[osts and resources
5.5 Biodiversity, agricutture and forestry
Environmenta( subsidies
Environmental subsidies granted under the Actfor forestry
on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry3 significantiy promote biodiversity in commercialiy managed forests. Government budgets for 1997—1999 allocated approximately EUR 25m a year to promote nature management. The National Forest Programme (KMO) increased this funding by some EUR i.7m; and the budget for2000 duly allocated annual funding amounting to a total of EUR 4.2m for these purposes.3 According to the Aci on the Financtng of Sustainahle Forestty (1094/1996, section 19) landowners may obtain environntental substdy for significant expensesoreconomtc losses tncurred when Iheir forests are managed according10othcr considerations Ihan timber production. Under section 2t) of the Act, certain sepantte rnanagement projects rnay aiso be financed. Ensronmenta1 subsidies are 001 restricted10the key habftats specified in section 10 of the Forest Act, but such areas have heen given priorits if significant losses are incurred hy landowners due to the preservation of characteristic features of key habitats, they näy be entitled10compensation for any losses above a threshold value of 4% of the value of the tiniher currently avaiiabie for feliing, as stipuiated jn the regulations of the Ministrv of Agriculture and Forestw. Landowners ntav alternatively appiy for exceptionai permission10carry out forest managenwnt measures so as10ensure that no significant losses are incurred, according to section 11 of the Forest Act. Such permission stas granted jo just four cases over the period 1997-99. In 2000 more exceptionai permits were granted, but almost ali concerned pennission to cross streams. rather Ihan for habitat management nteasures as suc’h. and environmental suhsjdies would not have removed the need for such permission. The stands10he cut may hare been far away from the kev habitat, with the only practical route te them passing over the stream concerned. Figures arenotvet avaiiabie for the nutuher of exceptionai permtts granted during 2001
51
The Impiementation of the National Action Pian Second Progress Repo rt for Biodiversity n Finland 2000-2001 (Sum mary)
But in spite of the growing need for nature management within the forestry sector, funding evels have remained at this Level of EUR tmduring the period 2001—02.This statutory funding intended for the promotion of nature management has been used for the payment of tompensation to Landowners related to habitat preservation measures, for surveys of the key habitats specified in the Forest Act (the METE project), for training and consulting, and for nature management projects see Table 6).
Table 6.The allocation of statutory fttnding witliin Government budgets for Promoting nature managernent 111comrnercially managed forests (EUR milhion, approx.). (Ministry of Agricultureandforestrv 2002)
1997 7998 7999 2000 2007
Snrvevsofkevhahitats 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.2
specified in the Forest Act (pilot stage (first sunev (section 10) (METE) 1996-1997) year)
Environniental subsidv <0.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.5
undertheAct on the 10 agreetnents 32ttgreelnents 7.4agreenients 124 agreernents 223 agreenwncs Financing of Sustainable (37 ha) t 135 ha) (251)ha) (1,584 ha) (131)1) ha) Fotestty(seetion 19) for
landowners(compensation for hahitat pre5er511i0tt rnetcsures) Regional itattire
nanagentertt projects 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 t).6
National nature nianagernent
developrnent projects *) 0.1 0.1 1)25 0.24 1)03
*) This hinding indttdes flnancing for the development of studies rctated to natureItt;It1;Igctllentovetthe period 1 )9- 1099 (approx. ELR t). Im per vear).Urani201tt) onwardsth)s fnancialsuhsidytitoheen inctuded in the fundiny for regional natnre manigemeni proieccs.
After initial difflcuLties, the uptake of environmental subsidies for forestry rapidly grew to ts current level of around EUR i.m. Demand for subsidies 15 in fact stili higher than this figure suggests, but funds have aiready been fully allocated. Ihere are regional differences in the uptake of subsidies, with most sites located in southern Finland. In northern Finland subsidies have mainly been used for jointly-owned forests. In 2000 the basis for calculating subsidies was changed from the taxable value of a cubic metre of timber to the average stumpage price, and subsidy periods were shortened from 30years to 10 years.
