The role of forests in climate change mitigation: perceptions of decision makers in the finnish parliament

Master

Reference

The role of forests in climate change mitigation: perceptions of decision makers in the finnish parliament

GESTRIN, Nina

Abstract

The role of forests in climate change mitigation: perceptions of decision makers in the finnish parliament.

GESTRIN, Nina. The role of forests in climate change mitigation: perceptions of decision makers in the finnish parliament. Master : Univ. Genève, 2021

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:148428

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

T HE R OLE OF F ORESTS IN C LIMATE C HANGE

M ITIGATION : P ERCEPTIONS OF D ECISION MAKERS IN THE F INNISH P ARLIAMENT

Nina Gestrin

Master Thesis

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Master’s degree in Standardization, Social Regulation and Sustainable Development

Under the supervision of Prof. Sandro Cattacin and Prof. Maria Brockhaus

January, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... 5

ACRONYMS ... 6

INTRODUCTION ... 7

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND METHODS ... 9

1. ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CHANGE ... 9

The model of the Individual... 9

Three paths to belief and policy change ...11

2. POLICY SUBSYSTEMS ... 12

Resistance to change ...16

3. METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS ... 18

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 19

Influence of belief systems ...19

The role of forests in mitigating climate change ...21

Conflicting information and expert hearings ...22

Opportunities for policy change ...25

What hampers policy change? The influence of a dominant coalition...25

CONCLUSION... 27

LIST OF FIGURES

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)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Advocacy Coalitions in the Finnish Climate Change Policy Subsystem (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019, 870)

Table 2: Advocacy Coalitions in the Finnish Forest Sector (Harrinkari et al., 2016, 33)

ABSTRACT

Finland has so far been dragging behind when it comes to efficient climate policies compared to the other Nordic countries. However, the current Governmental programme has set an ambitious target for Finland to become climate neutral by 2035 and climate negative soon after. Previous studies have found that a dominant pro-economy coalition is hindering efficient climate change policies in Finland and that the current forest policy aims to secure timber supply for the industry. The objective of this paper is to shed light on Finnish climate mitigation performance, by analysing policy makers’

perceptions and beliefs regarding forest-based mitigation plans. Drawing from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) this study examined the interaction between policy makers and science in order to discover challenges and opportunities concerning the realisation of Finnish ambitions of reaching climate neutrality by 2035. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of two special committees: the Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. The findings in support of the ACF theory confirmed that the individual belief systems of policy makers influence decision making, and that beliefs are resistant to change. In this study the background of the policy makers, particularly whether they come from an urban or rural area, seemed to affect how they perceive climate change and steered their opinions on how forests should be used to reach climate neutrality.

The results suggest that policy makers who come from urban areas, perceived climate change as a stronger personal threat and put more emphasis on the carbon sink aspect of forests, compared to policy makers from a rural location. Respondents from rural areas were more concerned about extreme or unjust measures for mitigating climate change, and expressed a greater confidence in the current forest policy and management methods. Furthermore, in line with previous research, signs of a pro- economy coalition being influential in the committees were identified. The prospects of Finland reaching climate neutrality by 2035 will to some extent depend on the influence of this coalition.

ACRONYMS

ACF Advocacy Coalition Framework

EU European Union

LUKE The Natural Resources Institute Finland

MTK The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners SLC The Central Union of Swedish-speaking Agricultural Producers in

Finland

SYKE The Finnish Environment Institute

TAPIO Forestry Development Centre

WWF World Wildlife Fund

INTRODUCTION

Significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are vital to mitigate global warming and climate change. In order to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius as targeted in the Paris

agreement, we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels and simultaneously increase the carbon sinks in the land use sector (Arneth et al., 2019). The required actions for land-based mitigation and land use change include a combination of reforestation, afforestation, reduced deforestation, and bioenergy (Arneth et al., 2019).

Finland has long been marked by a lack of ambitious climate policies and has the highest CO2

emissions per capita of all Nordic countries (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). According to a recent study, the reason for Finland’s low climate performance is the presence of a dominant pro-economy coalition, that includes business, labour and government organisations (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). This pro- economy coalition occupy core positions in the climate change policy network, collaborate with key government ministries and rely on inside lobbying as their influence strategy (Vesa et al., 2020).

