As Antti Otsamo writes, the report on responsible forestry published this year by WWF Finland is good and useful, but the promise made in its title is not being kept.
The report, authored by Petri Keto-Tokoi, M.Sc. (For.), senior lecturer (forest ecology), has an intriguing title: “Research-based recommendations for the development of responsible forestry”. However, the introduction already reveals that P. Keto-Tokoi is not examining responsible forestry, but only ecological responsibility.
This is, of course, important, because without sufficient attention to the fundamental principles of ecology, trees will not grow and forestry will not be successful.
This observation is significant. In the history of Finnish forestry, we have tested the limits of ecological possibility, for example, by digging ditches in infertile wetlands and afforesting areas in terrain with excessively high relief. At that time, the concept of responsibility was perceived relatively differently - it meant guaranteed jobs and income for the inhabitants of sparsely populated areas.
Faith in the future was strong, but there was little thought given to the ecological limitations that exist today.
We no longer repeat the mistakes we made during the “forest fever” period after the Second World War, which was caused by poverty, reparations (compensation for war damage) to the Soviet Union, and the high demand during the Korean War. Profitability is carefully calculated, with the goal of generating profit from the forest, without considering that many forest owners do not regard forestry as a source of livelihood; their intentions may be vastly different.
Whether the main goal is to increase timber production volumes or the primary focus is on hunting, landscape management or restoration, or if there is no intention to manage the forest at all – fortunately, laws and regulations are no obstacle to any of these options.
The WWF report very clearly reflects a view on forestry from an ecological perspective. The report's author, Petri Keto-Tokoi, is an experienced professional who has been researching forest ecology issues for several decades and has offered valuable judgments on the protection of valuable forests and the species found within them.
The author's competence and profound vision are clearly evident in the report. At the same time, there is a strong desire to steer forestry in a more ecological direction and to achieve the conservation of biodiversity.
The report summarizes many studies on forest ecology, mainly in Scandinavian countries. There is no shortage of such research; since the nineties, Scandinavian countries have invested funds into biodiversity research through many well-funded programmes.
The facts are indisputable. If we want to be cautious and reduce ecological risk, the guidelines proposed by Keto-Tokoi are very useful.
However, many for whom forestry is a livelihood do not understand, for example, the categorical suggestion to introduce 30-metre buffer zones on both sides of waterways. If there are two small streams in a forest stand, their buffer zones will occupy a very large area.
According to Antti Otsamo, in the report for WWF Finland, Petri Keto-Tokoi has very clearly reflected the view on forestry from an ecological perspective.
The minimum amount of trees Keto-Tokoi suggests should be retained during regenerative felling is 10% of the number or area of trees in the stand. For many forest owners, this might seem expensive.
Based on long-term studies, retaining deadwood can be the most cost-effective way to protect endangered species. Evidently, most Finnish forest owners could implement this – whether they are private individuals, families, businesses, or municipalities – especially since forestry has long been held in high regard and is highly valued.
Another ecologically effective method – controlled burning – is more complicated. It requires significant labour resources, and is therefore expensive. Furthermore, it is highly dependent on weather conditions.
Personally, I (Antti Otsamo) do not believe that organised burning could be increased to the level suggested by Keto-Tokoi – 10–20% of the timber volume in the regenerated area. Regardless of its ecological effectiveness, it would be very expensive.
The WWF Finland report is valuable ground for discussions on forest management, without forgetting that it reflects the issue solely from an ecological perspective. The assessment expressed within it regarding current forestry methods is overly harsh.
Ecology is the foundation of forestry, but it is not the only criterion for sustainability and responsibility. No one engages in forestry driven by malicious intent. For people, it is a source of livelihood, an opportunity to earn income and satisfy society's demand for timber and wood products.
In earlier times, people did not treat forests particularly gently either, including in Finland. Tar production, cutting trees and burning them to establish agricultural land, logging on river banks, and extensive clear-felling in the post-war years drastically changed the landscape.
The forests recovered and now these areas are occupied by dense and diverse forests, in which there are many protected natural values, as proven by the Keto-Tokoi report.
Likewise, forests will recover in the currently felled areas too, provided we are patient and far-sighted. Most of the recommendations mentioned in the WWF Finland report are already being implemented, albeit on a smaller scale than recommended. Upon reading this report, forest owners will be able to adapt to achieve the desired results.
What can we conclude? The Western world is striving towards individualism. The number of shared values is decreasing. This also applies to Finnish forest owners. One must take seriously the fact that forest owners have different goals. Increasing timber production is not important to everyone.
After reading the WWF Finland report, I reflected that forest owners or their professional advisors need a simple programme that would provide not only basic information about the forest property, such as forest area or timber stocks, but where it would be possible to enter, for example, individual recommendations provided in this report or similar suggestions, and the programme would show the costs of implementing the respective recommendation, for example, the reduction in income from timber sales, etc.
This would make decision-making clearer and provide an opportunity to choose the most appropriate forest management methods. Regardless of the forest owner's goals, forest management must be based on facts and informed choices.
Source: https://smy.fi/en/artikkeli/point-of-view-price-of-ecological-decisions-should-be-transparent-to-forest-owner/