1) Finland has lobbied the EU to increase annual wood harvesting from 60Mm3 to 80Mm3 despite scientific consensus that this would decrease forest carbon sinks and not mitigate climate change for decades. 2) A public letter from 68 Finnish forest researchers criticizing increased harvesting sparked debate, with industry representatives questioning the researchers' expertise. 3) The forest industry has historically played a large economic and political role in Finland, shaping forest use policies to prioritize industrial production over environmental concerns.

1. It is not the world that we are saving here – Climate
change, Finnish bioeconomy and the world politics of
carbon sinks
Tero Toivanen & Paavo Järvensivu
BIOS Research Unit
World-Ecology Conference
Helsinki, 17. 8. 2018

2. Background for the case: The world politics of
(Finnish) carbon sinks
• World’s forests are assumed to have a crucial role in global climate politics as carbon sinks (other
methods of carbon dioxide removal are more or less theoretical)
• Wood-based bioenergy and biofuels considered to be key alternatives in replacement of fossil
fuels
• The timespan for the implementation of effective climate policies is two to three decades (Paris
Agreement)
• Boreal forests (we have in Finland) grow slowly: according to scientific research, harvesting of
wood decreases the carbon sink of forests, and using the wood to short-lived products, such as
pulp, paper or bioenergy, release carbon into atmosphere à harvested forests will not mitigate
climate change – at least not for the next decades
• According to the Finnish government’s targets, the annual harvesting would increase from c. 60
Mm3 to 80 Mm3 à would decrease the forest sinks significantly (forest sinks now about half of
the annual emissions from other sectors)
• Since 2015, a debate between the Finnish government and the EU: European Commission’s view
has been close to the scientific consensus while Finland has lobbied for an independent role to
decide how its forests are used

3. Historical importance of the Finnish forest
industry
• Historically the forest industry has had a significant economic and political role in the
Finnish society, ’The land of forest industry’
• From 19th century onwards, combination of political economic interests and scientific
forest research has framed how and for what purposes forests have been used à after
WWII, a mass-scale industrial forest economy with tree plantations
• The efficiency and sustainability of the forest economy has frequently been questioned
by studies on alternative ways of forest use and environmental organizations
• From the 1990s, Finnish forest companies have gained a notable position globally
• In the 21st century, the concept of bioeconomy has been used to ‘green’ the public
discussion about the Finnish forest economy (although industrial production is still
dominated by pulp and paper)
• The renewable energy sector is heavily based on forest biomass: 80 percent of
renewables comes from wood (EU, 60 percent)

4. Media debate: a battle on two fronts
• First front, the EU: the contradiction between forests’ role in climate politics and in the Finnish
government’s targets was first framed in the Finnish media as a battle of national interest and
against the EC: ‘The special features of the Finnish economy and forest industry are issues that the
European Comission does not recognize if Finns [politicians or lobbyist] don’t go [to Brussels] and
tell them”, one storyline stated (YLE 15.11.2016)
• Second front, scientific research: In March 2017, a public letter undersigned by 68 Finnish forest
researchers caused ‘a storm’ although it stated the same two things that were previously
presented in numerous research articles and reports: 1) Finland’s planned increase in the use of
wood will not mitigate climate change for decades; 2) The current level of forest use and its
increase endanger biodiversity
• An intense, and still continuing, public debate followed, and the message of the letter (followed
by several reports and other international scientific letters with the same message) was heavily
criticized especially by different factions closely associated with the forest industry
• The decision of the EU parliament in September 2017 (Finland can increase harvesting) was
interpreted as a victory for Finland: ‘Its not the world we are saving here. But now we are
preventing that no unreasonable decisions are made that would be bad for Finland’s economic
development and forest industry’, the CEO of Forest Industry answered.

5. Media debate: which strategies of
depoliticization were used?
• A small and developed country: Finland is already filling its responsibilities in climate politics, ‘a
small country can do only its fair share in global world’; Finnish forest economy and
environmental regulation are the most developed in the world, ‘if we are not going to do this
someone else will’.
• Sustainable development: Scientific consensus about ecological limits might be right but a
”holistic perspective” (ecological, social and economic) is needed when the future of Finnish
forests is estimated
• All quiet on the home front: It would be better not to discuss about the scientific role of forests
before the battle on the EU level has reached its conclusion, ‘we do not need a plan B [for Finnish
forest use]’
• Mixing the public discussion: There exist several scientific opinions on the matter (while there is
a consensus); what needs to be done is cut down the emission from fossil fuels (while both cuts
and carbon sinks are needed); questioning or not accepting the few decades’ timespan (which in
practice means accepting current insufficient commitments)
• Stigmatizing: The public letter was called ‘a political pamphlet’ and separated from its scientific
base and similar international scientific statements; researchers were called ‘address researchers’
or even ‘enemies of the fatherland’ and their expertise was questioned

6. Conclusion
• Among the EU countries, Finland is often considered to be a ’gentle player’ that is
obediently implementing Union level policies (e.g. Finland was the only country who
during the euro crisis implemented austerity policies willingly, Blyth 2017)
• In the context of global climate politics a small country, such as Finland, can gain a
significant role: world’s attention can be opened uncritically towards wood harvesting
and the use of wood-based biofuels
• The case of Finland demonstrates how difficult it is for latest climate science to change
an individual state’s actions which are embedded in historically constructed power
relations
• The scientists’ demand made publicly (do not increase the harvesting above current
levels) was modest by any world political standards
• The other approach could be a fast implementation of climate policies which would
radically decrease the harvesting of forests globally
• Ideas of radical transformation of economy or society were absent from the media
discussion