Similar findings have been identified within the Finnish forest sector. Kröger and Ratio analysed the forest policy process in Finland during the revision of the Forest Act, and found that the current forest policy is a result of a hierarchical process that prioritises productivity over environmental and social goals (Kröger & Raitio, 2017). Statistical numbers on harvest levels and forest net carbon sink values, indicate that economic interests indeed count more than environmental interests and commitments to climate targets. In 2019, a total of 73.3 million cubic metres of roundwood was harvested from Finnish forests. Harvesting volumes had decreased slightly from the previous year, but this was still the second highest volume ever recorded and a 13 % increase compared with the average of the preceding 10 year- period (Luke, 2020). Simultaneously, the net carbon sink in the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector have been decreasing during the last 10 years, although there was an increase in 2019 compared to 2018 (Official statistics of Finland, 2019).

There are signs of changing attitudes regarding the importance of climate change mitigation, and efforts have been made to steer the forest sector in a more sustainable direction. Prime minister Sanna Marin’s government programme, has set out an ambitious target for Finland to become carbon neutral by 2035.

The strategies to reach climate neutrality include activities targeting emissions reduction as well as actions aimed at strengthening forest carbon sinks in the long and short term (Government of Finland, 2019). The Government is planning to create a comprehensive climate programme for the land use sector in order to identify means to reach the targets. The goal is to increase Finland’s net carbon sink (Government of Finland, 2019).

However, in order to reduce emissions, there is a need to replace the energy and fuel produced by fossil-based resources with renewable resources. In Finland the majority (74%) of renewable energy sources are forest based (Statistics Finland, 2019). Replacing fossil-based energy and products by increased harvesting in Finnish forests however, is not necessarily the win-win solution for reaching climate neutrality that one might wish for. There are two major challenges concerning climate change mitigation by substituting fossil-based material with wood-based material and fuels. Firstly, when forests are harvested, there is an immediate reduction in the forest carbon sink, even though new trees are planted to replace the old ones (Seppälä et al., 2019; Soimakallio et al., 2016). It has been estimated that when coal use is substituted for bioenergy produced from Finnish forests, it will take more than 100 years before climatic benefits start to occur (EASAC, 2017). Secondly, most of the carbon in new wood-based products and fuels will be released back into the atmosphere within a few years of harvesting due to energy use or decay (Seppälä et al., 2019; Soimakallio et al., 2016).

With 23 million hectares, or three fourths of the land area covered by forests, Finland is one of the most forest rich countries in Europe. Forestry has historically been important for the Finnish national economy and rural livelihoods. Forest-based heat entrepreneurships have been found to generate long-

term socioeconomic benefits in local and regional economies, especially in the rural areas which are challenged by negative lock-in of the local development (Lehtonen & Okkonen, 2019).

Consequently, keeping forestry as a lucrative business, is connected with maintaining and developing rural livelihoods. Previous researches have highlighted that coalitions with conflicting strategies and interests influence policy making concerning forestry and climate change mitigation. The aim of this paper is to shed light on Finnish climate mitigation performance, by exploring policy makers

perceptions and beliefs regarding forest-based mitigation plans. Drawing from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) theory, this thesis will analyse the interaction between actors (i.e. policy makers) and available information (i.e. expert hearings and research), in the context of forest and climate change policy subsystems. A previous analysis, based on official policy documents and the revision of the Forest Act, indicate that the current forest policy aims to secure timber supply for industry (Kröger &

Raitio, 2017). The authors suggested that 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. This thesis will look at the decision- making process by interviewing members of parliament who work in the special committees assigned with these questions: the Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. The high density of the Finnish climate change policy subsystem provides favourable structural conditions for policy change to occur (Gronow & Ylä-Anttila, 2019). By applying the ACF on interview data this study will also identify signals of policy change within the two special committees.

The research question of this study reads as follow:

• What hampers and enables the realisation of Finnish ambitions to reach climate neutrality by 2035, especially regarding the forest carbon sinks?

In order to provide comprehensive answers to the research question stated above, the following sub- questions were formulated:

• How do Finnish policy makers perceive the role of forests in climate change mitigation, and how do belief systems shape their decisions?

