The mine has socio-cultural value, in terms of place identity and the identity of community members . For the policies to be seen as just, these identity-related issues need to be understood and recognized. Studies on farmers’ perceptions of agri-environmental policy implementation highlight the identity and socio-cultural aspects of farming purposes and practices . According to these studies, farmers feel that their identity and values are threatened by agri-environmental policies and changes in farming practices. However, the ideals of good farming are diversifying , which also indicates the needto recognize diversity in identities. While farmers’ experiences of blame and guilt in relation to climate change are under-explored, in the Dutch context, van der Ploeg discusses farmers’ feelings of unjust blame with regard to nitrogen emissions. These feelings stem, on the one hand, from the highly specialized and export-oriented organization of farming in the Netherlands, which the farmers see as too vulnerable, damaging the landscape and producing profits for parties other than the farmers. On the other hand, consumers who do not understand the hard work of farmers do not want to pay enough for products to compensate for that work, and place increasing demands on them. These perceptions paint farmers as powerless victims, with little responsibility for the current situation and little power to act differently,dutch buckets which can negatively impact the recognition of farmers’ agency in society.
A recent Finnish study has also shown that two thirds of Finnish people find the discussion about climate change to be accusatory towards the regular Finnish person . The study also suggests that people who feel they are being blamed for climate change do not feel motivated to engage in pro-environmental action. A previous study on Finnish farmers reported similar results . It is important to explore what motivates farmers’ feelings of unfairness and injustice in terms of their role in society and how they can be alleviated. Farmers’ feelings of not being recognized or understood can be linked to the wider socio-cultural context. An important element of recognitive justice concerns the recognition of different ways of knowing in policy-making and agricultural knowledge systems. Geoghegan and Leyson and Clifford and Travis have advocated a broader understanding of climate change that considers different ways of knowing, including farmers’ local expertise and place-based climate knowledge. Farmers’ and indigenous peoples’ knowledge can serve as a valuable contribution to nature conservation and climate change adaptation,complementing knowledge from different sources . Furthermore, the wider socio-cultural context reveals a variety of mundane issues, related to adopting climate mitigation-focused or other environmentally beneficial farming practices,such as social goals, related to better work-life balance and family life or farm location and machinery-related constraints.These interlocking issues may make changes in farming practices difficult, as well as making it difficult to communicate properly with people outside the farming context. The recognition of different place-based identities, ways of knowing, and other sociocultural issues is directly linked to procedural justice, which concerns the fairness of institutional and decision-making processes.
One goal of this aspect of justice is a balanced accounting of the different perspectives, interests, and goals related to the issue at hand, and ensuring equal opportunities to participate in decision-making processes . In the mining transition, procedural justice concerns the involved participation of the affected community in the planning of the transition , as participation opportunities are strongly related to the acceptance of decisions . Participatory inequality is often produced by structural conditions . In the context of state- and EU-level agri-environmental policies, farmers’ opportunities to participate often come through farmers’ unions in corporatist settings . In Europe in particular, the surveillance and sanctions of agricultural subsidies may appear to farmers as bureaucratic and lacking in procedural justice . Because of the challenging climate conditions in Finland and a relatively short growing season of 125–180 days, milk and beef production has historically played an important role in the agricultural sector, comprising 50% of the agricultural gross return . Finland is one of the northernmost grain-producing countries in the world. Almost all agricultural land is located above 60◦ N, and the production structure varies. While the southern part contains significant grain production areas, the northern part, through grass production, focuses more on ruminant husbandry, including dairy. The total agricultural land area of Finland is 2.3 million hectares, of which 35% are managed grasslands . Finnish farms have traditionally been relatively small, stemming partly from the times after World War II, when migrants from the lost Karelian region resettled into what is currently Finland. Since Finland joined the EU in 1995, structural development, in terms of growing farm sizes, has been quite rapid. The average farm size is currently 46 ha.
However, currently, only 5% of all farms have over 150 ha of agricultural land, and the largest size category is 25–50 ha, with 25% representation . In 2016, the average farm size in the EU was 16.6 ha and two-thirds of the farms are less than 5 ha in size. Since 1995, the number of dairy farms in Finland has declined at a yearly rate of 6.5% . In 2019, only 12% of the 46,827 farms were engaged in milk production . Structural changes have also increased the efficiency of milk production. Despite the decline in the number of milking cows since 1995, the quantities produced have remained stable. In 2018, there were approximately 270,000 dairy cows that produced 2.285 billion liters of milk . This is under 2% of total milk production in the EU area. The average number of dairy cows per farm is 39. However, there is considerable variation. One-fifth of the cows are found in farms with 50–74 dairy cattle, which is the most common size category. Only 2% of cows are on farms with over 300 milking cows . The average age of a Finnish farmer is 53 years, and in the EU, more than half of farmers are over 55 years old . Most farms are family-owned, but the realization of generational change is not self-evident because of the unattractiveness of the agricultural sector among the young. In addition, decreasing milk consumption may reduce the attractiveness of dairy farming . Finnish consumption of dairy products, including liquid milk, is relatively high. On average, a Finn spends 17% of their food budget on dairy products . Dairy has traditionally been the most important product category among Finnish food exports, with a 20% share. Milk has been the only sector in the Finnish food industry with a positive trade balance since Finland joined the EU in 1995 . Valio Ltd. is the largest dairy company in Finland. Established in 1905 as a milk processing enterprise, it has a diverse selection of processed foods and beverages, including plant-based foods. Valio’s share within the dairy product market has traditionally been large, and it purchases approximately 80% of the raw milk in the market . Valio is owned by milk producers through cooperatives. Of the fourteen owner co-ops in Finland, five supply Valio. These five co-ops, with 4,700 dairy farmer members around Finland, own over 99% of the company.
