Metsäsääntely Suomessa ja Venäjällä. Näkökulmia kestävään metsätalouteen

Sustainability is the aim of forest management and forest regulation in many countries. Accordingly, forest management has been steered towards more environmentally friendly methods and new regulatory instruments have been introduced. At the same time, wood trade and forest industry have become a global business. Even if the importance of national forest legislation has not decreased, it has been widely acknowledged that national regulation of forest management is no longer sufficient. The movement of goods does not acknowledge boundaries, even though most negative environmental and social consequences stay in the country of origin of wood and other raw materials. As a partial solution to this dilemma, different kinds of regulations have been developed. Various forest certification schemes and wood trade regulation in the EU (995/2010) are examples of efforts to prevent illegal logging and unsustainable forestry. The Finland-based forest industry is to a varying extent dependent on wood trade from Russia. Especially in the 1990‟s, ethical questions concerning import of wood from Russian old growth forests near the Finnish border were widely discussed. Consequently, forest industry enterprises have developed systems to trace the origin of wood and to buy certified wood from Russia. The aim of the research has been to evaluate Finnish and Russian forest regulations in order to investigate what kind of forest management these regulations enhance, and to what extent ecologically sustainable forest management has been integrated into different forms of regulation. I have examined Finnish and Russian forest regulation in four separate articles based on the topics of the Russian Forest Code, forest certification and other voluntary forest protection measures in Russia, Finnish forest certification and Finnish forest legislation. One objective has been to analyse the roles voluntary forest certification plays in promoting sustainable forest management in different countries. In my research, I have mainly concentrated on ecological sustainability and protection of biodiversity, although other aspects of sustainable forest management have been touched upon in different articles. In the following I shall conclude the findings of my research. When the current Russian Forest Code (2006) was being adopted, the main emphasis was not on ecological issues, but on reorganizing forest governance. The role of ecological requirements was even slightly diminished during the legislative reform. There are, nevertheless, still stipulations aiming at ecological sustainability, such as the division of forests into different forest management categories and various protection zones. In 2000, FSC forest certification arrived in Russia, at present covering already 28 million hectares of forests. The PEFC scheme is now in use as well, but to a much lesser extent. If properly implemented, Russian forest certification schemes clearly improve the level of ecological and social sustainability of forestry in Russia. Certification criteria, however, are partly in conflict with the Russian forest legislation and certified enterprises have been forced to pay fines or to negotiate with forest authorities. This clearly indicates that even if Russian forest legislation has otherwise been liberalized to a certain extent, some significant paternalism still exists. Voluntary, hands-on biodiversity protection measures are not valued, and they are not part of the official protection policies as in many other countries. However, there have been some regional solutions to this dilemma. In the Republic of Karelia forest authorities have approved a set of forest biodiversity protection rules created by a local NGO and a forest industry enterprise. By following these local rules, an enterprise can avoid fines for protection measures. The current Finnish Forest Act was adopted in 1996. It brought forest legislation into a new era as some ecological aspects were integrated into forest legislation. The various soft-law forest management recommendations further increased the level of biodiversity protection. My evaluation of the overall legitimacy of the Finnish forest legislation and forest management paradigm revealed, however, several problematic issues. As part of this study I analysed the history of the current forest management paradigm. This analysis revealed the path dependency which still hinders the protection of biodiversity and clearly decreases the general legitimacy of forest management. Due to several historical reasons only even-structured forest management based on clear cuts has for decades been officially approved in Finland. Due to increasing demands of forest owners the legislation is finally being revised. Yet, the official approval of uneven-structured forest management would not be enough to fully improve ecological, social and cultural legitimacy. The latest ecological theories and knowledge of endangered species should be taken into account in the on-going reform of forest legislation as well as the modernisation. Forest legislation is one of the very few spheres of Finnish environmental legislation where openness and participation are still considered a threat. The first Finnish forest certification scheme, PEFC, was established in 2000. It now covers more than 20 million hectares, about 95% of the forests in Finland. PEFC Finland does not require a higher level of biodiversity protection than the recommendations by Tapio (the Development Centre for Forestry), but certification has unified forest management practices and requires more protection measures than mere forest legislation. The study suggests that in Finland PEFC has not functioned as an instrument which would substantially improve the level of forest management. Rather it has supported the status quo of the forest sector. While the ecological and social responsibility of Finland-based forest corporations was one impetus for this research, I want to conclude that there are problems related to forest legislation and non-state regulation in both Finland and Russia. If an enterprise buying wood from Russia buys only certified wood, and carefully avoids wood coming from high conservation value forests that are either ecologically or socially valuable, it can be claimed to be as sustainably produced as in Finland. However, there must be continuous scrutiny of the circumstances. In Russia, the level of the compliance of certification criteria varies considerably, and there are vast unprotected invaluable forest areas. The utilisation of these areas should not be based on short-sighted decisions or lack of consensus among stakeholders.Siirretty Doriast

Summer loggings and bird protection: On regulation and derogations

Forest loggings during the nesting season are increasing in Finland. The aim of this article is to evaluate how current regulation applies to summer loggings, paying special attention to the protection of birds. The Birds Directive and the Finnish Nature Conservation Act prohibit the deliberate killing and disturbance of birds. Regardless, it seems that in practice, none of these rules is applied to birds and summer loggings as forestry is not considered ‘deliberate’ killing or disturbance even if thousands of birds are killed in summer loggings every year. European biodiversity targets and the principle of minimizing harms would emphasize implementing and monitoring existing national law and soft law more actively than currently is the case.</p

Reconsidering the Role of Public Participation in the Finnish Forest Planning System