This thesis is organised in three main chapters as follows. In the first chapter (1.), a brief overview of the topic and the research questions are presented. In the second chapter (2.), the Advocacy Coalition Framework theory is introduced, followed by a section about the Finnish political system including the special committees. Next the Finnish climate policy and forest policy subsystems are presented based on existing studies and the research methods and data analysis are explained. Finally, the research findings are provided and discussed in light of the literature. Chapter three (3.) will draw the final conclusions and suggested recommendations.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND METHODS

1. ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CHANGE

The Advocacy Coalition Framework, (ACF) is a policy process framework developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith, which has been influential in forest policy researches (Arts, 2012; Sabatier &

Weible, 2007). The ACF was originally developed to deal with specific challenges involving conflicts in goals, technical disputes and multiple actors working in several levels of the government (Sabatier and Weible 2007). Since the ACF was introduced in 1988 the framework has been revised several times (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988; Sabatier & Weible, 2007; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). There has been at least three wide reviews of existing research applying the ACF (Harrinkari et al., 2016; Pierce et al., 2017; Weible et al., 2009). In the most recent review, authors found that ACF had been applied at least 161 times, in almost 100 peer reviewed English journals, between the years 2007 and 2014 (Pierce et al., 2017). The framework had been applied on 54 countries, most often focusing on a European country or the United States of America at a national level. The majority of studies that applied the ACF were aimed at examining energy and environmental issues (Pierce et al., 2017). The ACF can be applied to generate both general information about the policy process and also knowledge about a specific phenomenon (Pierce et al., 2017). The reviewed applications had a common research agenda in analysing the ACF’s theories of advocacy coalitions, policy change and policy-oriented learning (Pierce et al., 2017).

Contrary to other frameworks commonly used in forest policy analysis e.g. Rational policy analysis, Institutional policy analysis, Policy network analysis or Critical policy analysis, ACF assumes that political action is motivated by shared belief systems (Arts, 2012). ACF brings individual belief systems to the fore, and explains how they influence policy making and policy change through social

interactions (Arts, 2012).

The focus on individual belief systems, and on how they affect the likelihood of policy change, makes this theory suitable for analysing how Finnish policy members perceive climate change, and how they interpret and use information concerning the role of forests in mitigating climate change.

The model of the Individual

ACF recognizes two categories of normative reasoning driven by fundamentally different premises (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). On the one hand, there is a “logic of appropriateness” where abiding to rules is considered the right behaviour. On the other hand, there is a “logic of consequences” in which the right behaviour means maximizing good consequences (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). These two systems of reasoning represent the classic division between economists and sociologists (Sabatier &

Weible 2007).

According to the theory, actors tend to view the world through perceptual filters constructed by his or her normative reasoning. Actors with different normative reasoning will therefore interpret the same information in different ways, resulting in increased distrust between coalitions (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). The effects of perceptual filters also make actors chose among the available information, reaffirming conforming information and excluding information not in harmony with their own belief systems. Additionally, actors tend to remember defeats more than victories resulting in the “devils shift” i.e. opponents of actors are viewed as less trustworthy, and more evil and powerful than they are de facto (Sabatier & Weible, 2007; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). This, in turn leads to stronger ties within the group and increases the risk of conflict between coalitions.

The ACF conceptualises three levels of belief systems with different degrees of resistance to change: 1.

“deep core” or fundamental normative beliefs, 2. “policy core” and 3. “secondary aspects”.

“Deep core beliefs involve very general and ontological assumptions of human nature, the relative priority of fundamental values such as liberty and equality, the relative priority to welfare of different groups, the proper role of government vs.

markets in general, and about who should participate in governmental decision making”(Sabatier & Weible 2007, 194).

Deep core beliefs are very difficult to change as they originate from childhood socialization (Sabatier

& Weible, 2007).

Policy core beliefs are applications of deep core beliefs that operate at an entire policy subsystem (for example, the California water policy). They deal with fundamental policy choices and are therefore also difficult to change (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Components of policy core beliefs can be for example:

“the priority of different policy related values, whose welfare counts, the relative authority of governments and markets, the proper roles of the general public, elected officials, civil servants, experts, and the relative seriousness and causes of policy problems in the subsystem as a whole”(Sabatier & Weible 2007, 194).

Policy participants often understand relationships within their policy subsystem well, and might try to develop policy core beliefs within that subsystem according to their deep core beliefs. Sometimes, deep core beliefs and policy core beliefs do not go hand in hand. For example, conservatives will in general prioritise market-based solutions in line with their deep core beliefs, but some might see water

pollution as market failure, and act in favour of governmental regulation in that specific policy arena (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

Finally, there are secondary aspects, with the lowest level of resistance to change. Secondary beliefs are quite narrow in scope and can for example relate to “detailed rules and budgetary applications within a specific program, the seriousness and causes of problems in a specific locale or public participation guidelines within a specific statute” (Sabatier & Weible 2007, 196).

