Blog
07.September 2005 - 00:00
METSO programme for protection of ecological values
“Even though the legal obligations to safeguard biodiversity have been fulfilled, the political obligations ought to be met as well.”
A number of environmental organisations are submitting to the Finnish Parliament and Government a petition for the protection of Southern Finland’s forests containing tens of thousands of names that they have collected. The active work by these organisations shows that interest in forests among Finns is not declining.
From a European point of view, the results obtained by Finnish forestry are of great importance, and public debate will become distorted if they are forgotten.
Forestry professionals have also set out to look for solutions to secure biodiversity during recent years: the industry has had a key role in the creation of the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO), an entirely new chapter in the history of Finnish forest conservation.
The change of attitudes is undoubtedly a result of pressure from environmental organisations – the error is all the greater if they do not give credit for the progress made.
This is particularly significant as the Finnish forest industry has no reason to be ashamed, even without the METSO programme.
Finland has fulfilled all her international obligations regarding forest conservation; for example, achieving an approved implementation of the EU’s Natura 2000 programme – among the first countries to do so.
The amount of forest under strict conservation in Finland ranks among the highest in Europe, and even the proportion of strictly protected forests in Southern Finland, criticised as being too low (approximately two per cent according to environmental organisations), brings a ranking of third in Europe.
Even though the legal obligations to safeguard biodiversity have been fulfilled, the political obligations ought to be met as well. The one requiring most work is the obligation to halt loss of biodiversity by 2010.
Citizens’ interest in securing biodiversity is a good thing, but experts are aware of the inaccuracy of the concepts used and find this worrying.
The debate is being confused by introducing new concepts and using old ones in a misleading way. Outside Finland in particular, the terminology used in connection with conservation demands is a mixed bag indeed – natural forest, primary forest, snow forest, old-growth forest, frontier forest, high conservation value forest, to mention but a few – and accurate definitions are often neglected.
Finnish organisations have started to demand ‘protection by restoration’, conserving forests with no particular ecological value, but where these values could be restored in time by human action.
There would, of course, be existing ecological values appropriate for protection in Southern Finland’s forests, but protecting them would require more effort in political terms. The ecologically most valuable forests are located on private lands, and excluding them from commercial use on a wide scale is extremely expensive.
This is where the METSO programme is helpful. Most importantly, it is a voluntary system for forest owners.
Surveys show that forest owners not only have a more positive attitude to voluntary conservation, but also accept lower compensations for voluntarily protected areas.
The METSO scheme aims to conserve only habitats with ecological value. Conservational biological criteria based on scientific research have been established to this end, and no sites will be accepted that do not fulfil these criteria.
It should be noted that nearly all demands for conservation made by environmental organisations in recent years refer to areas that do not meet the criteria.
The METSO programme has often faced criticism according to which the focused conservation of small-scale sites in managed forests provided by the programme is not sufficient and new large conservation areas are needed. Responding to this criticism is difficult for the moment because research into small-scale conservation measures has only been carried out since the mid 1990s.
The experience obtained so far, however, is almost completely supportive of the possibilities of small-scale conservation.
Environmental organisations often support their conservation demands by referring to threatened species. A special word, ‘kääpiminen’, has even been coined in Finnish for this practice of searching for threatened species, most often bracket fungi or kääpä, at a site that the activists wish to be protected.
The method works quite efficiently for the organisations: on the hand, some threatened species obviously may be found in nearly any hectare of forest, but the general public, on the other hand, thinks of that as a rare occurrence.
Approximately 90 per cent the species defined as threatened in the evaluation of the Ministry of the Environment can survive in habitats commonly found in ordinary managed forests, as proven by emeritus professor Erkki Annila.
According to Annila, more than 50 per cent of these species live on decaying wood and less than 40 per cent in habitats of special importance defined by the Forest Act, in which felling is prohibited.
What should be our conclusion? Certainly not that we should do nothing, but that through better practices in commercially managed forests we can solve a major part of the extinction problem.
This requires knowledge, but the search is on for that too: the METSO programme includes the most extensive efforts for biodiversity research to date.
METSO is at the pilot phase at the moment. The aim is to examine during 2007 how the programme has succeeded and how it should be continued.
The programme, which started in 2002, has already shown its positive sides, however. Now that the forestry community has come to accept that threatened species constitute an important resource of our forests, safeguarding the future for them will also become an important aspect of forestry.
