Environmental regulation: Ideal vs. Real

Something that is impossible to overlook when spending time in Finland is how much of the natural landscape functions for human use.  Agricultural land and productive forests account for about 75% of Finnish land.  As an Environmental Management and Protection Major interested in impact analysis, it piqued my curiosity how much environmental regulation is in place to guide management practices.  Considering how closely forests and fields are cared for, the common drainage trenches that bisect them, the numerous bodies of water they flow into and the vulnerable wildlife that relies on these freshwater systems there has got to be a laundry list of measures taken to avoid inhibiting natural cycles.  For a long time it was hard for me to find answers to my questions about land regulation and at one point I wasn’t even sure there was much in place at all.  Of course, that is not the case, but the initial mystery and what I eventually learned about land management in Finland might be the biggest culture shock I experienced during my time here.

Since Finland joined the European Union in 1995 they have been subject to its agriculture litigation system.  There are limits to the amount of fertilizer spread on fields as well as manure and when it may be applied.  Farmers must submit chemical composition of soil samples, fertilizer purchases, book keepings and field photographs to municipal offices for analysis every few years to ensure proper practices are being followed. Every year 5% of Finnish farms are checked on by municipal officers in charge of enforcing EU regulations.  Blueprints for animal barns must be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture before building begins and there are many strict policies aimed at preventing the spread of livestock diseases.  If farmers adhere to the EUs policies, they are eligible for substantial government subsidies that help keep their farms running. If a farmer was found guilty of breaking the law, they risk their subsidy and livelihood.

Finnish forests are also subject to EU restrictions but there are also many regulation policies in place by Finland’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.  I have been impressed with the fluidity of the forest industry in terms of efficiency as well as sustainability. We have been told many times, “Finns live in the forest,” this saying is evident in the valued relationship we have seen between the people and forest.  62% of forest owners in Finland are private families, usually with other jobs and family forest tending is a productive hobby. The state only owns a little under 25% of managed forests and industrial companies about 9%.   Yearly forest growth increments exceed commercial fellings per year, meaning Finnish forests are always producing but live wood material is continuously on the rise.   Forests are regarded as a strong economical prospect in Finland, but also an environmental champion providing opportunities to sequester atmospheric carbon and supply products that are reliable, renewable, biodegradable, and readily available.  Finnish forests are generally well cared for, routinely thinned and harvested for optimal regeneration.  Technology is constantly improving the care and efficiency of forest management and proper practices are rewarded with government subsidies.

One thing that concerns me about forest and agriculture management is protecting water quality.  The many flat forests and low-lying fields in Finland require drainage ditches to keep soils unsaturated. Numerous forest plots are old, drained peat bogs that naturally collect water.  Keeping forests and agricultural land productive requires redirection of a lot of water via these trenches that terminate in lakes causing sedimentation and chemical problems. When waters are too muddy, fish habitats and other wildlife suffer.  A man Valerie talked to recalled buying a summer cottage when the lake was crystal clear. Now he can’t see his feet when he wades in. This is the kind of environmental impact that concerns me about all the managed land in Finland. Water insoluble humus and excess phosphorus and nitrogen in runoff threaten biodiversity and water quality. Many agriculture fields line rivers and lakes.  Once I rode on a “shit spreader” with my host brother who was delivering manure to his fields.  I asked him how this practice affects the lake 100m away, a lake many fields and homes neighbor.  He explained that the buffer zone and riparian vegetation make it okay to fertilize and spread manure on the fields in moderation.  This is legally valid, but I was not convinced of how environmentally responsible this was, especially factoring in the lake’s reputation as being not a good place to swim. 

Though agriculture fields have fertilizer limits and wetland buffers, soils and waterways still reflect runoff damage in the form of eutrophication, excess ammonia and acidification from industry and cheese production.   Finland is starting to realize the impacts of their practices in nature as well as groundwater supplies.  Additional regulation and more strict policy enforcement are hotly debated issues among farmers, foresters and lawmakers in Finland.  The exchange students were lucky to meet with the Mayor of Southern Ostrobothnia, Asko Peltola, an incredibly friendly and knowledgeable politician and organic farmer on his sixth year in office.  As a man holding high office in the food province of Finland, he is proud to have, “dirt under his fingernails,” as a farmer and is closely involved in the agriculture sustainability movement. 

I had some questions for Asko when we met in the Regional Council’s conference room near the end of my time in Finland. Coming from California, where land use and development are highly litigated, I was surprised to see how little physical monitoring there was of agriculture and forestry in Finland.  Although fields are checked on every few years, once blueprints for animal barns are approved, there is no further supervision to ensure proper practices are being followed.  Improperly managed livestock waste could do a lot of environmental damage.  Additionally, forests almost seem to run themselves.  Asko explained that this is a region marked by its diligence, uprightness, courage, seriousness and devotion to keeping promises. When deals are made, it is often people do not even sign a contract because people trust each other so much.  People typically follow the law and many farmers could not afford to be found breaking the law in terms of vitality of their farm and pride in their work.  Clearly I am not in Kansas anymore.

I asked about the challenges associated with implementing stricter environmental policies in Finland. Asko had a diplomatic but candid response.  There is certainly a drive towards more sustainable land use practices in Finland but the sparsely distributed population gives this movement a varied set of difficulties.  The average age of farmers and forest owners in Finland is around 60 years old, many of whom operate a family farm that has a tried and true routine for production.  When new laws are put in place, farmers often drag their feet in regards to changing their practices. If a municipal officer were to come tell a farmer he was doing something wrong, it might be considered an attack on the farmer’s pride and ability to farm well.  Older farmers might not have the technology, training or willingness to compile documents proving their efforts to limit environmental impact.  Changing the way a farm runs can be extremely expensive and in a county where agriculture is so important to citizens and the economy it is important to consider the livelihood of farmers and their ability to continue producing under new laws.  Issues of sustainability and ethics also depend on consumers. The global demand for food (and good food) will only increase in future years so there must be a way to reconcile what is ideal and what is real if this movement is to be successful.

Finland already has a new Water Quality Act, Forest policy program, and ample research underway to keep the country on track towards sustainable land use. It is amazing to me how the different structures of California and Finland pose different challenges towards implementing and enforcing land regulation.  Things like the landscape, resources, values, history, governments and level of impact on our land make our take on the whole green movement entirely separate though we both seek a common goal.  At the same time, there is also much in common between us.  Most of our populations reside in cities, away from where natural products are made, and it is difficult to send the right message to these voters about what is needed in the agriculture, forest and energy industries for the sake of the economy as well as the environment.  Finding the balance between what is ecologically ideal and what is feasibly achievable and real is something The United States and Finland are still working out. From my perspective, it seems like we’re both on the right track towards limiting impact, we just need to figure out how to synchronize the moving parts towards sustainability.  Globally, we have a long way to go towards safeguarding future resources and natural cycles, but I take pride in being part of the push in the right direction.  I’m very thankful for my time abroad and the opportunities I have had to learn about resource management in a new setting,. I’m curious to see how my outlook on the California landscape and regulation practices have changed once I return home.