36 members) 1 chair +1 vice +30 members +2 permanent expert members Forestry innovations committee

(1 chair +10 members +3 secretaries)

Working Group 4. Advisory board on international forest policy 16 organizations (20 members) 1 chair +1 vice-chair +2 secretaries +15 members

Panel of experts (16 members) Technical assistance

(6 members)

References

Albrecht, M., Grundel, I., Morales, D., 2021. Regional bioeconomies: public finance and sustainable policy narratives. Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography. 103 https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2021.1921603.

Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions: a discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy Econ. 11 (5–6), 340–347. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.004.

Bacchi, C., 2005. Discourse, discourse everywhere: subject “agency” in feminist discourse methodology. Nordic J. Women’s Studies 13 (03), 198–209. https://doi.org/

10.1080/08038740600600407.

Bacchi, C., 2009. Analysing policy. In: Pearson Higher Education AU, 2009, p. 321.

B¨ackstrand, K., L¨ovbrand, E., 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global. Environ. Politics 6 (1), 50–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/

152638006775991911.

Berg, A., Lähteenoja, S., Ylönen, M., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Linko, T., Lonkila, K.M., Lyytimäki, J., Salmivaara, A., Salo, H., Schönach, P., Suutarinen, I., 2019.

PATH2030 – An Evaluation of Finland’s Sustainable Development Policy.

Publication series of the Government’s analysis, assessment and research activities 23/2019. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-655-3.

European Commission, 2012. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: AA Bioeconomy for Europe. European Union, Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2777/6462.

European Commission, 2018. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: StrengtheningS the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment: Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. European Union, Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2777/792130.

Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

Foucault, M., 1994. [1981]. So is it important to think? In: Faubion, J.D. (Ed.), Power:

Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3. Penguin, London. Hurley, R. and others (trans.).

Glück, P., Oesten, G., Schanz, H., Volz, K.-R., 1999. Formulation and Implementation of National Forest Programmes. Vol I: theoretical aspects. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar held in Freiburg, Germany 18–20 May 1998. EFI Proceedings No. 30, volume I.

Hajer, M.A., 1995. The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 344.

Harrinkari, T., Katila, P., Karppinen, H., 2016. Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics:

revision of Finnish Forest Act. Forest Policy Econ. 67, 30–37. https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411630017X.

Heinonen, T., Pukkala, T., Asikainen, A., 2020. Variation in forest landowners’

management preferences reduces timber supply from Finnish forests. Ann. For. Sci.

77 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-00939-z.

Holmgren, S., D’Amato, D., Giurca, A., 2020. Bioeconomy imaginaries: a review of forest-related social science literature. Ambio 49 (12), 1860–1877. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s13280-020-01398-6.

Hrabanski, M., 2017. Private Sector Involvement in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Using a UN platform to promote market-based instruments for ecosystem services. Environ. Policy and Governance 27 (6), 605–618. https://doi.

org/10.1002/eet.1780.

Katila, P., 2017. Forestry development priorities in Finnish national forest programmes.

Int. For. Rev. 19 (S1), 125–138. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26431637.