Finnish Forestry Environmental Programme
6/28/94
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
/** taiga.news: 149.0 **/
** Topic: FINNISH FORESTRY ENV. PROGRAMME **
** Written 1:58 PM Jun 28, 1994 by nn:rogols in cdp:taiga.news
**
Finland
NGO's criticise forestry environment programme
/From Taiga News No 10, July 1994/
THE FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTISED IN FINLAND during the past few
decades has caused serious damage to nature and biodiversity. Even
the forestry sector finally seems to have recognised the need for
a real change in forestry. As a sign of this willingness to
change, a working group under the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry has been working to develop an environmental programme
for Finnish forestry during the past year. The group released its
proposals this March. The most positive thing about the programme
is the fact that it has actually been developed. From now on it
will be rather difficult for anybody to claim that Finnish forest
management is perfect and that no changes are needed. The
programme itself, despite suggesting for example that heavy soil
scarification (i e ploughing) and wetland draining should not be
used after 1996, does not change the basic concept of forest
management. However, it can be seen as the beginning of a long
process.
Some Finnish NGOs have reviewed the draft and raised the following
concerns regarding the programme:
1. Forest Protection
The area of protected forests in Finland must be increased
substantially. The establishment of protected areas must be based
on ecological knowledge. Because there is very little original,
intact nature left in Finland, it is improbable that the
biodiversity crisis can be solved simply by protecting the
remaining old growth forests and other intact areas. The remaining
old growth forests must be the core of a national network of
protected areas. In addition, restoration of forests and wetlands
is required.
2. Harvest rates
The working group suggests an increase in logging rates. The
reason given for this is that increased logging is necessary in
order to maintain the health and vitality of the forests. In the
view of NGOs, the annual harvest should not be increased until
comprehensive ecological assessments at national and regional
levels have produced the necessary information on the state of the
forests.
3. Forest management practises
The use of forests must be based on protection of biodiversity and
the natural dynamics of forests. There is not yet enough knowledge
available to determine what the kind of forestry that mimics
natural dynamics would look like. This is why the precautionary
principle should be implemented in all forest planning and use.
Scientific research on natural dynamics of forests should be
increased. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence of the
destructive effects of present forest management practices. The
following methods have been proven especially damaging to
biodiversity:
-logging that disturbs the natural continuity of forests, such as
seedling cuttings and large clear-cuts
- drainage of swamp forests and wetlands
- monotony of forest structures and tree species
- soil scarification
4. Forest legislation
Finnish forestry legislation has been criticised for not
protecting biodiversity. A new forestry act is now being prepared
by a working group. The working group consists of only a selected
group of representatives from the forestry sector. The timetable
is also very demanding, and according to the latest news, the
group has decided to limit their work at this stage to drafting a
general forest declaration by the given deadline. This gives cause
to suspect that the main goal of those trying to update Finnish
forestry is not to protect biodiversity but to renew the image of
Finnish forest management among international customers and in the
political arena.
Finnish NGO's consider that the principal goal of the new forestry
act should be to ensure that forest use and forestry practices do
not threaten biodiversity.
5. Implementing environmental protection in forestry and
monitoring of the environment programme.
The working group proposes the environment programme as a strategy
for ecologically sustainable forestry in Finland. NGO's do not
consider the programme alone to be sufficient for this purpose. A
comprehensive forest protection programme and a strategy for the
forest industry - adapted to the goals and principles of the
environment and protection programmes - should complement the
environment programme for forestry. Forest policies and management
guidelines should be constantly evaluated and updated when new
information becomes available. Planning, monitoring and
evaluation of the protection of biodiversity must become a shared
responsibility of environmental authorities, scientists and
NGO's, and not the sole responsibility of forestry organisations,
as suggested by the environment programme. It should finally be
recognised that foresters cannot do it alone!
SARI KUVAJA
GREENPEACE FINLAND