Strengthening biodiversity, improving the status of watercourses and adapting to climate change are goals we must work towards. At the same time, it must be remembered that nature restoration in Finland will largely affect private property. If landowners do not trust this process, do not get involved in it, or if they are not treated fairly, the goals may not be achieved.
The European Nature Restoration Law requires the state of degraded ecosystems to be improved by 2050. Finland's national nature restoration plan is currently being drafted; this is not a short-term project but will require solutions whose impact will be felt for decades, so decisions on the plan's content, funding and national choices will not be easy. We cannot afford to overlook the plan's impact on the environment, landowners, livelihoods and the Finnish economy.
Finland's national choices in nature restoration must be full of healthy self-respect and self-defence. This does not mean disregarding nature-related goals, but rather making full use of the discretion provided for in the regulation and taking into account the characteristics unique to Finland. Forestry, agriculture, food production, timber availability and rural viability in Finland are invaluable, which is why the implementation of the regulation must be fully in line with the situation in the country.
From the perspective of landowners, the biggest concern is uncertainty. If the interpretation of habitats is unclear and the costs of restoration are unknown, or if the impact of nature restoration cannot be reliably assessed, building and creating trust will be difficult. It is particularly important that forest habitat definitions are precise and predictable, and that national (local) conditions are respected. If boundaries are unclear, it may unpredictably affect the decisions made by landowners, the timber market and investments.
Finland could learn from Sweden, which emphasises the use of provided discretion, cost-efficiency, voluntary action and incentives. The starting point should be solutions that can be implemented in practice and realistic funding, rather than new bans or restrictions.
The position adopted in Finland is that restoration measures on private land will be based on the principle of voluntariness. This is the right start, which must be implemented in practice. If the implementation of the regulation indirectly creates new obligations, usage restrictions or what we call 'grey conservation', trust will quickly disappear. For this reason, the prerequisites for success are the protection of landowners' rights, transparent impact assessment and adequate compensation.
The METSO programme – Finland's Forest Biodiversity Programme – has shown that the situation in nature can be effectively improved if landowners are allowed to decide for themselves and receive appropriate compensation. The same approach should be applied to nature restoration.
Improving the state of nature can open up new opportunities. The market for natural values, voluntary restoration projects and the growing interest of companies in nature-related investments can create new sources of income for landowners, but this requires clear and unambiguous rules, a functioning market and stable funding.
A plan is needed whose implementation will improve the state of nature while protecting property rights, the prerequisites for ensuring a livelihood and rural viability. The commitments promised to the European Commission must be realistic, legally sustainable and financially viable. Ultimately, nature restoration is not just about hectares or percentage-based targets. It is about improving the state of nature in an ecologically, financially and socially sustainable way. This is a process in which landowners are a very important part of the solution.
Conclusions in the context of Latvia
The Forest Certification Council of Latvia emphasises that the view of Finnish experts is also particularly relevant to Latvia, as both countries share a high proportion of private forests and landowners, a strong timber industry and a similar situation regarding the implementation of the EU Nature Restoration Law. The six main conclusions for Latvia are as follows:
Firstly, the principle of voluntariness versus 'grey conservation'. For Latvian forest owners, too, the biggest concerns are uncertainty and bureaucracy, for example, the designation of micro-reserves without the landowner's consent. It is clearly evident that success can only be achieved if restoration is voluntary. If the state attempts to introduce hidden restrictions, i.e. so-called 'grey conservation', all trust in state institutions, which is already very fragile here, will be destroyed.
Secondly, financial compensation and incentives are very important, rather than penalties. Similar to the METSO programme in Finland, Latvia also needs effective and generous compensation mechanisms for restrictions on economic activity. If a forest owner sees economic sense and fair remuneration for the preservation of natural values, they will become an ally, not an opponent.
Thirdly, we must stand up for the defence of national interests and 'healthy self-interest'. When developing its national nature restoration plan, Latvia must make maximum use of the flexibility allowed by the regulation. The forestry sector is the backbone of Latvia's exports and the viability of its rural regions. Blindly adopting goals without assessing the local context could jeopardise timber availability and investment in the Latvian timber industry.
Fourthly, legal predictability and clear definitions are necessary, because at present there is often a lack of a unified and predictable understanding of habitat quality criteria in Latvia. The call for 'precise and predictable forest habitat definitions' emphasised by our like-minded counterparts in Finland is also important for Latvia, so that forest owners can plan their activities in the long term without fear of sudden management bans and hysterical demands from eco-activists.
Fifthly, these are new market opportunities, i.e. a market for natural values. Nature restoration is not just a burden. By organising legislation, opportunities may open up for Latvian forest and land owners to earn income from carbon credits or biodiversity credits purchased by private companies – the so-called voluntary natural capital market.
Sixthly, the owner must be part of the solution. The main lesson that Latvian policymakers should take from their Finnish colleagues is that the forest and land owner is not an enemy of nature or a 'problem'; without their involvement, understanding and support, it is practically impossible to achieve biodiversity goals.
These six principles must be followed and implemented by the next Saeima of Latvia if there is a genuine desire for our Latvian independence, prosperity and competitiveness, which every political force emphasises so much!
* Leena Kärkkäinen, Director of Rural Viability at the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) of Finland