The article examines the role of public participation rights in the Finnish forest planning system and considers the need for improvement, with a particular focus on private forests. Public participation is approached here as one of the tools for achieving social and ecological sustainability in forestry. The paper shows that public participation rights are very limited in the forest planning and management schemes in Finland. Among other things, access to environmental information is restricted, which is exceptional in modern environmental and natural resource law. The article concludes that there is a need to strengthen the participatory elements in forest planning if the aim is to improve environmental and social sustainability in forestry.</p

Esiselvitys luonnon monimuotoisuutta turvaavan lainsäädännön kehittämisvaihtoehdoiksi

Luontokato on yksi aikamme suurimmista ympäristöllisistä ja yhteiskunnallisista haasteista. Luontokadon hillintä ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaaminen tulevat vaatimaan seuraa-van kymmenen vuoden aikana erittäin kunnianhimoista luontopolitiikkaa ja -lainsäädäntöä. Selvityksessä tarkastellaan neljää mahdollista lainsäädännön kehityspolkua: 1. Tarvittavat luontokatoa hillitsevät muutokset tehdään läpäisevästi eri lakeihin. 2. Säädetään uusi puitemainen luontolaki, jossa asetetaan luontokadon hillinnän ja luonnon tilan parantamisen ja ennallistamisen tavoitteet viranomaisille ja luodaan suunnittelu- ja tiedontuotantojärjestelmä tätä varten. 3. Säädetään uusi, aineellisia velvoitteita viranomaisille ja yksityisille luova vahva luontolaki, joka läpäisee kaiken alueidenkäyttö- ja luonnonvarasääntelyn sekä ohjaa luontokadon hillintää sekä luonnon tilan parantamista ja ennallistamista. Myös tähän sisältyy suunnittelu- ja tiedontuotantojärjestelmä. 4. Synteesimalli, jossa on piirteitä kaikista edellä mainituista vaihtoehdoista. Synteesimallin lähtökohtana on vahva luontolakimalli, joka yhdistyy muun lainsäädännön muutoksiin. Vaihtoehdot 1–3 eivät vaikutuksiltaan tai aikataulultaan tule todennäköisesti riittämään luontokadon YK:n ja EU:n asettamien luontotavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi. Tämän vuoksi selvityksessä tarkastellaan yksityiskohtaisemmin vaihtoehtoa 4

Meriluonnon suojelun sääntely : Merellisen luonnon suojelun, merenhoidon ja vesienhoidon yhteensovittaminen EU- ja Suomen oikeudessa

Meriluontoa tunnetaan yhä paremmin ja suojeluun on entistä paremmat mahdollisuudet. EU-sääntely pyrkii erityisesti meristrategiapuitedirektiivin (MSD), vesipuitedirektiivin (VPD), luontodirektiivin ja lintudirektiivin sekä EU:n biodiversiteettistrategian avulla edistämään meriympäristön suojelua jäsenvaltioiden merialueella. Tässä raportissa on selvitetty, miten EU-oikeus on pantu täytäntöön Suomen lainsäädännössä. MSD:n vaikutus ei vielä näy yksittäisiä toimia lukuun ottamatta meriluonnon suojelun tehostumisena. MSD:n ja VPD:n tavoitteiden oikeudellinen painoarvo on liian pieni mm. lupamenettelyissä ja alueiden käytön suunnittelussa. Merenhoidon ympäristötavoitteet tulisi myös asettaa aluekohtaisemmin siten, että ne voivat ohjata lupaharkintaa. Luonnonsuojeluoikeuden aluesuojeluun perustuva järjestelmä kaipaa myös kehittämistä, mikäli halutaan täyttää MSD:n tavoite yhtenäisistä ja edustavista suojelualueverkostoista. Vain noin neljäsosa merkittävistä vedenalaisista luontokohteista sisältyy nykyisiin suojelualueisiin. Näistä yli puolet on Natura 2000 -alueita, jotka suojaavat vain tiettyjä luontoarvoja. Suojelussa olisi hyödynnettävä enemmän muita aluesuojelun keinoja ja esimerkiksi vesiliikennelain mahdollistamia rajoituksia. Luontotyyppisuojelun ulottaminen useampiin vedenalaisiin luontotyyppeihin myös tehostaisi meriluonnon suojelua

Participation in Benefit-Sharing Arrangements in the Komi Republic

The oil industry is vital for the economy of the Komi Republic in Russia. It also benefits the municipalitiesnear oil production sites in terms of benefit-sharing agreements between oil companies and local authorities.These agreements compose an important part of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of oil companiesworking in the Komi Republic, and in Russia in general. While this financial support is essential forlocal communities, local people also primarily bear the negative environmental impacts of oil operations.Yet, they rarely have a chance to participate either in environmental decision-making or in formulating benefit-sharing agreements. This paper discusses why this is problematic, and demonstrates new developmentsin Russian CSR practices: in 2015, the oil company Lukoil-Komi concluded a new type of benefit-sharingagreement with the indigenous peoples’ association Izvatas. In addition to traditional social benefits, thecompany agreed to consult the communities on new projects and committed to disclose information aboutoil leaks publicly. This more recent type of benefit-sharing arrangement incorporates elements of local participation in environmental issues into the prevailing form of philanthropic and paternalistic CSR practices.</p

Preventing biodiversity loss with ecological restoration

Restoration of watersheds, wetlands, and forests is a way to compensate for the human-caused damage on biodiversity. Halting biodiversity loss is essential for safeguarding ecosystems and human well-being. A key to successful restoration is targeting large enough landscape units. For example, planning at a catchment level can ensure that a forest drainage conducted upstream does not threaten the condition of the waterbodies downstream