Secondary aspects are more negotiable across advocacy coalitions because changing them requires less evidence and fewer agreements (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

According to the ACF, policymaking in today’s modern societies, is complex to the extent that actors need to specialise in order to make an impact. Policy participants from different backgrounds form advocacy coalitions of actors with shared belief systems, in order to have influence on a certain policy issue (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Actors with similar policy core beliefs form alliances among legislators, agency officials, interest group leaders, judges, researchers, and intellectuals from multiple levels of government. If they also practise some level of coordination, an advocacy coalition is formed (Sabatier

& Weible, 2007).

The ACF defines policy process as “a function of interactions among competing coalitions within an issue-specific policy subsystem and the effects of system-wide parameters and events on the constraints and resources of the various coalitions” (Sewell 2005, 207). Advocacy coalitions operate within policy subsystems composed of public and private actors who seek to have influence on a certain field of policy (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

Policy subsystems have a topical or substantial focus and a geographic scope. The geographical dimension of the policy subsystem can be local, subnational or national and might be embedded in other policy subsystems (Weible & Ingold, 2018). For example, the Finnish forest policy subsystem is nested in or overlapping with the national climate subsystem which in turn is part of the EU climate change policy subsystem which overlaps with the international climate change policy subsystem (Figure 1.) The ACF distinguishes between mature and natal policy subsystems. The majority of the policy subsystems of most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have been in place for decades and can be considered mature (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). New policy subsystems can emerge when a new issue, like micro-pollutants or global climate change, is brought up on the political agenda (Ingold et al., 2017; Weible & Ingold, 2018). Policy subsystems are named subsystems because they are part of a larger political system in a country (Weible & Ingold, 2018).

Three paths to belief and policy change

How does belief systems of actors explain the likelihood of policy change? The impacts of perceptual filters and the “devils shift” strengthen group thinking and exacerbate distrust of opposing coalitions, making changes in belief systems unlikely to occur. Secondary beliefs may change as a result of learning processes influenced by scientific and technical information, but policy core beliefs are likely to remain stable over time (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

Sabatier and Weible (2007) have identified three possible paths of belief and policy change:

1. policy-oriented learning 2. internal shocks

3. external shocks

ACF assumes that policy change can occur as a result of the change in beliefs of some of the policy participants or by a replacement of a dominant coalition. However, major change will not derive from within the policy subsystem, but must come from an external source (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

Policy-oriented learning is the process of thoughts or behavioural intentions, concerning policy objectives, changing as a result of new information and/or experience (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

The chances of policy-oriented learning taking place depends on the level of the belief system.

Normative beliefs like deep core and policy core beliefs are, as described earlier, very resident to change. Secondary beliefs, on the other hand, are easier to change because less evidence is needed and belief change is required in fewer individuals (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Sabatier and Weible (2007) exemplify by stating that it is easier to change people’s minds about the causes of air pollution in Los Angeles than in the whole of the United States. Changing secondary beliefs through the process of policy-based learning is in general slow, and might take more than ten years (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

Belief and policy change may also arise rapidly, as a result of shocks within or external to the policy subsystem. These shocks or perturbations can consist of changes in socioeconomic conditions, regime change, outputs from other subsystems, or disaster (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Internal and external shocks shift agendas, put the spotlight on the problem in a policy subsystem and can enable

redistribution of critical political resources. Changes in resources (public support or financial support), might shift the power structure among the coalitions within a policy subsystem. External shocks might also affect the policy core beliefs in the dominant advocacy coalition (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Internal shocks create doubt within the dominant advocacy coalition about their policy core beliefs and

reinforce the policy core beliefs of the minority advocacy coalition(s). Environmental disasters caused by humans, like oil spills or aviation disasters, are examples of internal shocks. They draw attention to weaknesses in the policies or behaviour of the dominant advocacy coalition which might have

implications on the belief system of policy participants (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). The ACF assumes that policy making is motivated by the strong beliefs of policy participants and that information (scientific and technical) is the key to modify these beliefs. Researchers (university scientists, policy analysts, consultants) are therefore very important players in policy making and policy change (Sabatier

& Weible, 2007).

2. POLICY SUBSYSTEMS

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.

3. METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten members of the Finnish Parliament. Interviewees were selected based on membership of the Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, political party membership and willingness to participate in the study. First a selection of seven members of the Environment Committee were contacted, through individual emails to the politicians and their assistants. Five days later, seven more members and their assistants were contacted.

