Almost all policymaking take place within policy subsystems. Understanding the scope of the policy subsystem within which the analysed phenomenon lies is one of the most important aspects of an ACF research project (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). A policy subsystem has been defined as “the area or space within a country where policy issues are governed, such as the policy processes of formulating and adopting public policies and implementing and enforcing them” (Weible & Ingold 2018, 329). Policy subsystems are nested and overlap with each other, therefore identifying the scope of the relevant policy subsystem can be challenging. When the topic is embedded in international treaties, identifying the appropriate scope of policy subsystem is particularly complicated (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Sabatier and Weible recommend a “focus on the substantive and geographic scope of the institutions that structure interaction”, in order to identify the right scope of policy subsystem (Sabatier & Weible 2007, 193).
When analysing the policy process regarding the role of forests in mitigating climate change, it is evident that the substantive scope covers both forest policy and climate change policy. Furthermore, the subsystems are part of a wider international dimension and an EU-scope with limited authority to influence national policies (Figure 1.) Understanding the subsystems in which the respondents of this study operate requires an overview of the climate change policy and the forest policy subsystems in Finland, as well as a brief introduction to the Finnish political system and the special committees where the policy making takes place.
International Climate Change Policy Subsystem EU Climate Change Policy
Subsystem
Finnish Climate Change Policy Subsystem Finnish Forest Policy
Subsystem
Figure 1.
Overlapping International, National, and Sub-national Subsystems Associated with the Role of Finnish Forests in Mitigating Climate Change. (Author, modified from Sewell 2005, 22)
Finland is a parliamentary representative democracy. The head of the government is the Prime Minister who leads the nation’s executive branch, the Finnish Government. Legislative power is vested in the Parliament of Finland, that consists of 200 members representing nine different political party groups.
The decisions of the Parliament are prepared in special committees. These committees represent the locations where decision making takes place, beliefs clash or converge and policy and science interact.
Committees prepare government bills, legislative initiatives, government reports and other matters for handling in plenary sessions. Each committee deals with matters that fall within the scope of a
corresponding ministry, e.g. the Environment Committee deals with matters that come under the Ministry of Environment and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee with matters that come under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The composition of each committee reflects the relative power of the parliamentary groups. In practice the parliamentary groups divide committee seats and appoint members to them. Most committees have 17 members and 9 alternate members. Members of Parliament usually work in two different committees (Parliament of Finland, 2019).
Committees are the most important channel through which members of the Parliament can wield influence. In the committees, members hear experts who evaluate the impacts of proposed legislation.
Experts invited to hearings include university researchers, civil servants from a ministry or agency and representatives of NGOs or lobbying organisations. By asking questions to the experts, committee members can get a thorough understanding of the legislation, and if necessary, recommend changes to the proposal (Parliament of Finland, 2019).
Antti Gronow and Tuomas Ylä-Anttila have analysed the Finnish climate change policy subsystem in order to test two alternative explanations for Finland’s low climate performance. They based their analysis on an online survey on Finnish climate change policy conducted in 2014, and used various techniques to discover the most important actors in the climate change policy arena (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). Representatives of 96 major national organisations with a stake in climate change policy in Finland, were identified and contacted for the study. The authors measured the policy core beliefs of respondents according to fundamental value priorities “economic development versus environment protection” (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). They also used several variables to measure reputational power and political and financial resources, in order to understand the power relations of the actors and those between the identified advocacy coalitions (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). Gronow and Ylä-Anttila found that the Finnish climate change policy subsystem is divided into three coalitions: The Treadmill Coalition, the ENGO Coalition, and the Government and Research Coalition. The organisations in each coalition where ranked according to reputational power defined as in-degree centrality, a figure representing the proportion of actors in the policy subsystem that consider the organisation influential (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). See table 1 for a presentation of the 15 most influential organisations of each coalition. The Treadmill Coalition is composed of organisations with a policy core belief that prioritises economic growth over ecological objectives. It is led by the Ministry of Employment which has the highest reputational power (0.77) in the whole policy subsystem (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019).
The international and national environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGO) coalition, which values environmental protection more than economic growth, was found to be the least influential coalition in the Finnish climate change policy subsystem. Major international and national environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (0.58) and Greenpeace (0.44) belong to this coalition, as well as two smaller political parties; the Greens (0.49), and the Left Alliance (0.18) (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). The Government and Research Coalition lies between the other two coalitions both in terms of policy core beliefs and perceived influential power. Four ministries whose mandates concern climate change are identified as belonging to this coalition: the Ministry of Environment (0.75), Finance (0.60), Agriculture and Forestry (0.55), and Transport and Communications (0.52) (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). Research institutions were also identified as belonging to this group with Sitra (0.53) and the Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE) 0.51) the two most influential ones, however the Climate Panel (0.42) is rated less influential
than both government owned energy corporations belonging to the coalition; Fortum (0.60) and Neste Oil (0.46) (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019).
