During the previous term of office, nearly 120 legal entities and individuals attempted to influence decisions related to forestry policy, but there is a lack of public information about their goals and motives, according to a study conducted by Transparency International Lithuania (TI Lithuania).
Two interest groups sought to exert the most influence on forestry policy decisions. Of the 119 legal entities and individuals identified, one in three represented the timber industry (38) and one in four represented environmental interests (32). Most individuals were identified from the MPs’ agendas (60) and legislative proposals for the Law on Forestry (25).
However, there is a lack of public data on the specific reasons for the meetings and the objectives of the lobbying activities. Out of 162 recorded meetings by parliamentarians within the scope of this analysis, only 3 included a documented purpose for being held. Lobbying declarations (35) also did not reveal more detailed objectives or expected results.
By type of organisation, businesses and business associations (43), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (23) and other non-profit organisations (20) sought to exert the most influence.
According to the interviewees, businesses and business associations, in order to influence decision-making, more often engage in lobbying activities and submit legislative proposals. NGOs and other non-profit organisations focus more on shaping public opinion, engaging the media, and providing expert input. However, experts noted that all groups engage in behind-the-scenes influence, highlighting the importance of informal relationships in decision-making.
The interviewees pointed out that organizations with greater social capital and resources find it much easier to reach decision-makers than smaller NGOs or other non-profit organizations. According to them, limited financial resources and short consultation deadlines pose significant challenges for these organizations to participate more actively in decision-making.
Based on insights from qualitative interviews, interest groups also define the public interest in the context of forest policy differently. For example, some associate it with economic benefits for the state, while others emphasize the protection of forests and biodiversity.
“In Lithuania, a lot of data on decision-making is publicly available, which is why we are often cited as a good example in the region. However, this information is still scattered, presented in different formats, and rarely specifies the objectives pursued, making it difficult to understand whose interests are actually reflected in the final legislation. In this discussion, I would very much like to see a more active role for the Chief Official Ethics Commission,” said Ingrida Kalinauskienė, CEO of TI Lithuania.
The study’s insights and recommendations are based on an analysis of publicly available data on lobbying activities, the agendas of members of parliament and ministers, the agendas of parliamentary committees, and legislative proposals (November 2020–July 2024) and 29 in-depth semi-structured interviews with representatives of businesses and business associations, political leaders, environmental organizations, law enforcement and monitoring institutions, and other experts related to the field of research.
You can read the study here, and learn about other TILS initiatives here.
The initiative is funded by the Waverley Street Foundation under Transparency International’s Climate Governance Integrity Program.