After having conducted six interviews in total, the saturation of data from the Environment committee was reached. Next, members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee were contacted in the same manner. The overall willingness to participate in the study was lower within this group. In the end all 17 members of the committee were contacted. Four of them were interviewed. The interviews were held online due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic via Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings. The

members of Parliament were interviewed in Finnish or Swedish, at times initiated by themselves. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interviews lasted between 32 minutes and 1 hour and 7 minutes. The selection of interviewees represented the following six political parties: Social Democratic Party of Finland, Finns Party, The Greens, Left Alliance, The Swedish People’s Party of Finland (SFP-RKP) and The Christian Democrats. None of the representatives contacted from the Centre Party or the National Coalition Party were willing to participate in the study.

The analysis of the transcripts was done with inductive coding techniques using the qualitative analysis computer software ATLAS.ti 8. Selected quotations were translated into English by the author.

The aim of the semi-structured interviews was to gain information about the informant’s perception of climate change, their opinion regarding the role of Finnish forests in reaching carbon neutrality by year 2035 and the kind of information (sources and experts) they relied on for decision making. The

questions were divided into three themes. First, respondents were asked about how they see the role of forests in Finland’s efforts to become carbon neutral by year 2035. The answers to this question led to follow up questions about harvest levels and methods, LULUCF regulation, bioenergy, energy

production and self-sufficiency issues. The second theme concerned climate change. Respondents were asked how they expect climate change will affect them personally, whether they have made any changes in their own life due to climate change and how they expect climate change to affect Finland and Finns in the future. The last part of the interview concerned decision making and work in the committees.

The respondents were asked about decision making, sources of information, influential experts and organisations within the committees and about challenges regarding decision making.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Influence of belief systems

The origin of the interviewee, the location of where he/she grew up, and their value positions were brought up in the majority of the interviews. Some respondents mentioned deep core beliefs, like environmental protection, as the reason they entered party politics.

“It (climate change) has to a great extent affected my choices in life, it is, for example, the reason why I entered party politics. Because I feel this is a very critical and challenging problem” (I7U). Another respondent described personal actions for mitigating climate change as something that had been a natural part of his/her life for decades.

“Well, hard to say what I have changed, since I have tried to make choices which would be good from a climate perspective and which are quite easily implemented, for several decades already” (I6U).

The origin of the interviewee or the geographic location of their residence was highlighted especially among respondents who live in rural areas or small municipalities, outside of the metropolitan area. A majority of the respondents mentioned their personal background as an explaining factor in decision making.

“On all climate issues, that first thought is what we are leaving behind us. I have two teenage children and therefore the thought of what I leave for them, and what kind of planet they will have, might be stronger. And next, of course, due to my own background, it is the industry and how we can reconcile these climate goals and industry issues together…” (I5R).

The same respondent also explained how the location of south east Finland and involvement in industrial affairs affected his/her view regarding the importance of Finnish self-sufficiency when it comes to timber. Two other respondents also mentioned his/her background when answering the same question.

“Well, maybe the fact that I come from (name of municipality), a paper industry locality and I have lived here all my life, so it's given. Certainly, this emphasis on the export industry derives from me having lived my life next to the factory pipes. So, it is inevitable that this will affect my opinions. Very strongly” (I8R). “Well, it is mostly my own references.

Naturally, also the discussion within the political party, but firstly the context in which I have lived, live. My experience, background…Well, I come from a rural area and grew up within the primary sector, therefore I am familiar with the context, to be able to reside anywhere in this country, therefore, from this perspective…trying to find the best and

reasonable long-term solution for the rural areas. Based on this. Surely there is a strong connection between where you come from, where you grew up and how you relate to this topic (forests)” (I9R). Another respondent brought up their personal background as a reason for being chosen to work in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.

“It was my own choice, but also, I am seen as a representative of rural Finland, therefore it was, it fitted the larger picture (within the political party) well…” (I10R).

The context in which the respondents live (urban or rural areas) seemed to influence how they view climate change and the role of forests to mitigate it. Based on earlier research pointing to the rural urban divide as an important one, the results were organised along this rural/urban divide. Six interviewees live in a rural area or a small municipality with less than 100 000 habitants. They formed the rural location group (I2R;I3R;I5R;I8R;I9R;I10R). Four interviewees live in a city belonging to the three biggest cities of Finland and they became part of the urban location group (I1U;I4U;I6UI;7U).

The influence of the place of residence became particularly evident when respondents were asked about climate change, and whether they had made changes in their own life due to climate change.