With this change in the subsidy period, the areas of land being brought under environmental subsidies grew considerably in proportion
52
The Impiementation of the National Action Pian Secon d Progress Repo rt for Biodiversity in Finland 2OOO2oO1 (Sum mary)
to the increase in the resources used. By the end of2001,agreements had been made covering a total area of3,300 hectares. About two-thirds of the sites are stream-side habitats, many of which also consist of herb-rich woodland or nutrient-rich spruce mire hab)tats. The rest of the areas covered by subsidies are divided fairly evenly between other habitat types. The priority sites for subsidies have been the key habitats specified in section 10of the Forest Act.
Within the framework of the finances available, regional forest centres may grant environmentai subsidies to preserve other valuable habitats, or for other habitat management measures.
Regional nature management projects have been set up by several forest centres, each including the development of studies related to nature management. The regional programmes of aims for forestry (AMO), updated in 2001,have attempted to assess the most important areas for development in each region, and to set out aims for nature management projects. The fieidwork for the surveys of key habitats will he completed during2003, when resources will consequently he freed to increase the uptake of environmental subsidies and to implement regional nature management projects.
Environmentat subsidies
The Agri-environmental Programmes (1995—1999for agricuLture
and 2000—2006) aim to reducethe harmful environmental effects of agriculture, and to promote biodiversity in farmland habitats. One aim of the programme for1995—1999 was that more than 90% of ali active farms would become committed to meeting the conditions for basic subsidies. In 1999 around 9% of ali the farms that had applied for fleld area subsidy were involved in the basic subsidy scheme. ln 1999a total of around EUR 27o.lm was paid out in environmental subsidies, of which more than EUR233.4m consisted of basic subsidy, and around EUR 35.3m of special subsidy, with the remainder allocated for training, consulting and experimental projects. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry supported environmental training and consulting in agriculture to the tune of EUR
7.2m over the period 1995—1999. In 2000, some EUR 276.2mof subsidy was paid out under the Agri-environmental Programme for 2000—2006. Special agri-environmental subsidies may he granted for estahlishing huffer zones, creating and managing wetlands, organic farming, managing traditional agricultural biotopes and raising landrace Iivestock hreeds, for instance.
Ovet hatf of the subsidies are financed by the EU (EU funding amounts to 75% in Objective 1
—areas and 50% elsewhere). Training, consulting and information services will he continued during the period 2000-2006, with EUR o.Sm a year earmarked to cover expenses.
53
The im piementation of the Nationai Action Pian Second Progress Report for Biodiversity in Finland 2000-2001 (Sum mary)
5.6 National biodiversity
The need to organise resources to further developmonitoring, data registers
data registers and information systems reiatedand information systems
to biodiversity is one of the centrai requirements of the Nationat Action Pian. if the monitoring of biodiversity and ts associated data registers and information systems can be set up effectiveiy with adequate input from different sectors, the results wiil be of great servite both to experts in the preservation, management and sustainabie use of biodiversity, and to Iand use pianners.Deveioping and harmonising data registers and information systems wiii aiso require resources at regionai and iocai ieveis.
The research, monitoring and information systems expert group (TST group) of the Nationai Action Pian for Biodiversity in Finland presented its proposais for the organisation of a nationai bioiogicai diversity monitoring system to the Minister of the Environment on 10.1.2002 (see Appendix2). The basis of this system wouid consist of the continuation of23 existing general monitoring schemes, and the estabiishment of monitoring deveiopment projects. The proposais estimate the need for further resources, inciuding tinancing for the organisation of monitoring (around EUR 1.3m in one-off expenses, and another EUR r.3m a year), and funds for the deveiopment of monitoring data systems (about EUR 3.8m in one-off expenses, plus annuat expenses of EUR 6,ooo). Costs have been kept down thanks to the invoivement of dedicated amateurs on a voiuntary basis. These caicuiations do not yet inciude the costs of speciai monitoring schemes, which are to be the subject of separate proposais (see Appendix 2).
54
The im piementation of the Nationai Action Pian Second Progreoo Report for Biodiveroitp in Finland 2000-2001 (Sam mary)
55
The impiementatio of the National Action Pian Secon d Progress Report or Biodiversity ja Finland 2000-2001 fSummary)
Sources
CÄFF (Conservation of M-ctic Fiora and fauna) 2001: Arctic Fiora and Fauna: Status and Conservation.
Edita. 272 pp. Helsinki.
