Dr. Reinier de Man Adviesbureau voor Milieubeleid

Transcription

1 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues Proposal for the organisation and facilitation of an effective stakeholder process Dr. Reinier de Man Adviesbureau voor Milieubeleid Leiden, April 2003

2 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 2 Table of Contents 1. Background The Stakeholder Process Objectives and Requirements Project Steps Planning Part I: Setup of the Round Table Detailed Planning Roles and Responsibilities Budget Dr. Reinier de Man Our Bureau s Work Relevant Expertise... 8

3 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 1 1. Background Finnish Forestry appears to have problems to manage its international stakeholder relations. During the last months, a number of conflicts developed. Central issues were the alleged logging of old growth, the need for extended nature conservation areas in North Finland and related proposals for a moratorium on logging until the dispute will have been settled. Players in the present discussions are not only Metsähallitus, the private Finnish Forest owners (as represented by MTK), the Finnish paper industry (Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene, M-Real and others) and the Finnish NGOs. An equally important role is played by international companies and organisations, such as German magazine publishers (companies and their association VDZ), Ikea and internationally operating NGOs Greenpeace and WWF. If the stakeholder process is not managed properly, the number of players involved may potentially grow. In the near future, paper customers from other countries may be sensitised by NGOs and the media. It is not new that environmental organisations ask for more nature conservation than the Finnish forestry sector is willing to accept. New are the tone, the intensity and the international character of the discussion. New are also the economic risks that such a discussion can pose to the Finnish stakeholders. Whereas Finnish forestry regards itself as a positive example of a highly sustainable economic sector, it is strongly criticised from the outside by (international) NGOs and international paper customers take the criticisms of the NGOs seriously. This became apparent when in October 2002 representatives of VDZ travelled to Northern Finland with Greenpeace and Suomen Luonnonsuojeluliitto (Finnish Nature Conservation Association), to have a look at the Finnish situation. The German trip to Northern Finland caused a wave of critical comments from the Finnish forestry organisations and the Finnish media, who unanimously condemned the role of Greenpeace in using the German publishers as a lever to reach their goals. Since then, there have been attempts at controlling the conflicts and irritations, but they have not yet resulted in a clear agenda for effective action yet. Metsähallitus invited many stakeholders to a round table meeting in Helsinki on December 20, The result was a first exchange of ideas but it did not bring a final solution to the problems. During a period of ten years, frustration has been building up with different stakeholders in the Finnish forestry debate 1. Finnish forestry organisations are fed-up with the behaviour of Greenpeace and other NGOs. German publishers would like to see a different approach to the stakeholder debate and so do NGOs. Finnish paper producers need good relationships with 1 In 1993, the German Magazine Der Spiegel published an article Plünderer im Norden. This can be regarded as the starting shot of the present stakeholder conflict which has not yet been resolved.

4 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 2 both their wood suppliers and their international customers and are in a natural position to mediate between the two worlds, but in reality it is not easy to improve trust and communication in the present situation. 2 A situation has been reached in which all stakeholders feel frustrated: Finnish forestry organisations, Finnish paper industry, international paper customers and both national and international NGOs. Nobody seems to be in a position to reach his goals. It does not make sense to endlessly repeat present positions and arguments. It does make sense to look for an effective and efficient stakeholder communication process that is regarded as being fair and legitimate by all parties involved. An appropriate solution for Finland, geared to the specific Finnish situation in its international context, has to be developed. 2. The Stakeholder Process 2.1 Objectives and Requirements Overall Objective We propose to organise a stakeholder process for Finnish Forestry and its national and international stakeholders. The overall objective is: To systematically improve the communication process between Finnish forestry and its national and international stakeholders in the interest of all parties involved. Such a stakeholder process can only makes sense when it is fair, effective and efficient: Fair Process The contributions of all stakeholders should be dealt with in a fair way. In discussions, studies, reports etc., the stakeholders should be able to agree completely on the way their opinions are being represented. The process should be open and hidden agendas should be avoided. A fair process is best guaranteed by a clear agreement on rules of the game before the process and by an impartial and knowledgeable outside facilitator. 2 See also my essay Hannes Mäntyranta - an ideal that became an absolute: some comments, unpublished, Leiden 2002, attached to this proposal.