Gronow and Ylä-Anttila tested two alternative explanations for Finland’s low climate performance by measuring pro-mitigation beliefs, influence, political resources and financial resources of the identified coalitions and comparing the findings with the hypotheses. Their findings suggest that “the weak climate change policy outcome is the result of the existence of a dominant policy coalition that includes business, labour, and government organizations and which is strong in its resources and prioritizes economic growth over ecological objectives” (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila 2019, 866).
Table 1. Advocacy Coalitions in the Finnish Climate Change Policy Subsystem
(Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019, 870)
The Finnish forest policy subsystem differs from the climate change policy subsystem in several aspects. The climate change subsystem is a nascent policy subsystem, which emerged in the late 1980s, when global climate change was brought up on the national agenda. The forest policy subsystem on the other hand, is a mature subsystem that has been in place since the establishment of the Finnish state.
The Finnish forest sector has historically been of great importance for the national economy and development. It has served as a basis for rural livelihoods, and still today most of the productive forest area is privately owned (Harrinkari et al., 2016). Even though the economic importance of the forest sector has decreased during the past decades, it still represented 20% of exported goods and 4% of GNP in 2012 (Kröger & Raitio, 2017). Forest policy is administrated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Traditionally forest policy making has been appointed to committees and working groups, where the forest industry and forest owners have represented the main interest (Harrinkari et al., 2016).
Harrinkari et al. (2016) used the ACF to identify and describe belief structures and the coordination of advocacy coalitions within the Finnish forest policy subsystem. They analysed documents produced during the revision of the Finnish Forest Act in 2014, and conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of 17 organisations that belonged to the working group which participated in creating the proposition for the law (Harrinkari et al., 2016). A New Economic Paradigm scale (NEP) was used to measure the pro-environmental activism of the interviewees which contributed to discovering their policy core beliefs. From the examined data the authors identified three advocacy coalitions, based on
Environmental coalition it was 62 (Harrinkari et al., 2016). The Forestry coalition consisted of organisations and institutions representing the forest industry and forest owners. These two groups with different interests were represented by the principal members of this coalition, the Finnish Forest Industries Federation and the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) (Harrinkari et al., 2016). Maintaining forestry and forest industry as lucrative businesses is the basic value priorities of the forestry coalition (Harrinkari et al., 2016).
The principal members of the Administrative coalition were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and its subordinated organisations, The Finnish Forest Centre, Forestry Development Centre (TAPIO) and Finnish Forest Research Institute (now merged into Natural Resources Institute Finland, LUKE).
The administrative coalition values both market and non-market benefits of forests and tries to combine different aspects in order to maximise benefits for the nation as a whole. However, in many situations, the priorities within this coalition leaned towards economic use of forests (Harrinkari et al., 2016). Research organisations had strong influences on the revision of the forest act as their expertise was used to solve different substantive issues. They share information willingly and are well-connected with other actors across the policy subsystem (Harrinkari et al., 2016).
Finally, the Environmental coalition consisted of the Ministry of Environment and environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs). Members of the Environment coalition have a shared value ground and intensive coordination of activities. Their basic value priorities are environmental protection and they work to make Finnish forestry environmentally sustainable. Members of this coalition struggle to be influential, as their efforts might have negative economic impacts on the forest industry, forest owners and the government. They bring attention to biodiversity and other non-monetary forest values and try to shape public opinion against the actors who have direct economic interests in the forest sector (Harrinkari et al., 2016).
The normative beliefs of both the Forestry coalition and the Administrative coalition derive from the forest paradigm. The normative beliefs of the Environmental coalition derive from the environmental paradigm (Harrinkari et al., 2016). An interesting aspect of this study is that the Agriculture and Forestry Ministry and the Environmental Ministry have normative beliefs deriving from different paradigms and operate through different coalitions. This has led to “polarised coordination patterns between rival coalitions, minimal communication channels between opponents and a long-term disagreement about major questions”
within the subsystem (Harrinkari et al., 2016). These two ministries representing the state have overlapping responsibilities but different goals and reputational power. The Ministry of the
Environment was established in 1983, while the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry dates back to the beginning of Finland’s independence in 1917. The Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE) is part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s administrative branch, while the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) is part of the Ministry of Environment. The considerable disparities between the annual budgets illustrate the power dynamics of the two Ministries; in 2019 the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s annual budget was 2,6 billion euros, about thirteen times bigger than the budget of the Ministry of the Environment which was 199 million euros (Ministry of Finance, 2018).