Finnish Biodiversity Research Progtamme fIBRE. (Iittp://fibre.utu.fi)
finnish Clearing-House Mechanism LUMONET of the Convenlion on Biological Diversity.
(hitp://www.yniparisto.fulumonet)
Finnish Nalional Biodiversitv Committee 2001: Finland—SecondNational Report for the Convention on Biological Diversitv 2001. The Ministrv of the Environment. 113 pp. helsinki.
(IiltpJ/wwv.biodiv.org/docJwor1d/0/fi-nr-02-en.pdf or http://wwbiodhorWdodwor1dIfL/fi-nt02-en.doc) liallanaro, Ei.. & Pylväniinen, M. 2001: Nature in Northern Europe—Biodiversity in a Changing Environment.
The Nordic Coundll of Ministers. Nord 2001:14. 350 iw- Copenhagen.
Loukola, M-L., Isoaho, 5. & Lindström, K. 2002: Education for Sustainable Development In Finland.
Ministrv of Education. Department for Education and Science Pohicy. 123 pp. flclsinki.
Ministn’ of Agriculture and Forestn’ 2000: The State of forestry in Finland 2000. Criteia and Inöicators for Sustainable forest Management in Finland. Publications 5a/2000. 102 pp. Helsinki.
Ministry of Agriculture and forestry 1999: finlands National Forest Programme 2010. Publications 2/1999.
37 pp. Helsinki.
Ministrv of the Ernironment 2002: Programme for developing recreation in the wild and nature tourism.
The Finnish Environment 535. 48 pp. Helsinki. (in Finnish)
Ministty of the Environment 2001: Proposal for a national monitoring system of hiological diversity.
Report by a research, monitoring and data systems expert group.
The finnish Environrnent 532. 76 pp. Helsinki. (in Finnish)
Ministrv ofthe Environment 2000a: The Implementation of the National Aclon Pian for Biodiversit in Finland 1997-1999. First Progress Report. (Summarv). 62 pp. Helsinki.
56
The Implementation of the National Action Pian Second Progress Report for Biodiversity in Finland 2000-2001 (Summary)
Ministry of the Environment2000b:Forest protection in Southern finland and Ostrobothnia.
The finnish Environment 437. 284 pp. Helsinki. (in Finnish)
Ministry of the Environment 2000c: The rnanagement of agricultural heritage habitats in finland.
The finnish Environment 443. 161 pp. Helsinki. (in Finnish)
Ministry of the Environment 199$: National Action Pian for Biodiversity in finland, 1997-1999. 127 pp. Helsinki.
Nordic Coundil of Ministers 2000: lntroduced Species inthe Nordic Countries. Nord 2000:13.242pp. Copenhagen.
Nummi, P 2001: Alien species in Finland. The finnish Environment 466. 4Opp. Helsinki.
(http:/Avww.ymparisto,fiJluosuo/lumo/lumoneUaliens.htm)
Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T & Mannerkoski, 1. (eds.) 2001: The 2000 Red List of finnish Species.
Ministry of the Environment & finnish Environment Institute. 432 pp. Helsinki. (in Finnish) (http://wwwymparisto.fVeng/enviroiilnaturcon/threaU2000/2000.htm)
Rosenström, U. & Palosanri, M. (eds.) 2000: Signs of Sustainabilitv. Finlands indicators for sustalnable development 2000. The finnish Environment 404e. 122 pp. Helsinki.
(http://wwv.ymparisto.fVeng/environ!sustdev/indicaUinds2000.iitm)
Tenhola, T. & Yrjönen, K. 2000: Biological DiversiW in the Finnish Private forests. Survey of Valuable flabitats.
Interim Report 2000. Ministry of Agrictilture and Forestrv, forestry Development Centre Tapio & Regional forestiy Centres. 34 pp. Helsinki.
Vainio, M., Kekilläinen, ii., Alanen, A. & Pykälä,J. 2001: Traditional rural biotopes in finland. final report of the nationwide inventoly. The finnish Environment 527. 163 pp. Helsinki. (in finnish)
Virkkala, R. & Toivonen, ii. 1999: Maintaining biological diversity in finnish forests.
The finnish Environment 278. 56pp. Flelsinki.
57
The Im piemen tation ot the National Action Pian tor Biod iversity in Finland 2000-2001
Second Progress Report (Summary)