Greenpeace‘s protest action against the forestry industry in northern Lapland is facing growing opposition within Finland.

The international environmental group says that its aim is to protect old-growth forest and the traditional livelihood of Sámi reindeer herders.

But senior Finnish environmentalists are disassociating themselves from the campaign and people living and working in the areas say that, while industry and farming interests may have difficulties to resolve, they need to co-exist and Greenpeace is just “fanning the flames of discord”.

According to Greenpeace, the activities of the state-owned company Metsähallitus are at the root of social and economic difficulties facing the Sámi people. But other commentators highlight that tourism, power generation and the sustainability of rapidly growing reindeer herds are more significant factors.

Over-grazing and over-production

Among Greenpeace’s critics is Mauri Nieminen, a senior researcher from the Finnish Game and Fisheries Institute and director of its reindeer research station in Inari. He said the latest report from the green group and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC) in March ignored the biggest problems facing reindeer herding – over-grazing and over-production in a declining market.

In fact, following the report, Mr Nieminen resigned from the FANC after 30 years’ membership. “I have been a conservationist all my life,” he said. “But I resigned from the FANC because these reports give wrong, one-sided information to push the authors’ aims.”

One prominent local supporter of the Greenpeace campaign to restrict commercial forestry in Upper Lapland is Pekka Aikio, president of the Sámi parliament. But despite his backing, others in the region are being increasingly outspoken in their opposition, particularly to the activists’ threat to call for a boycott of timber from the area.

Fellow Sámi parliament member Pekka Pekkala has distanced himself from the president. In fact, he said that Mr Aikio’s most recent statement on the subject, in which he alleged that logging had led to unemployment among reindeer herders, was “full of incorrect information”. He also said that photographs used in a presentation in the UK to back up Mr Aikio’s claims, were “misrepresentative” and, in some cases, were “unrelated to Upper Lapland or the issues being discussed”.

Viljo Huru of the Ivalo Reindeer Herders Co-operative said that if forestry had the impact on his members that Greenpeace claimed, there would not have been any reindeer herding “for decades”. He said his argument was borne out by the latest figures from Metsähallitus and the RHA which show rapid growth in the size of the reindeer herd in the past 35 years and a decline in forestry.

According to Jouni Kitti of the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, himself a Sámi, a key factor behind the herders’ financial difficulties is the exhaustion of lichen pastures that have traditionally been a key food-source for the animals.

“There is no reliable proof that forest operations have affected [reindeer husbandry] adversely,” he said. “The real problem is that there are too many reindeer and reindeer owners. The number of animals has approximately doubled since the early 1970s.”

&#8220There is no reliable proof that forest operations have affected [reindeer husbandry] adversely. The real problem is that there are too many reindeer and reindeer owners. The number of animals has approximately doubled since the early 1970s”

Jouni Kitti, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

The environmentalists’ demand for curbs on state-owned forestry in Upper Lapland are also opposed by private foresters who point out that 350,000ha of old-growth forest in the region are already protected, an area likely to grow.

Economic effects

Antero Karjalainen of the Ivalo branch of the Wood and Allied Workers’ Union said this would “drive the common people of Upper Lapland into economic desolation” and Tapani Pennanen of the Meto forestry trade union said dismantling state-owned forestry would kill off private sector businesses.

He said that the sort of non-intensive felling envisaged by Greenpeace could not be a viable business because of the vast areas loggers would have to cover to harvest enough timber.

“What the environmental organisations are calling for means a transition to unprofitable tinkering,” he said.

Mr Pennanen also hit out at the environmentalists’ recent tactic to take European authors who support its cause to a press conference in Inari in April. “Greenpeace advertises that it is backed by Europe’s leading writers,” he said. “But only third-class marionettes were present.”

Equally outspoken was Finnish MEP Ari Vatanen. Addressing the same conference, he said that the latter’s call for a boycott of forest products from northern Finland would “destroy an entire source of livelihood”.

“Greenpeace is using the northern Finns and our forest management as its doormat,” he said.

He claimed that an underlying motive of the Greenpeace campaign was to ensure the supremacy of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification scheme, which currently applies to 92ha of Finnish forests, over that of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes.

A survey of 2,220 people in Upper Lapland undertaken by the Finnish Forest Research Institute found that the majority believed that forestry and reindeer sector interests could be reconciled. Most also felt that decisions on these issues should remain in local hands and they opposed interference from international bodies, including the EU and Greenpeace.