Many of the respondents explained the direct impacts of the warmer climate affecting growing seasons, the length of the season for winter and summer sports, effects of storms on forests and wet weather resulting in slippery roads.

“I am a farmer, I live surrounded by nature and live off nature in my civilian profession. And it is certain. It has affects.

It has already affected. The weather types have changed. I also refer to research here as we have had changed weather types.

Locally, perhaps not increased precipitation, but very uneven precipitation. We have very long dry periods, and very rainy periods, etc. So, it does affect me” (I6R).

Some answered the question by describing effects on their lives due to climate change mitigation measures, and not effects deriving from the phenomenon itself. One respondent was more concerned about the negative economic effects that he/she expected regulations to mitigate climate change would have for him/her and his/her offspring. None of the respondents from the rural group mentioned global effects caused by areas of the Earth becoming uninhabitable, which was a concern brought up by every interviewee from the urban group. Several from the rural group connected climate change mitigation actions with the restricted possibilities to make climate friendly choices, due to their rural location.

“Well, I feel that this is a question (How Finland and Finns will cope with climate change) that divides people.

Some take it seriously and some kind of deny the existence of climate change. And how we will cope probably depends on what we think about it, is it true or not, and how can we in our own…, but yes, somehow, in cities it is probably easier in many aspects to take climate in consideration, compared to our situation here, where there is no public transport and

…therefore, possibilities to influence are very limited for example regarding mobility. If the distance to school is 30km then you do not ride a bicycle to school no matter how much you would like to….” (I8R).

Personal actions to mitigate climate change among the rural group members ranged from not having taken any actions at all, to having changed the heating system of the house to geothermal heating, having cars that run on biogas, and sorting plastics. Most of the respondents from the rural group replied that they had made some changes, such as sorting waste and eating more vegetables than before. Only one of the respondents in this group brought up flying, as a way to reduce personal emissions. However, the time saved by commuting to Helsinki by plane instead of train had, for the time being, prevented the respondent to restrain from flying. The personal actions were in general quite modest within this group, and it is unclear whether the changes occurred due to personal mitigation efforts or because regulation and available products steered their behaviour in a more climate friendly direction.

“But somehow it is difficult to know if this change is because technology is developing and everything is less energy

consuming, kitchen appliances and everything. I do not really know whether changes were made precisely because of climate change or because it (energy efficiency) is already considered everywhere” (I8R).

The respondents from the urban area all perceived the effects of climate change as a threat, with consequences more widespread than local weather changes.

“If the Earth warms by 3 to 4 degrees, a big part of the area which is currently the most densely populated area of mankind, will become uninhabitable. It means the displacement of at least hundreds of millions if not a billion people,

…for example, people from the Middle East will have to leave in really large numbers when the average temperatures are starting to reach wet bulb temperatures” (I6U). The respondent continued by explaining how the refugee crises, experienced in 2015, was just a preview of what the future will bring. Furthermore, he/she expected negative societal consequences like increased racism and right-wing populism to be seen already within a near future. The respondent who had entered politics due to the threat from climate change, said he/she feels bad and stated that climate change is not only a problem of the future, because hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of climate change (I7R). He/she was worried about the safety of his/her own children because of effects on safety in society and because of reduced possibilities for maintaining a high level of welfare and safety in Finland. All of the

respondents in the urban group mentioned avoiding or reducing flying as a personal action for mitigating climate change. In general, climate change was perceived as a more severe personal threat among the respondents from the urban group, and they had made more and consistent changes in their personal lives in order to counteract climate change.

A majority of the interviewees especially from the rural group, were concerned that measures for reaching climate neutrality could be implemented in socially and geographically unjust ways. One

on people living in rural areas. There were also concerns about the implementation of regulations that are too radical, in order to achieve the target of carbon neutrality by year 2035, which would affect the rural areas more than urban areas.

“But the question is really about who should pay. That is what we are discussing. We have a lot of solutions, but how do we get this economic and social burden fairly distributed?... And then we come to another social dimension that I

experience among my voters a lot. They feel very unfairly treated when pointed out as the problem when they have the solutions (forests). In their opinion you (urban people) are the problem, heating your houses with coal. This has to be considered when you deal with this. You ought not to create these contradictions like we are doing in part, by proposing very radical measures” (I2R).

Another respondent from the rural group brought up similar ideas.

