A
new protection programme for all forest types
During
2003–2010, the amount of additional strictly protected forest needed
in Finland (mostly) S of Lapland is of the order 400 000 hectares.
Achieving this would raise the percentage of strictly protected forest
in the region covered by southern Finland, the Western Part of Oulu
Province, and South-West Lapland from the current 2,1 per cent to
around five. During 2011–2020 this would be further raised to at least
ten per cent in every vegetation zone. A considerable majority of
the enlargement of the forest protected area network can and should
be carried out using state, municipal, industry-owned, and other major
non-private owners’ land. Restoration and management measures will
be essential in many areas.
Less
strictly protected sites
One of
the most important new forest protection measures proposed is the
founding of a new forest management category lying between strictly
protected and commercial forests. These Nature Value Forests would
combine commercial interests with systematic protection of biodiversity.
The overall goal is to include five per cent of Finland’s forests
in the Nature Value category by 2010, and 10 per cent by 2020.
Maintaining
larger expanses of forest
Combining
traditional strictly protected sites, Nature Value Forests and well-informed
land use planning (zoning) will make it possible to create larger
forest expanses of over 50 square kilometres. The main aim should
be to protect such regions from development disruptive of forest cover,
such as building projects. A study by the Finnish Ministry of the
Environment is needed to identify larger expanses of public and industrially
owned forest suited to such use.
Increasing
the biodiversity value of recreational forest areas
Most
forest recreation areas and forest parks (V, VR, and VL zones on Finnish
municipal planning permission maps), even on national property, are
managed as ordinary commercial forests. Management plans are needed
for the larger recreational forests, with clear targets for conservation
as well as forestry.
Changes
in legislation
By 2020,
forest key habitats (sites of 10 hectares or less), their buffer zones,
as well as habitats of endangered species should total around three
per cent of commercial forests. This requires changes in Article 10
of the Finnish Forest Act. Article 10 also does not recognise all
the important Finnish forest key habitat types, which in practice
must be listed in the Forest Act to qualify for protection and landowner
compensation. The Forest Act should also require protection of all
species listed as nationally or regionally endangered in Finland,
rather than use a separate list of species defined as requiring special
protection. Article 6 of the Forest Act (on logging in sensitive areas)
requires a clear interpretative set of instructions for application
at the national level. The Act on Containing Insect and Fungal Pests
(263/91) and its application instructions should take account of biodiversity
viewpoints, including recent scientific results on the true risks
posed by pest species.
Improving
Landscape Ecological Planning
Landscape
Ecological Planning (LEP) should be extended from state forests particularly
to larger forests owned by industry and other large corporations such
as churches and municipalities. In state forests a second round of
LEP is urgently needed to correct the errors still prevalent after
the first round of planning.
Conservation
management in commercial forests
The greatest
conservation problem in Finnish commercial forests is the excessively
small size and insufficient number of its protected elements, such
as the forest key habitats recognised by the Finnish Forest Act. The
amount of dead and rotting wood in commercial forests must also be
increased significantly, as lack of such wood is the single most important
reason for the poor showing of many endangered and demanding species.
Commercial forest management should be developed towards greater imitation
of natural processes away from the current practice favouring even-aged
stands of a single tree species.
Government
subsidies to the forest sector harmful to biodiversity
In Sweden,
commercial aspects of forest management such as forestry road building
no longer receive state subsidies since the mid-1990s. Money so saved
was channelled into environmental management and protection of forest
key habitats. Finland should follow suit.
Diversifying
forest management advisory services
Current
forest management advisory services place excessive emphasis on economic
aspects. Such services should be developed to help protect biodiversity
and to assist such forest owners as wish to emphasise the natural
values or pluralistic use of their land. The environmental administration
should become involved with the forest management advisory process.
The monopoly on advisory services currently granted by law to Regional
Forestry Societies should be withdrawn; this would open the way to
societies and organisations offering more varied approaches to forest
management.
[Excerpt
from an NGO-publication Palaako elävä metsä?]
