Social and political background for the liberalization of forest management

Transcription

1 Social and political background for the liberalization of forest management MMT Timo Saksa Finnish Forest Research Institute Suonenjoki Unit CCF Workshop, , Uppsala

2 Driving forces behind the liberalization The importance of forest sector has decreased during last decades. Forest sector covers only 4 % of our Gross Domestic Product.

3 Driving forces behind the liberalization Exports by forest industries is less than 20 % of total value of exports of Finland. Upto the 1990 s the corresponding proportion was %.

4 Driving forces behind the liberalization Surplus in the growing stock; total increment over 100 mill. m 3, drain 70 mill m 3.

5 Driving forces behind the liberalization Changes in the importance of forest sector has aroused discussion: How firmly society should rule or guide forest management systems? Wood production is on such a high level that it is not reasonable to have so strict forest law as earlier? There is also a common demand to have more variation on forest management Some forest owners want to have free hands for forest management

6 Driving forces behind the liberalization Citizens viewpoints on forests: What are the main issues? Important No importance Relaxing place Lanscape Out door activities Environment for fauna and flora Nature observation Place for free time hobbies Place to pick berries and mushrooms Residentiel environment Sacred place Source of income (direct or indirect) Hunting Forest as source of income has small importance for ordinary man. (Valkeapää ym. 2013)

7 Driving forces behind the liberalization Citizens viewpoints on forests: Who has too much or too little influence on decision making in forest affairs? Forest industry Too much Too little noa* * noa = Cannot say, % Forest authorities Members of Parliament Environmental organisations Environmental authorities Trade organisations Forest owners Nature tourism entrepreneurs Researchers Recreation people Normal citizens (Valkeapää ym. 2013)

8 Forest owners opinions are changing? Clear-cuts should not be used as primary method on vulnerable areas (landscape, water ptotection or other) Clear-cut is an acceptable regeneration method Clear-cuts have too strong influence on landscape and environment The area of clear-cuts should be decreased Current clear-cuts have appropriate size Clear-cuts should not be used at all Agree Do not agree Share of forest owners, % (Kumela & Hänninen 2011)

9 Forest owners interests are also changing? Main target in own forestry Proportion of forest owners, % Max economic return Max wood production Retaining or increase nature values Other target No spesific target (Kumela & Hänninen 2011)

10 Forest owners are interested in unevenaged management (UEAM) If UEAM will be permitted and offered as a real alternative, I will apply UEAM: on my whole property 12 % on part of my property 15 % 27 % on experimental basis 25 % consider 28 % 80 % will not apply 10 % don t know 10 % (Kumela & Hänninen 2011)

11 Ecology and biodiversity: Is UEAM better than EAM with structural retention? No difference/poorer fires, burned wood Coarse Woody Debris large old conifers large old broadleaves Better Metla/Erkki Oksanen management of specific valuable habitats preventing fragmentation of old forests (where feasible) more variable within-stand habitat provision Metla/Erkki Oksanen

12 EAM UEAM Revised forest law (proposal) In the new revised forest law UEAM will be accepted as offical forest management method (equal to EAM). According to the law and regulations forest owner can use single tree selection or small clear-cuts (patch cutting) as cutting system in UEAM. Small clear-cuts can be as large as 0.3 hectares in UEAM. After cutting (single tree or small clear-cuts) the basal area of remained trees in a forest stand (including the areas of small clearcuts) should be as follows: - southern Finland 11 / 10 m 2 /ha* - middle Finland 10 / 9 m 2 /ha - northern Finland 9 / 7 m 2 /ha *fertile / less fertile

13 The extent of unevenaged management (UEAM) in the future will be decided on the market timber sales extension services publicity, politics foresters rather conservative adversity and friction Metla/Erkki Oksanen

14 Thank you