5 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 3 Effective Process The stakeholder process should aim at very concrete common goals. Otherwise it will be an endless process without clear results. The first part of the stakeholder process should focus on agreeing in detail on the common goals. Efficient Process The stakeholder process should not require an exceptional amount of financial and human resources. A clear time schedule should be kept. The process should have sufficient time but the deadlines should be crystal clear to all stakeholders. Evidently, the proposed dialogue should not in any way disturb ongoing stakeholder processes or compete with them. Neither does the proposed dialogue come in place of ongoing technical discussions on forestry standards and nature protection. 2.2 Project Steps The stakeholder dialogue we propose consists of two parts. The first part ( Set Up of Round Table ), which can take place before summer 2003, is the preparation phase during which the foundation for the stakeholder dialogue will be laid. The Second Part, Round Table Dialogue ) will most probably consist of a limited number of well-prepared Round Table Meetings on a number of central issues. The process will take between months from September Part I will start with a fair analysis of the present stakeholder discussion, the arguments and data used, the existing conflicts and the underlying interests. The stakeholder analysis will focus on the processes that finally lead to the problems in Northern Finland. It will show in detail how the conflicts and problems developed over time, what mechanisms were responsible and how a similar development can be avoided in future cases. This analysis should be broadly supported by all stakeholders. Therefore they will be extensively consulted in the analysis and during drafting the report. After this, the process will focus on reaching an agreement on realistic objectives for the stakeholder process. On the basis of this agreement a round table will be set up among all stakeholders. Part II, the Round Table on Finnish Forestry will only be started if Part I gives a positive result. Part II will consist of 3 to 5 well prepared Round Table Meetings on centrally important issues. We propose to contract the analysis work in Part I only and then have a stop/go decision on further steps. Therefore we only budget the work for the stakeholder analysis in this proposal. For the steps after the analysis, we give some indicative figures only.

6 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 4 3. Planning Part I: Setup of the Round Table 3.1 Detailed Planning An overall planning schedule is given on page 9. In Table 1 below, we list the steps needed in Part I. A planning schedule is given on page 10. Table 1: Steps in Part I 1 PART I: SETUP OF THE ROUND TABLE 1.1 Stakeholder Analysis meetings with StoraEnso and FFIF desk study of historical documents Interview stakeholders st draft Analysis review round Helsinki meetings nd draft Analysis nd review round final analysis 1.2 Agreement on Objectives forming Organising Committee agreement on objectives agreement on working plan Stakeholder Analysis (task 1.1) This tasks has started with a number of meetings with StoraEnso and the Finnish Forestry Industry Federation on April 17 (step 1.1.1). Before carrying out the interviews, there will be some days of desk research that enables to ask the right questions to the right people (step 1.1.2). We will start with interviewing key people representing the main stakeholders (step 1.1.3). The focus of the analysis will be the development of the negative events in Northern Finland in 2002 and Interview partners will be the main players at all different levels: the local level of forestry and their stakeholders in Northern Finland, the players in the national Finnish context and relevant players in European paper markets, including paper customers and international NGOs. The first interviews will be held with people who are central in relevant networks, have a high credibility and are opinion leaders who can be expected to create good contacts with additional interview partners.

7 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 5 During the interviews, of which the majority will take place in Finland, Germany and other European countries, we will not only collect information, but we will create good relationships with the stakeholders, which will be needed in further steps. Therefore we will conduct long personal interviews which cannot be replaced by telephone calls. On the basis of the interviews, we will prepare a first draft of the stakeholder analysis which will be circulated for comment. A second draft is the basis for three group meetings in Finland: one meeting with Finnish forestry and paper industry stakeholders, one with Finnish and international NGOs and one with paper customers. At these meetings, the content of the draft report will be discussed. After another based review round, we will draft the final analysis, see Table 1. Agree on Objectives (task 1.2) The stakeholder process can only become a success if all relevant stakeholders basically agree on its objectives. It is not enough to agree on the improvement of the communication process. It is imperative to have a shared clear understanding of what the result of the changes should be: What behaviours should be changed? What emotions should be different? How should perceptions of the situation be changed? Therefore an important part of the interviews in task 1.1 will be addressing these questions. Right after the interview round, we propose to form an Organising Committee which represents the centrally important stakeholders. This will be a small and unbureaucratic group, externally facilitated by Dr. Reinier de Man, with at least one representative of Finnish forestry, Finnish paper producers, Finnish NGOs, international NGOs and European paper customers. This Organising Committee will agree on the objectives of the stakeholder process and will convince others to participate when the round table process (Part II) will take off. Each participant should have a high credibility in its own sector and should be willing to cooperate with the other participants on a pragmatic basis. The Organising Committee will draft an operational working plan for Part II and secure the resources needed. 3.2 Roles and Responsibilities Organising Committee The Finnish Forestry Stakeholder process should be owned by all stakeholders. Therefore the establishment of the Organising Committee is of central importance. Before this Organising Committee becomes operational, the project should be financed by one or more Finnish paper companies, if possible under the umbrella of the Finnish Forestry Industry Federation.