EIJA-RIITTA KORHOLA
Member of the Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament
Eija-Riitta Korhola's text published in Helsingin Sanomat on 7 September, 2005
“Even though the legal obligations to safeguard biodiversity have been fulfilled, the political obligations ought to be met as well.”
A number of environmental organisations are submitting to the Finnish Parliament and Government a petition for the protection of Southern Finland’s forests containing tens of thousands of names that they have collected. The active work by these organisations shows that interest in forests among Finns is not declining.
From a European point of view, the results obtained by Finnish forestry are of great importance, and public debate will become distorted if they are forgotten.
Forestry professionals have also set out to look for solutions to secure biodiversity during recent years: the industry has had a key role in the creation of the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO), an entirely new chapter in the history of Finnish forest conservation.
The change of attitudes is undoubtedly a result of pressure from environmental organisations – the error is all the greater if they do not give credit for the progress made.
This is particularly significant as the Finnish forest industry has no reason to be ashamed, even without the METSO programme.
Finland has fulfilled all her international obligations regarding forest conservation; for example, achieving an approved implementation of the EU’s Natura 2000 programme – among the first countries to do so.
The amount of forest under strict conservation in Finland ranks among the highest in Europe, and even the proportion of strictly protected forests in Southern Finland, criticised as being too low (approximately two per cent according to environmental organisations), brings a ranking of third in Europe.
Even though the legal obligations to safeguard biodiversity have been fulfilled, the political obligations ought to be met as well. The one requiring most work is the obligation to halt loss of biodiversity by 2010.
Citizens’ interest in securing biodiversity is a good thing, but experts are aware of the inaccuracy of the concepts used and find this worrying.
The debate is being confused by introducing new concepts and using old ones in a misleading way. Outside Finland in particular, the terminology used in connection with conservation demands is a mixed bag indeed – natural forest, primary forest, snow forest, old-growth forest, frontier forest, high conservation value forest, to mention but a few – and accurate definitions are often neglected.
Finnish organisations have started to demand ‘protection by restoration’, conserving forests with no particular ecological value, but where these values could be restored in time by human action.
There would, of course, be existing ecological values appropriate for protection in Southern Finland’s forests, but protecting them would require more effort in political terms. The ecologically most valuable forests are located on private lands, and excluding them from commercial use on a wide scale is extremely expensive.
This is where the METSO programme is helpful. Most importantly, it is a voluntary system for forest owners.
Surveys show that forest owners not only have a more positive attitude to voluntary conservation, but also accept lower compensations for voluntarily protected areas.
The METSO scheme aims to conserve only habitats with ecological value. Conservational biological criteria based on scientific research have been established to this end, and no sites will be accepted that do not fulfil these criteria.
It should be noted that nearly all demands for conservation made by environmental organisations in recent years refer to areas that do not meet the criteria.
The METSO programme has often faced criticism according to which the focused conservation of small-scale sites in managed forests provided by the programme is not sufficient and new large conservation areas are needed. Responding to this criticism is difficult for the moment because research into small-scale conservation measures has only been carried out since the mid 1990s.
The experience obtained so far, however, is almost completely supportive of the possibilities of small-scale conservation.
Environmental organisations often support their conservation demands by referring to threatened species. A special word, ‘kääpiminen’, has even been coined in Finnish for this practice of searching for threatened species, most often bracket fungi or kääpä, at a site that the activists wish to be protected.
The method works quite efficiently for the organisations: on the hand, some threatened species obviously may be found in nearly any hectare of forest, but the general public, on the other hand, thinks of that as a rare occurrence.
Approximately 90 per cent the species defined as threatened in the evaluation of the Ministry of the Environment can survive in habitats commonly found in ordinary managed forests, as proven by emeritus professor Erkki Annila.
According to Annila, more than 50 per cent of these species live on decaying wood and less than 40 per cent in habitats of special importance defined by the Forest Act, in which felling is prohibited.
What should be our conclusion? Certainly not that we should do nothing, but that through better practices in commercially managed forests we can solve a major part of the extinction problem.
This requires knowledge, but the search is on for that too: the METSO programme includes the most extensive efforts for biodiversity research to date.
METSO is at the pilot phase at the moment. The aim is to examine during 2007 how the programme has succeeded and how it should be continued.
The programme, which started in 2002, has already shown its positive sides, however. Now that the forestry community has come to accept that threatened species constitute an important resource of our forests, safeguarding the future for them will also become an important aspect of forestry.
EIJA-RIITTA KORHOLA
Member of the Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament
Eija-Riitta Korhola's text published in Helsingin Sanomat on 7 September, 2005