“…Take for example, take agriculture and forestry, because they (people making a living on agriculture and forestry) have the opportunity to make a change, and now they have been, actually many of them feel really bad. I know this. So, we have to show them appreciation and support them so that they feel they are an important part of this job. They have been blamed for the cattle etc. The situation is blocked” (I9R). The respondent continued by explaining that we can reach the climate neutrality target, but only if we recognize that Finland is an elongated country, and there is no model for solving the problem that can be used across all areas. Like several others, this respondent highlighted the importance of private cars for people in rural areas, and that it would be unjust to force them to shift to expensive electric vehicles.

One respondent was particularly concerned about the polarised field and limited communication

between the rural and urban people. “It's highly polarized like that. It's highly polarized. And some people want to gain from this. And it's probably more about that, well it is about the countryside not feeling, it probably has a larger dimension around that, that is, that you have an identity crisis in the countryside where people have moved away and those who have left are feeling trampled on in some way…” (I9R). The respondent explained that the mental crisis of rural people derives from an urbanization process that has been going on for decades, and that people in the rural and urban areas have created views about each other’s stand points on environmental issues. People in rural areas have experienced that they are not able to influence issues that have impacts on their livelihood, because decisions are made in the cities. Protection of wolves and cormorants are typical examples of this debate. The climate issue is just an extension of this conflict, but the implications are the same. People in rural areas feel that decisions made in cities will have negative economic impacts on them, and their voices are not heard (I9R).

The role of forests in mitigating climate change

The location of the policy makers did not only affect how they perceived climate change, the findings also suggest that belief systems influenced by place of residence correspond with how they think forests should be used to mitigate climate change. In general, the members of the urban group prioritised forest carbon sequestration, whereas the members of the rural group highlighted that emission reductions and carbon sequestration must not have negative impacts on trade and industry

competitiveness. Three of the four respondents from the urban area stated that the Finnish forests should be regarded firstly as an important carbon sink, and that the carbon sink capacity needs to be maintained, if not increased (I4U;I6U;I7U). One from the rural group considered the possibility of developing high value forest-based materials and products, that can substitute fossil-based products, as the most important role of forests for mitigating climate change. This respondent also brought up the importance of halting deforestation in Finland (I1U). The opinions on how to use Finnish forests for mitigating climate change was more heterogenic within the rural group. Confidence in the current forest policy and management methods was a common view expressed by members of this group. One member considered active forestry that maximises growth as the best way to reach climate targets (I2R). Two members expressed full confidence in Finnish forest policies and management methods, and thought harvesting levels could be increased or that there was no risk of reducing carbon sinks due to this (I3R;I10R) “…on the whole, if you look at the forest growth, and regarding the importance of biodiversity, I

think Finland is a pioneering country and I have full confidence and trust in the present forest policy” (I10R). Two members from the rural group considered the forest carbon sink important for mitigating climate change. However, they emphasised the need to balance the carbon sink aspects with economic reasons and industry needs (I5R;I8R). Some members expressed scepticism towards the LULUCF reference levels for forest carbon sinks, claiming that the regulation will not be fair for forest rich countries like Finland (I3R;I8R). “Inevitably the feeling arrives, that we are being deceived again… It must not go like this, that others around the world can pollute because we have forests, and we then have to tighten even more” (I3R).

The ACF assumes that policy making is motivated by the strong beliefs of policy participants, and that information (scientific and technical) is the key to modify these beliefs. The findings in support of the ACF theory indicate that the individual belief systems of policy makers do indeed influence decision making, and that beliefs are resistant to change. The background of the policy makers, particularly whether they come from an urban or rural area, seemed to affect how they perceive climate change and to steer their opinions on how forests should be used to reach climate neutrality. The results suggest that policy makers who come from urban areas, perceive climate change as a stronger threat to themselves and the Finnish population compared to policy makers from rural areas. Members from a rural area were more concerned about extreme or unjust measures for mitigating climate change than members from an urban area. Furthermore, policymakers who live in urban areas evaluate forest carbon sink capacities higher than policy makers from the rural area, who in general expressed a greater confidence in the current forest policy and management methods.

Conflicting information and expert hearings

Disparity in value positions among members of the committees and also among researchers and other experts, was highlighted by several respondents. One respondent pointed out that experts had criticized each other’s opinions and research results quite strongly during a recent hearing in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee (I8R). Another respondent found polarisation the most challenging thing about decision making. “…The extremes are increasingly farther apart, and it shows very strongly, especially in the committee work. It seems to me like some people want to have an opposing view on things just to disagree, and comments are often harsh like; That's not true! People are not willing to negotiate or in some cases not even listen to what the other has to say…” (I5R).