8 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 6 This model was used successfully in setting up the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, an initiative that was developed by WWF and Unilever together with Reinier de Man as a neutral facilitator, see also section 4.2. Responsibilities during the Stakeholder Analysis For the success of this project, it is essential that Dr. Reinier de Man is seen as a neutral professional by all parties involved. In practice, this means: his professional autonomy is guaranteed. The conclusions of the study may not be influenced by any of the particular interest groups involved. He is free to speak to all stakeholders, as this is needed for making a well-informed and fair analysis and as long he respects interests and sensitivities involved. there are clear rules for dealing with confidentiality and proprietary information. Reinier de Man guarantees that such information will never be given to any party inside or outside the project, unless it has been decided otherwise. 3.3 Budget and Planning for the Stakeholder Analysis Table 2: Budget Stakeholder Analysis consultant days travel costs PART I: SETUP OF THE ROUND TABLE 1.1 Stakeholder Analysis meetings with StoraEnso and FFIF desk study of historical documents Interview stakeholders st draft Analysis review round Helsinki meetings nd draft Analysis nd review round final analysis Agreement on Objectives forming Organising Committee agreement on objectives agreement on working plan total, excluding VAT 24 in

9 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 7 We propose to carry out the stakeholder analysis (Part I, step 1.1) and then decide whether and how to continue the process. For the stakeholder analysis, a budget of ,- is needed, travel costs and VAT excluded. Travel costs very much depend on how efficient the interview studies can be organised. We have budgeted a maximum of , so that maximum project costs will be (VAT excluded). For the work in Finland, we may charge Finnish VAT instead of Dutch VAT. The same holds for the work in Germany. Planning The preparation have started on April 17, The Desk Work will be carried out in April. The interview work will be done in April and May. The feed-back of the interview analysis to the interviewees will take place in June. The end report should be available by the first week of July.

10 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 8 4. Dr. Reinier de Man 4.1 Our Bureau s Work I studied chemistry and political science. After a university and consulting career, I started my own consultancy. I founded Adviesbureau voor Milieubeleid in Since then we worked for industry (mainly large international companies), government (Netherlands and Germany) and NGOs (mainly large international NGOs such as WWF and Greenpeace). We are specialised in supply chain management for sustainability and stakeholder participation processes for sustainability. Paper and forestry is one of the important sectors we are working with. 4.2 Relevant Expertise Relevant expertise of Dr. Reinier de Man for the proposed project: Extensive experience in paper and forestry sector: I helped Otto Versand, Axel Springer Verlag, Norske Skog and Norwegian forest owner association to realise the OPTI project on optimising the paper chain ( ). I was involved in the UPM-Kymmene-Axel Springer - Otto Versand project on tracing Russian wood. For these projects, the project partners received one of the 10 World Summit Business Awards for Sustainable Development Partnerships. Extensive experience in setting up and facilitating supply chain initiatives I helped Otto Versand set up its supply chain partnerships for sustainability in the cotton and textile chain. I advised WWF on cotton and forestry supply chain issues. I assisted business and NGOs in supply chain projects in the paper chain (see above) and in the palm oil production chain (see last point). Good contacts with all stakeholders, maintaining a neutral position We work for large business companies (such as Norske Skog, Unilever, etc.), for NGOs (such as WWF and Greenpeace) and for government. At the same time, we remain absolutely neutral. Therefore we have built up trust between a variety of stakeholders and ourselves. Many years of experience with complex stakeholder processes In the late 1980s and early 1990, I was involved in difficult German stakeholder communication processes related to nuclear power generation and the development of the chemical industry. In the Netherlands, I did similar projects related to the storage of nuclear and chemical waste. Recently, I have managed to start a productive stakeholder process on sustainable palm oil, involving Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil producers, oil traders and refiners, major palm oil users (such as Unilever), retailers, investors and NGOs (such as WWF).

11 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 9 Diagram 1: Overall Time Schedule ID Outline NumTask Name 1 1 PART I: SETUP OF THE ROUND TABLE Stakeholder Analysis meetings with StoraEnso and FFIF desk study of historical documents Interview stakeholders st draft Analysis review round Helsinki meetings nd draft Analysis nd review round final analysis Agreement on Objectives forming Organising Committee agreement on objectives agreement on working plan 16 2 PART II Round Table Round Table Round Table 3 April July October January April July

12 Towards Better Stakeholder Communication on Finnish Forest Issues 10 Diagram 2: Time Schedule Part I ID Outline NumTask Name Stakeholder Analysis meetings with StoraEnso and FFIF desk study of historical documents Interview stakeholders st draft Analysis review round Helsinki meetings nd draft Analysis nd review round final analysis April May June