Table 2. Advocacy coalitions in the Finnish Forest Sector
(Harrinkari et al., 2016, 33)
Resistance to change
In order to mitigate global climate change in an efficient and equitable manner, transformational change is needed (Brockhaus & Angelsen, 2012). Within the Finnish forest policy subsystem,
transformational change can be described as: A shift in fundamental beliefs, attitudes, power relations, and deliberate policy and protest action that leads policy formulation and implementation away from business-as-usual policy approaches that hinder Finland in reaching the climate neutrality targets by year 2035.
Finland is a corporate country, characterised by tripartite agreements, strong peak organisations and multi-party polities (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). The tripartite power structure might have created a path dependency where power relations and the economic dominance of energy-intensive export industries are preventing the needed changes to occur. Resistance to change or “stickiness” can also derive from a complexity of actors operating together in a manner that is serving the present needs. In forest rich countries, like Finland, resistance to change could be explained by a fear of losing influence (Brockhaus & Angelsen, 2012). Stickiness and path-dependencies could be overcome by introducing new actors and creating new institutions. However, it is often difficult for new institutions to have influence in an arena where the formal power is held by the older organisations (Brockhaus &
Angelsen, 2012).
Opponents of climate change mitigation use different strategies depending on the political system in which they operate (Vesa et al., 2020). In corporatist countries, powerful opponents to climate policies do not rely on extensive media representation and do not even hold denialist views on climate science.
intensive technologies, the metal industry and the forestry and agricultural sectors, which historically have been of great economic importance. Trade unions representing these industries can also be expected to oppose ambitious climate policies, out of fear of job losses (Vesa et al., 2020). Finally, ministries responsible for economic policies have incentives to counteract implementation of climate mitigation measures because the Government aims to secure economic growth and high employment (Vesa et al., 2020). A recent study confirmed that only a small group, 26% of the organisations in the Finnish climate policy arena, prioritises economic and energy concerns over climate change mitigation.
This influential coalition include business associations, firms, trade unions and ministries. They occupy core positions in the policy subsystem and collaborate with key government ministries. This pro-economy coalition do not seek media attention, but rely on inside lobbying as a means of wielding influence (Vesa et al., 2020).
Changing the trajectory of the business-as-usual forest policy is challenging due to the institutional resistance to change and ongoing inside lobbying within the subsystems. However, as the climate neutrality target for 2035 shows, efforts have been made to steer the development of forestry in a more sustainable direction (Government of Finland, 2019). What are then the prospects for belief and policy change to take place in the Finnish forest and climate change policy subsystems? Drawing from the ACF theory, this thesis will analyse the interaction between policy makers and the information that they base their decisions on i.e. expert hearings and research. The ACF describes policy-oriented learning, internal shocks and external shocks as possible paths to change. Policy-oriented learning is initiated by new information or experiences, which changes the beliefs or behavioural intentions of the actors (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). New information is replacing old traditions of action, especially in “unsettled situations” such as global climate change (Brockhaus & Angelsen, 2012). Emerging information, about the value of standing forests and the effects of harvesting levels on carbon sequestration and storage, could affect the behavioural intentions of policy makers in the future. As a matter of fact, once new information is initiated, the dense structure in Finland’s corporatist policy subsystems may provide optimal conditions for contagion, enabling quick policy change (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). Internal or external shocks could enable more rapid changes by shifting agendas, drawing attention to a
problem in the policy subsystem or redistributing monetary and political recourses. Removing
incentives, like subsidies and concessions that serve selective interests, is an example of policy changes that can stimulate transformational change in the forest policy context (Brockhaus & Angelsen, 2012).
Tax subsidies for peat use for heating, is an example of such perverse incentives in Finland. According to a previous study, governmental decision making on forest and environmental matters is strongly influenced by the interests of industry, landholders and the Ministry of Agriculture, and less based on science and autonomous state bureaucracies (Kröger & Raitio, 2017).
This thesis will look at the decision-making process by interviewing members of the parliament who work in the special committees assigned with environmental and forest issues. The aim of interviewing members of the selected committees is to shed light on Finnish climate change performance by
exploring policy makers perceptions and beliefs regarding forest-based mitigation plans. The study will seek to answer the following questions: What hampers and enables the realisation of Finnish ambitions to reach climate neutrality by 2035, especially regarding forest carbon sinks? How do Finnish policy makers perceive the role of forests in mitigating climate change, and how do belief systems shape their decisions? The high density of the Finnish policy subsystems provides favourable structural conditions for policy change to occur (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). By applying the ACF this study aims to identify signs of changing beliefs and opportunities for policy change through external or internal shocks.