David Brown runs Word Of Mouth Ltd, a language consultancy working with politicians and the media. He also works as a journalist, recently covering stories in Azerbaijan and Georgia. He has lived in Finland for seven years.

Always looking for something different to burn in the kitchen, I was delighted to find some red deer (saksanhirvi) in the deli section of my local supermarket last week. Standing in line at the check-out, reduced to reading the small print on the package for entertainment, I was stunned to find that my fillet of Bambi had travelled all the way from New Zealand. I had assumed the deer was Finnish – after all, surely in a country moose and reindeer call home, some farmer would have looked into farming of other kinds of deer? Apparently not.

This follows on from another cooking venture a few weeks earlier, when I found the mallard duck (sinisorsa) I had just bought had come all the way from France – despite the fact I had almost killed some of his cousins with my bike as I skirted Töölönlahti. The only organic chicken you can find in Finland also comes from France, as no organic chicken is currently farmed in Finland at all.

In an era when factory closures and the subsequent death of small Finnish towns dominate newspaper headlines, one would imagine that politicians and farmers alike have been scratching their heads to think what viable industries could sustain the Finnish countryside. Forestry, we have seen, is no longer the answer.

There is no question that the Finnish climate makes many forms of agriculture difficult or impossible. Trees grow at three times the rate in Argentina than they do here, dairy farming here involves huge costs in heating and lighting not incurred by farmers in countries where it doesn’t snow, and frankly, the outlook here for producing any kind of fruit relies on a climate change swing of around 30 degrees.

But red deer could be farmed here, as could duck and organic chicken. They are niche markets, but niche markets currently exploited by farmers in other countries. If it is viable to raise red deer in New Zealand and fly the meat to Finland, surely it must also be viable to farm the same animal in Finland and export it to somewhere else.

I am convinced that the reason this does not happen is political. Farming subsidies from both the EU and Finnish government mean farmers are paid not to innovate. A farmers’ party holds the lion’s share of seats in parliament, which suggests to me that many MPs fear alienating their electorate by suggesting anything as bold as a farming policy.

New Zealand farmers, conversely, do not receive subsidies. Farms are businesses, and if your business can not make a profit, then it goes bust. I’ve never entirely understood why a farmer would receive money for running a business unprofitably, when shops and traders and other small businesses do not.

Personally, I think the future for the Finnish countryside is very strong. I can imagine Finland becoming a world leader in fish farming and exporting large quantities of everything from caviar to crayfish, from zander (kuha) to brown trout (taimen). Although work is being done in this area, it is slow and small-scale, partially because of environmental issues. But rather than pour money into uneconomic farms, why not pour it into researching those environmental issues so that the industry can move forward?

I can also imagine Finnish farms producing a range of boutique products for export around Europe and into Africa. Not just red deer and duck, but why not look into farming geese, and various berries such as currents, cranberry and lingonberry?

I suspect Finnish farmers will resist innovation for some time yet. But at some point, when the EU subsidy tap turns off, I’ll be able to buy my red deer straight from the farm.

David Brown