These two different conflict frames, while both correct in assessing
certain trends in forest use, highlight different ways of defining the
problem, to very different effects. Metsähallitus' frame focuses on the
positive trend in increased protection rates and ignores the negative
trend in the total amount of old-growth forests. Furthermore, it presupposes
that the forestry issues are primarily a local question, and thereby
de-legitimises the demands of the national and international ENGOs
that come from ‘the outside’. According to this frame, the problem
with ENGOs is that they do not appreciate the fact that Metsähallitus –
unlike ‘any other forest company’ – has voluntarily provided them the
opportunity to participate in all the earlier policy processes. The frame
thus emphasises the identity of the agency as a forest company – as opposed
to a public authority – and its conflict management procedures
as voluntary measures of corporate social responsibility.