Valio is governed by a Board and Governing Council, both having a strong representation of milk producers selected by the member co-ops. Currently, Valio is placing itself as the frontrunner in climate change mitigation and has set a target for itself—of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 . The underlying motivation within Valio to undertake the carbon neutrality initiative has been to tackle the challenge of climate change. However, this is also a way to maintain consumer satisfaction.In the general discourse, farmers often reported feeling that they and their livelihood were blamed for environmental damage. Based on research,grow bucket the management deduced that enhancing carbon sequestration efforts offered a chance to change the general attitudes towards farmers as climate heroes rather than its destroyers . Valio’s objective is to reduce emissions from all phases of the dairy value chain. In addition to primary production, the measures target reductions in logistics and industrial processes. The three main ways to reduce emissions in primary production are to 1) enhance carbon sequestration into the soil, 2) enhance the circular economy by using manure to produce biogas for fuel and energy, and 3) reduce emissions from organic soils, that is, fields that were originally peatlands. In practice, Valio’s work with producers commenced in 2019 with training on carbon farming methods, aiming to engage farmers in applying suitable methods to enhance carbon sequestration and monitoring emissions from their fields. Carbon farming methods focus on improving grassland management by cultivating deep-rooted species, using manure as fertilizer, and utilizing certain harvesting techniques. Improved grassland and water management are the main solutions for reducing emissions from peatlands. Focusing on a prolonged grass cycle and year-round vegetation cover ensures these carbon farming measures are not too different from the ones that most farms have already implemented under the agri-environmental support scheme of the Rural Development Program of Mainland Finland. However, carbon farming takes these measures one step further to improve soil conditions. In 2020, approximately 300 producers participated in a carbon farming training event. Valio also released an application that producers could use to monitor the carbon balance of their farms.
The calculation methods developed by Valio are still in the validation/certification process. Participation in the program is voluntary, without any specific incentives. At present, Valio offers a responsibility premium that is linked to efforts to improve animal welfare. An objective has been set to have every farm on board by 2035, but the challenges to this are significant. The variety in farm size, location, and future plans makes it difficult to offer one-size-fits-all solutions. Our study is based on qualitative methodology. We used a case study approach , to investigate Valio’s carbon-neutral milk chain program, and provide new insights into carbon farming practices and farmers’ attitudes and perceptions related to carbon-neutral dairy farming. Based on this case, it is possible to outline relevant policy instruments supporting a future transition towards carbon-neutral dairy farming, and the findings of this study can be broadened to other similar contexts of carbon neutrality and justice. The sample for the case study consists of farmers who supply milk to the dairy co-op, Valio. The interviewed farmers comprised both those who participated in Valio’s carbon farming training and those who did not. We conducted 17 interviews and interviewed 18 farmers . During the time of the interviews, seven farmers had already participated in the program, whereas 11 had not. However, most of them had intentions to take part in the trainings. The age of the farmers ranged from 32 to 59 years. Both small and large farms were represented: the number of cattle varied from 15 to 180 milking cows, and the total land area under cultivation, including owned and rented land, varied from 42 to 200 ha. As additional, but marginal income sources, some farms had forestry, contracting services, or sales of grain or grass fodder. Several farmers had active or frozen investment plans, while others, usually older farmers, were certain of being the last active generation in business. The majority of the farms were single family-owned, while a few had established joint companies with siblings or neighbors. The interviews consisted of four themes, which were based on the dimensions of justice: distributive, recognitive, procedural, and restorative justice. Within these themes were included many different questions related to emission reduction and carbon farming. There were discussions about opportunities, obstacles, challenges, and concerns. Additionally, the division between winners and losers due to the policy, and possible compensations, was also discussed. However, the interviews were guided by the interviewee’s own speech and narration, in accordance with the principles of the qualitative thematic interviews. The duration of the interview varied from one-and-a-half to 2 h. The interviewers were Antti Puupponen, Annika Lonkila, Kaisa Karttunen and Anni Savikurki. The research data were analyzed using content analysis, a general qualitative method that combines data-based and theoretical analysis . The data were coded and separated using NVivo.