Some Finnish forest owners do not believe in biodiversity loss - for
others it is a crisis

Date:
January 31, 2022
Source:
University of Eastern Finland
Summary:
We should start talking about biodiversity loss denial, just like we
discussed climate change denial in the recent past, researchers say.



FULL STORY ==========================================================================
We should start talking about biodiversity loss denial, just like we
discussed climate change denial in the recent past, researchers from
the University of Eastern Finland and the University of Helsinki say.


========================================================================== Numerous surveys of forest owners have found that private family forest
owners in Finland value nature and biodiversity. However, such findings
tell us more about the general ideals of Western culture than about
forest owners as protectors of biodiversity.

A study of forest owners conducted by the University of Eastern Finland's School of Forest Sciences and Department of Geographical and Historical
Studies along with the University of Helsinki's Department of Forest
Sciences identified three common modes of thought that forest owners
use to conceptualise maintenance of biodiversity and their own role in
that process.

These modes of thought also reflect different ideas about sustainable
forest use among family forest owners, who hold control over the use of
two thirds of Finland's forests.

Just under 40 per cent of forest owners fall back on a mode of thought
which calls for them to do no more to promote biodiversity than the
law requires.

They may agree to management measures recommended for their commercial
forests by forestry professionals to appease them, but they do not
perceive a genuine need for these measures.

"To this group, the problem of biodiversity loss doesn't exist, and
concerns about the environment are seen as unrealistic fringe ideas held
by nature conservationists. Modern ideas about sustainability are not
part of this mode of thought," explains Tuomo Takala, a researcher at
the University of Eastern Finland.

For the next 40 per cent of forest owners, the standard measures for
taking biodiversity into account in cutting operations, such as a buffer
zone on the shoreline or a group of retention trees left in a clear-cut
area, leave a positive feeling that they have done their part to conserve biodiversity.

Habitats of endangered species can also be saved in cutting operations
without any opposition as long as these habitats are known beforehand
and are not too large or many.



==========================================================================
"To this group, finding existing areas of high nature value and
preserving them in an economically optimal way is precisely what is
meant by conservation of biodiversity. Thanks to the best forestry in
the world, there cannot be such a thing as biodiversity loss here,"
Takala elaborates.

In practice, these forest owners prefer to leave responsibility for
conserving biodiversity to the forestry professionals planning the
cuttings. This multi- objective forestry outlook is also the mainstream
view of sustainable forestry in Finnish forest policy.

"We can think of it as a weak-sustainability model that approaches the different dimensions of sustainability equally in principle, but in which commercial forest use ultimately sets the framework that conservation
efforts operate within." The two modes of thought above illustrate two
ways in which forest owners keep the unpleasant idea of biodiversity
loss out of their sight, even if biodiversity loss in Finnish forests
is well documented and frequently raised in the media. These and other manifestations of biodiversity loss denial, should be discussed more --
just like climate change denial was discussed in the recent past.

Biodiversity loss is only a reality for a fifth of forest owners One in
five forest owners views the loss of biodiversity as an emergency.



========================================================================== "According to this mode of thought, we are quickly destroying our forest nature," Takala explains.

"According to this group, the way we use forests needs to be changed fundamentally and quickly, either voluntarily or through further
regulation.

Especially old-growth forests need to be removed from commercial forestry
use in significant numbers. Specific sites of high nature value and
areas where endangered species currently exist aren't the only things
worth preserving - - some sites where endangered species could settle
in the coming decades should also be saved." Considering the needs of
nature gives concerned forest owners a framework within which they can
plan their commercial forest use in a way that prioritises the ecological dimension of sustainability over the commercial dimension. These forest
owners take the responsibility of conserving biodiversity into their own
hands. They do not outsource it to the forestry professionals who plan
their cuttings, knowing that conserving biodiversity is not the primary
task of these professionals.

"In this strong-sustainability mode of thought, the most impactful
decisions from the biodiversity perspective have already been made before
any forestry professionals enter the picture." All the aforementioned
modes of thought naturally include the conviction that they are the
correct way of looking at the situation. It is important to notice that individuals cannot simply jump from one mode of thought to another at
a whim.

Paying more attention to environmental concern and sensitivity The modes
of thought discussed above pervade all discussion on the environmental
effects of forestry. When, for example, the EU's taxonomy, rooted in
a strong-sustainability mode of thought, meets the weak-sustainability
mode of thought prevalent in mainstream Finnish forest policy, conflict
is inevitable. Some are in a state of emergency, while others see no
problem at all.

"To understand and manage the conflicts and the polarised conversation,
it's essential that we learn how to separate these two ways of
conceptualising sustainability in forest use. The idea of one
sustainability -- a single goal shared by everyone -- obscures our
fundamental differences of conception, narrows political discussion and hamstrings our attempts to make considered decisions," Takala explains.

Understanding this difference is particularly important for those making decisions about forest use. By asking whether we and our forests are in
a state of environmental emergency, and whether we need to fundamentally
change how we use forests as a result, is a good way of examining our
differing conceptions of sustainability.

"At the simplest level, this is about the different values and levels
of environmental sensitivity people have. Too often, we still think
of conflicts regarding forests and the solutions to those conflicts as
simple informational challenges," the project's researchers note.

Where to start with strong-sustainability forest services? The study
found that interest in new forest services that concentrate on nature is surprisingly common among forest owners -- far more common than concern
over biodiversity loss. If we want to promote strong-sustainability
thinking among forest owners, we should emphasise service products that
allow forest owners to examine nature in their own forests and work
together with nature professionals to plan their forest use with the
needs of nature as the starting point.

Additionally, it is high time to develop new forest planning and advisory services in which commercial forest use is planned in the framework
of biodiversity maintenance instead of the other way around and to
offer these services alongside current forestry planning and advisory
products. Such strong-sustainability forest services are currently not available in Finland.

"The personal experiences produced by forest services could be an
effective way of increasing people's sensitivity to environmental
issues. Of course, they would also give forest owners more information
about nature and their own values, but information alone is not enough -- information about biodiversity loss is already out there for anyone to
find, as long as they're prepared to take it in." "The most important
thing a strong-sustainability forest service model can achieve is getting forest owners to ask themselves what they can and are ready to do for
nature." The study was funded by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation.

========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by University_of_Eastern_Finland. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal References:
1. Tuomo Takala, Maria Brockhaus, Teppo Hujala, Minna Tanskanen, Ari
Lehtinen, Jukka Tikkanen, Anne Toppinen. Discursive barriers to
voluntary biodiversity conservation: The case of Finnish forest
owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 2022; 136: 102681 DOI:
10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102681
2. Tuomo Takala, Ari Lehtinen, Teppo Hujala, Minna Tanskanen, Maria
Brockhaus, Jukka Tikkanen, Anne Toppinen. Forest owners as political
actors. Environmental Science & Policy, 2021; 126: 22 DOI: 10.1016/
j.envsci.2021.09.009 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220131095030.htm

--- up 8 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 13 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)