In Finland the data on intact natural areas with HCV forests is based on previous data on HCV forests compiled by different organizations, data of the national forest inventory, data from various field surveys, satellite images and aerial photographs. Most of the data used cover the entire Finnish study area (e.g.
Metsähallitus’ datasets). Satellite images have been used in areas where there are gaps in the aerial photo coverage. The final data was compiled by the Finnish Environment Institute.
The data is divided into five categories:
1. Existing PAs: All the PAs are considered intact natural areas, and all the forests inside them are considered to have high conservation value.
2. Planned PAs: All the planned PAs are considered intact natural areas, and all the forests inside them are considered to have high conservation value, unless they very clearly seem intensively managed on aerial photos.
3. Intact natural areas with HCV forests, outside the existing and planned PAs: The high biodiversity value of these areas has been verified in the field, or there are other valid reasons for classifying them as areas with high biodiversity value.
State-owned land
• “Forest dialogue” E-sites (Kinnunen et al 2007) in Lapland, Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu.
After a dialogue process between Metsähallitus and several NGOs, in 2005, Metsähallitus agreed to exclude some forests and wetlands in northern Finland from forest management activities. These forest and wetlands have significant nature values. However, some of these sites (so called E-sites) have no official protection status and therefore are not included in the total count of protected areas in the region.
• “Small wilderness” -areas in Forest Lapland.
Metsähallitus has agreed to restrain from forest management in so-called small wilderness areas of Forest Lapland. These areas were agreed on bet-ween Metsähallitus and Greenpeace in 2009 in the so-called “Metsä-Lappi agreement”.
• ”Important reindeer forests” in Inari municipality (northern Lapland).
In 2010, Metsähallitus and local reindeer herders signed a logging mora-torium for 20 years, protecting temporarily some of the most important old-growth forests used for reindeer herding in Inari municipality. Some of these areas are excluded from the intact natural areas identified in this study, because their natural state could not be credibly verified.
• Valuable habitats from Metsähallitus’ landscape ecological plans (excluding small water bodies and slash-and-burn areas), and similar surrounding areas identified from aerial photos.
• Mire habitats with old-growth forest, identified in the National
Supplementary Plan for Mire Conservation as well as from aerial photos.
• Areas identified in “the Nationally Important Bedrock Areas” -survey in Lapland that - according to aerial photos - contain old, non-managed forest.
• Areas identified as of high biodiversity value in NGO surveys, including
During the 2000s, Finnish non-governmental nature conservation organi-sations (The Finnish Nature League, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and Greenpeace) have been carrying out surveys of valuable forest- and mire areas in state-owned forests. For the most part, the results of these surveys have been published in various NGO reports. When possible, the current boundaries of these areas have been verified and updated based on aerial photos.
In 2012, the Finnish nature conservation organisations identified (based on results of field surveys and other information) ecologically valuable, un-protected state-land natural areas. Based on this data the NGOs suggested establishment of new protected areas. Both the data and the related report (“Kansallisomaisuus Turvaan”) are available online (in Finnish). In this data, sites were classified either as valuable or potentially valuable habitats. Often this data overlaps with other data as well.
Other landowners
• Areas of high biodiversity value, identified in NGO surveys (mostly during the 2000’s): Natural or near-natural old-growth forests (corresponding to national “METSO I -class forests”), more diverse middle-aged forests in natural succession, and valuable mires. NGOs have carried out inventories of these habitats particularly on common-pool (forest commons, companies, municipalities) land. For the most part, the results of these surveys have been published in various NGO reports. When possible, the current boundaries of these areas have been verified and updated based on aerial photos.
• Nationally important bedrock areas in Lapland that according to aerial photos contain old, non-managed forest. Information about demanding or threatened species has been used in selecting objects on privately-own land.
• Mires in Lapland, identified in the National Supplementary Plan for Mire Conservation and containing valuable forests habitat on the basis of field inventories or satellite images.
• Other valuable forest areas, identified from aerial photos, that contain a large number of threatened species (according to species information from the Finnish environmental information system Hertta).
Most of the datasets used to define areas in category 3 (e.g. Metsähallitus’ datasets) cover the entire study area in Finland.
4. Areas of subsistence use in northern Lapland, as far as they are not otherwise included in intact natural areas with forests of high biodiversity value. These state-land areas are currently excluded from forest management, and are de facto known to be of high biodiversity value due to their high natural state.
They have been placed into a category separate from “intact natural areas (with forests of high biodiversity value)” only because the data verifying their natural state was not available for this study.
5. Natural areas with forests of potentially high biodiversity value, outside the existing or planned PAs: information about the nature values (e.g. natural vs.
managed forests) of these natural areas is insufficient to verify their conservation value, but according to the information available (see list below), they are likely to be of high biodiversity value:
• All nationally important bedrock areas in Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu.
• All areas from the National Supplementary Plan for Mire Conservation, in
• Areas identified from aerial photos and /or background data (e.g. Finnish national forest inventory) that may have significant biodiversity values.
− Natural Resources Institute Finland produces information about forest age classes, timber volume etc., based on the Finnish national forest invento-ries. This information (from 2011 and 2013) has been used to some extent as background information when identifying areas with potentially high biodiversity value, outside state-owned land.
− At least partly more than 100-years-old forests (according to the Natio-nal Forest Inventory 2011) that look near natural on aerial photos. These include natural succession series on the land uplift coast (mainly in south-west Lapland and southern parts of the Northern Ostrobothnia coastline).
− Old forests that look near natural on aerial photos and include intact mire ecosystems with natural or semi-natural hydrology.
− Forests in close proximity to areas protected in the Forest Biodiversity Pro-gramme for Southern Finland (METSO) that on aerial photos look similar to the neighbouring protected tracts.
− Riverside forests and forests along rivulets and brooks that look near natu-ral in aerial photos.
− Easily identifiable alluvial forests. If these forests are bordering treeless or thinly forested mires, these wetlands have also been included in the tract area.
− Areas of old and unmanaged state-land forests, identified from aerial pho-tos when no other information was available. Landscape ecological plans of Metsähallitus’ and/or national forest inventory data has often been used to verify their high age.
• Large natural mire areas in Lapland identified from aerial photos or from the National Supplementary Plan for Mire Conservation that include significant amount of near-natural forest or scrubland.
The data in this category (i.e. category 5), is not exhaustive due to the limited resources available for this study.
The mapping effort was concentrated to areas that are the most essential when considering the connectivity of HCV forests; from Russia through Finland to Sweden: Lapland and the north-eastern part of Northern Ostrobothnia. In these areas the mapping result can be described as being rather comprehensive (especially on state-owned lands) but not exhaustive (Annex 2). In the rest of Northern Ostrobothnia and in Kainuu, the mapping effort was directed to areas that - from the international point of view - are the most important with regard to HCV forest connectivity: the Suomenselkä region along the southern borders of Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu, the Maanselkä region along the eastern border of Kainuu (also part of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia), and the Perämeri (Bothnian Bay) coast in Northern Ostrobothnia. Even in these areas, the mapping result is not very comprehensive. In the central parts of Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu mapping based on aerial photos or other background information was not committed. In these areas the tracts are mainly those obtained from the National Supplementary Plan for Mire Conservation and “the Nationally Important Bedrock Areas” –survey, as well as the objects of the Metsähallitus’ landscape ecological plans and NGO surveys.
3.5.4