So-called quiet nature conservation in Finland is driven by a range of reasons, including natural values, economic factors, landscape and recreational values, as well as family and ownership-related considerations. In Finland, private forest owners voluntarily leave large areas of forest outside forestry management without any formal conservation agreements or compensation.

According to a recently published Pellervo Economic Research PTT report, quiet nature conservation covers roughly 1.1 million hectares of forest land. This is the first nationwide assessment of the scale of the phenomenon. The study is based on a survey carried out in spring 2025, in which 853 forest owners took part. The research was funded by the Finnish Forest Foundation. The results indicate that quiet nature conservation has existed for a long time, but until now has not been systematically identified or statistically recorded.

What does "quiet nature conservation" mean?

In the study by Pellervo Economic Research (hereafter PTT), "quiet nature conservation" refers to voluntary, financially uncompensated conservation decisions by forest owners that either exclude forest areas from management entirely or allow only very limited use of the forest.

"Quiet nature conservation" has a variety of motivations, such as natural values, economic factors, landscape and recreational values, and family and ownership considerations. "It reflects the differing goals of forest owners and the many values a forest holds," emphasises PTT economist Marjo Maidela.

According to PTT senior forest economist Jani Laturi, the study's most important message for decision-makers is that "quiet nature conservation" is a real and widespread phenomenon in Finland. It points to a significant aspect of Finnish forestry culture. "Many people want to manage their forests in ways that go beyond euros. It is an invisible but significant aspect of Finnish forestry," says Laturi. Many Finns also practise "quiet nature conservation" on the land around their summer cottages.

Widespread, but usually small in scale...

According to the PTT survey, 43% of respondents practised "quiet nature conservation". In total it accounted for 8.3% of the forest area reported by respondents. Applying these results to the country's total private forest area, the combined area under "quiet nature conservation" comes to roughly 1.1 million hectares.

Around 70% of "quiet nature conservation" areas are managed on a small scale. In practice this means, for example, felling individual trees with no intention of selling the timber. The remaining 30% are areas that are excluded from forestry activities altogether.

According to the PTT researchers, the study challenges the simple division between commercial forests and forests set aside for nature conservation.

Maidela describes forest owners' activities as a process with many shades between nature conservation and efficient forestry. "I was somewhat surprised, particularly by the proportion of small-scale forestry. Forest owners' actions are not clear-cut; they are varied," Maidela says of the situation in an interview with Forest.fi.

Owners of small forests stand out

The data obtained in the study show that "quiet nature conservation" is relatively more common on small forest holdings than on large ones. Although it is not applied continuously on every holding, on many it is a long-term arrangement. Most respondents said they would continue "quiet nature conservation" for as long as they owned the property, or for at least another ten years.

From an environmental policy perspective, "quiet nature conservation" supports the preservation of biodiversity and the diversification of forest structure. It complements the conservation set out in law and in agreements, even though it does not appear in official conservation statistics. "Quiet nature conservation" is linked to climate policy, because it affects decisions on felling and therefore also carbon stocks and carbon sequestration in forests. Untouched forest areas and small-scale forest management often point to larger carbon stocks, although the precise effect on carbon sequestration cannot yet be assessed. "If we do not know exactly what these areas are, we cannot say what their effect on carbon sequestration will be," stresses Jani Laturi.

Unclear effect on timber supply

Since the Finnish timber market is heavily dependent on private forests, voluntary restrictions on forestry act as a regulating factor for timber supply whose effect is unclear. Some "quiet nature conservation" is temporary, or applies to areas that are of little forestry value or difficult to use.

According to Helena Hertuainen, Head of Environment and Forestry at the Finnish Forest Industries Federation (FFIF), the PTT study is valuable because it highlights a phenomenon that has long been present in Finnish forest ownership. The study challenges "either-or" thinking, in which forests are seen as either actively used or strictly protected.

"Areas under 'quiet nature conservation' may be either entirely untouched or managed on a small scale. They deliver biodiversity broadly and cost-effectively too," says Hertuainen, stressing that: "The study could not determine how much 'quiet nature conservation' affects timber availability. That would be an interesting topic for further research."

Nature conservation and forestry are connected

In Helena Hertuainen's view, biodiversity in forestry is already being safeguarded by various means, including establishing buffer zones, increasing the amount of deadwood and broadleaved trees, carrying out controlled burning and protecting the most valuable areas. At the same time, it is important to remember that timber availability underpins the operation of the forest industry — roughly 95% of timber is sourced domestically. A substantial increase in protected areas without a targeted approach would reduce timber availability and jeopardise the operation of the entire sector.

MTK Forestry Director Marko Maki-Hakola stresses that "quiet nature conservation" is not a marginal phenomenon. "Forest owners already take on considerable responsibility, at their own expense, for advancing biodiversity and climate goals. That should be remembered in the decision-making process," Maki-Hakola says in an interview with the newspaper Maaseudun Tulevaisuus. The results of the PTT study indicate that forest owners do not need additional external rules to limit felling.

Trading in natural values on offer

"Quiet nature conservation" should not be confused with so-called "grey nature conservation" in forestry, Maki-Hakola notes in an MTK press release. "Grey nature conservation" is a situation in which agriculture and forestry are restricted indirectly and unclearly, without formal decisions or compensation.

According to MTK, trading in nature credits currently offers considerable opportunities for nature conservation. In nature credit trading, an operator buys nature credits from a forest owner. Whereas compensation under conservation agreements is often paid from the state budget, in nature credit trading the buyers may be local authorities, companies or private individuals.

MTK's updated nature credit marketplace Luontoarvot.fi will be rolled out gradually during 2026, starting in March. The platform will bring together sellers, buyers and intermediaries of nature credits, allowing landowners to offer interested parties plots with natural values, such as biodiversity areas, or with specific nature restoration objectives.

"'Quiet nature conservation' will continue. Many areas could also be used for nature credit trading. When the 'right area' meets the 'right buyer' and the terms are acceptable, the outcome benefits all parties," says MTK environmental expert Heli Sitari in a press release.

A Europe-wide question

"Quiet nature conservation" is most likely not a purely Finnish phenomenon, but no comparable assessments have been carried out in other countries. What is distinctive about Finland is the large number of private forest owners and the diverse nature of forest ownership.

"The results show that the overall picture of forest use remains incomplete if attention is paid only to official conservation decisions and agreements. Quiet conservation is part of forest use and protection, even though it is not recorded in the statistics," says Jani Laturi.

The study raises a question that is topical across Europe: "How should voluntary, informal nature conservation be recognised, assessed and taken into account in forest, climate and biodiversity policy?" The PTT researchers note that the calculations are based on a survey and therefore carry a degree of uncertainty. Forest owners' own estimates may not reflect the true size or natural value of the areas. "We cannot be certain that the survey covers all groups of forest owners," says Maidela. "Nor did we assess the quality of the areas — whether they are forest land or abandoned land, what kind of natural values they contain; no more detailed analysis was carried out. It would be very good if this assessment could be refined in the future."