I7U explained that conflicting information and views in the Environment Committee, are caused by trade and industry interest groups, that are gaining economically from the present situation, resisting changes that might have negative effects on their income. MTK and the forest industry was mentioned.

When asked about the existence of conflicting information, respondent I9R reflected on a situation in August last year, when the IPCC report on climate change and land had been released. The Ministry of Environment, WWF and MTK had presented three very different interpretations of the same report to the Environment Committee. Similar scenes were familiar also in expert hearings in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. One respondent wondered how experts can hold totally different views on the same topic and pointed out that “making objective research and accepting its results is by no means unambiguous”

(I8R). Conflicting information and interests resulted in a feeling of uncertainty in the decision-making process. I8R reflected on what is the most challenging about decision making:

“Well, maybe that you cannot be sure that you have acquired the relevant information for the decision in question. It is like, can you be sure that you have all the needed information to form your own opinion about how to solve this matter?”

…(I8R).

Sometimes, the information presented was not conflicting, but was aimed at persuading the decision makers to choose a different pathway than the one leading to a climate neutral Finland 2035.

Respondent I1U described a situation where a representative of a mining company declared that his

business has done good things for the local community, and a person from the municipality explains that they are satisfied with the presence of the mining company (I1U). The context in which the information is presented makes it difficult to make decisions that will support Finland’s aim to become climate neutral. Respondent I5R had also recognised that the lobbing power of the mining industry had resulted in a polarised arena, where market demand was pitted against environmental aspects. He/she feared that the forest sector could be heading for a similar situation.

The answers pointed out differences between the two committees. Respondent I10R stated that in his/her opinion the composition of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee is particular, in the sense that opinions regarding mitigation of climate change are not divided according to the common opposition against government parties. In the Agriculture and Forestry Committee the Greens usually have a completely different stand point compared to the Social Democrats, the Left Alliance and the SFP/RKP, who more or less share the view of the opposition (I10R). Furthermore, the respondent pointed out that this division had existed already during the previous governmental period and that during that period there had been one particularly influential member of the Agricultural and Forestry Committee who “…had a lot of experience and was very good at presenting his opinions and everybody paid attention when he spoke… ” (I10R). This influential person was a member of the Agriculture and Forestry

Committee during the years 2007-2019 and is the present chairman of the SLC, the Swedish sister organisation of MTK. SLC was also mentioned as a good source of information to base decisions on in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, due to the straight forward and vernacular style of their informative statements (I8R). Another respondent expressed dissatisfaction concerning the influence of forest owners and industry in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.

“… To give my honest view on this, within the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, traditionally agricultural matters are solved according to MTK interests and forest matters are solved according to the interests of the forest industry or the paper industry. This has been the tradition. All other views are considered dissident” (I6U).

The experts who were invited to hearings in the Environment Committee represented a large group of research bodies and interest groups. The Finnish climate change panel was mentioned by the majority of the members of the Environment Committee as a credible source of information. Many considered research bodies collecting information and creating easily understandable entities helpful. Some expressed that it was challenging to navigate among the large amount of information and sometimes conflicting research results. The Finnish Climate Panel is an independent, interdisciplinary think tank of 15 top researchers that provides scientific advice to decision-makers concerning climate change issues.

This research body was not mentioned as a source of expertise by the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. The selection of experts invited to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee was heavily criticized by one respondent.

“Well, honestly in my opinion, in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee it has been a bit difficult to hear experts whose anticipated output does not correspond with the views of the Centre party and the National Coalition Party…. within the Agriculture and Forestry Committee the majority of the presentations are by economic interest groups like MTK and Forest Industry, Hunters” (I6U).

Such criticism targeting the expert hearings was not communicated by members of the Environment Committee, although one interviewee found presentations by environmental organisations futile, due to their unchanged agenda, and because “they are never satisfied but always expressing criticism, saying actions should be more ambitious” (I3R). Moreover, the respondent found that “there is nothing new, you almost know it already when you hear who they represent…” their presentations were so predictable “that there is no need to ask questions” (I3R).

Instead, some members of the Environment Committee reflected on information and interest disparities deriving from the chairman of the committee:

“Yes, well it is no secret that the chairman of the committee has a very different view of things. I don't know if you have interviewed him or will interview him, but he also speaks on a regular basis in the plenary sessions of the Parliament, and basically his message is that the problem (climate change) is solved by efficiently growing and fertilizing forests, after which there will not be any need to reduce emissions…” (I4U).