Metsähallitus’ Natural Resource Planning areas

Once the impacts of the alternative scenarios were known, a numeric decision analysis method called Interactive Decision Analysis (IDA) was used to provide comprehensive decision support for integrating the preferences of the different actors into the decision-making. In IDA, different parties chose how much weight they would give to the economic, recreational, nature conservation and socio-economic goals, respectively. The parties themselves were also given weights in relation to one another. Metsähallitus had the weight of 50 %, the Regional Working Group 5 %, Local Working Groups .5 % and public input .5 %. Based on the weights given by and to the different groups, the analysis produced a “total utility function”, which set the alternatives in an order of preference. According to IDA, the best option was the Business scenario, with BAU ranking second, Recreation as third and Conservation as the last one. (Hiltunen 998, 5–5, on IDA see Pykäläinen 997; Pykäläinen & Loikkanen 997; Pykäläinen et al.

999.)

However, as the old-growth forest protection process was going on at the same time, Metsähallitus considered it best to wait for the results of that process before adopting any

of the scenarios for the Natural Resource Plan. (Hiltunen 998, 6.) When the decision on the Protection Programme for Old-Growth Forests in Northern Finland came, it meant an increase of protected forestland by 50 km in Kainuu, of which 0 km in forests planned for commercial use. This was a significant deviation from the Business As Usual scenario, and more than had been expected in any of the scenarios for NRP. Instead of implementing any of the scenarios, the harvest levels and other goals were adjusted according to the Protection Programme. Timber harvest levels were estimated to decrease by 0 % for 997–006 in comparison to the previous decade (Pohjois-Suomen…996, ). Since the Protection Programme included a decision to protect some of the areas in Landscape Ecological Planning, an additional maximum of 0 km was reserved in the NRP for set aside areas for conservation within commercial forestry. (Hiltunen 998, 5–57.)

Landscape Ecological Planning

Metsähallitus started developing Landscape Ecological Planning (LEP) for commercial forests already in 99, in co-operation with the Finnish Environment Institute, in order to improve biodiversity conservation. The goal of the planning was to protect and maintain viable populations of the species naturally occurring in the planning area over the long

GOAL INDICATOR

Economic goals The area of forest available for timber production Net income

Forest balance

Recreation goals Area of important recreation areas Recreation index

Quality of watersheds Nature conservation

goals Area of conservation areas

Multiple use areas(combined forestry and conservation) Changes in the amount of forests aged over 0 years.

Changes in the amount of dead wood Changes in the amount of broadleaved trees

Socio-economic goals Direct and indirect employment provided by Metsähallitus Metsähallitus turnover in Kainuu

Table 6. The criteria used in the Kainuu NRP to assess the economic, ecological, recreational and socio-economic impacts of the alternative scenarios

term. Old-growth forests, and other valuable habitats, were to be protected either as set aside areas, or as ecological corridors and steppingstones that would connect the set aside areas and existing conservation areas into each other. (Karvonen et al. 00, 9–9.)

A special characteristic of Metsähallitus’ LEP was that it was closely tied to forestry planning. Metsähallitus also included a social goal for the planning, “to ensure the preconditions for multiple use and traditional forest-based livelihoods”(Karvonen et al.

00, ). Metsähallitus defined local people as the key target group for participatory planning (Karvonen et al. 00, ).

Pilot projects began in 996, and in 998 Metsähallitus established a national-level Project Group to develop LEP and to provide guidelines and support to the planners in different parts of the country. In accordance with the decision by the Working Group on the Protection of Old-Growth Forests, an Expert Group was established for providing scientific expertise to the process.(Karvonen et al. 00, , 7.)

The actual planning was carried out at the local level in Metsähallitus. LEP was the first joint project of the Forestry Division and Natural Heritage Services, where NHS staff were working on the forest management planning of commercial forests. The Forestry Division led the process. Kainuu was divided into 5 Landscape Ecological Plans (nationally the corresponding figures was plans). The planning areas were typically between 00 and 000 km in size. The process consisted of goals setting, collection of data, carrying out the planning by comparing inventoried sites, drafting a plan and assessing its impacts, writing the plan and assessing it. The biggest and most expensive task was the field inventories of the valuable sites. The aim was to carry out inventories on 5-0% of each planning area. In addition to ecologically valuable areas, important game habitats were also inventoried. (Karvonen et al. 00, 6, 7–8.)

The general public was given an opportunity to comment on the plan at the beginning and end of each process in public hearings. Organised stakeholder groups were given the opportunity to participate in Working Groups. In Kainuu, a total of 7 individuals participated in 5 public hearings and in ten Working Group meetings. (Karvonen et al.

00, 0.)

While difficult to define exactly, it was assessed that the ecological goals could be achieved by protecting the currently known occurrences of red-listed species, by conserving habitats and structural elements of the forests that are important for those species, and by ensuring possibilities for their dispersal (Karvonen et al. 00, .) Old-growth forests were defined, in accordance with the Working Group on the Protection of Old-growth Forests, as consisting of trees 0 years above the age of regeneration, a high amount of decaying wood and having not been logged after the Second World War. (Karvonen et al. 00, 9–.) The planning tool was, however, still in its development phases in mid-990s, so NHS staff in Kainuu needed to develop more concrete criteria for the valuable habitats.

Setting aside areas from forestry was not done purely on the ecological grounds. The decision-making was affected by an estimate that had been made in the Natural Resource Plan regarding the maximum amount of valuable habitats to be found and protected in LEP, 0 km in Kainuu. Although an estimate, the representatives of NHS maintain that, in principle, the figure was used to define how many hectares of valuable set-aside habitats each LEP could contain at the most. As long as there were less than the maximum amount of hectares, it was easy to get them a status as set aside areas. But once the quota was filled, negotiations between NHS and the Forestry Division became more difficult.

In the end, however, the estimate – or limit – was exceeded considerably. During the first round, the amount of set aside areas was eventually 90 km and after another update it was in 00 already 60 km.

Environmental NGOs’ response: markets campaigns and direct action

Landscape Ecological Planning did not convince the environmental movement. LEP was criticised for allowing logging on sites that the environmental movement considered to be valuable old-growth forests (Nature League press release ..998). Nature League and Greenpeace Nordic continued to organise international campaigns to influence the purchasing policies of major European publishing houses sourcing their paper from Finland. The customers of Finnish paper industry were required to adopt an old-growth-forest free purchasing policy in order to push Metsähallitus to stop old-growth old-growth-forest logging, which the ENGOs claimed was still taking place. Nature League documented the disputed loggings on its website. Representatives of some of the publishers even visited the disputed forest areas.

The results of the campaign included, for example, a Dutch Declaration of Concern Regarding Old growth Forests in Finland (dated September 9, 997)⁵. It their statement, six major publishing houses⁵⁵ noted that in the Netherlands, there was a growing concern regarding the exploitation of old growth forests in the world for the production of paper, in particular in Scandinavia, but also in Canada and Russia. They acknowledged the steps taken in Finland to preserve biodiversity so far, however they urged the Finnish Government, the forest managers, the forest industry and the forest owners, to continue their efforts. In particular, the publishing houses were concerned of the fate of the old-growth forests. They stated:

“We, the undersigned, appeal to the Finnish paper industry to take full responsibility in preserving the endangered species and to refrain from logging the forests concerned, North and South, and to stop buying timber from these areas. A voluntary moratorium is to the opinion of the undersigned needed.

During the moratorium all parties involved should discuss and address the issues thoroughly, finally resulting in a united vision and approach.”

The publishing houses wanted to know how large areas the disputed old-growth forests covered. For that purpose FANC, WWF, Nature League and Birdlife Finland published in January 998 maps identifying what they considered the most valuable unprotected old-growth forests in Northern Finland. The maps included 9 sites, among those all of the areas designated in the Old-Growth Forest Protection Programme for Northern Finland to be protected as a part of Landscape Ecological Planning (so-called ‘A-areas’

after the Finnish name of LEP, alue-ekologinen suunnittelu). They demanded that all of the A-areas should be protected in their entirety. (Nature League press release ..998)⁵⁶ In addition they demanded a logging moratorium on all of the mapped areas until the Landscape Ecological Plans for all state land would be finalised in 000.

ENGOs highlighted that in order to do this, the profit targets put to Metsähallitus by the Finnish Parliament and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would need to be significantly reduced, and the possible adverse socio-economic impacts in Eastern and Northern Finland compensated (Näetkö metsää puilta? 999, 6).

54 Available at http://www.luontoliitto.fi/metsa/forest/dutchdeclaration.html [Cited May , 007]

55 Wegener Arcade BV, Buermann-Ubbens Papier, PCM Uitgevers NV, Roto Smeets De Boer NV, NV Holdingmaatschpappij Dagblaad DE Telegraaf and VNU Dagbladengroep BV

56 The mapping project is presented at Finnish Nature League’s website, where also the status of the different areas was updated until 000. http://www.luontoliitto.fi/metsa/jarjestokartat/index.html.

The appeals of the ENGOs and the publishing houses fell on deaf ears. Stora Enso and UPM Kymmene, the paper giants sourcing from Metsähallitus and providing the Dutch publishing houses with their paper, never pushed Metsähallitus to adopt a moratorium.

Metsähallitus, at the same time, did not consider a moratorium necessary or realistic due to the adverse impacts it was estimated to have on the wood industry in Eastern Finland.

Many of the disputed areas in the ENGO maps were situated in Kainuu. Among them were the areas of Kukkuri, Malahvia, and Laamasenvaara, where open confrontations between Metsähallitus and ENGOs were to take place in 998–000 (Map7). All of these sites had been addressed at various stages of the old-growth forest conservation process, but remained unprotected, either partially or entirely. While other sites marked on the ENGO maps also caused conflicts during the years, the three areas dominated much of