At the Programme’s third annual conference, organised in Turku in Southwestern Finland on the 29th of March, several examples were presented on how the Programme for Forest Biodiversity in Southern Finland, the Metso Programme, is releasing the creativity of local actors to work in cooperation for biodiversity.

One of the pioneer projects in the Programme is the Trading in Natural Values in Southwestern Finland, which has submitted an initiative for the Rural Policy Committee in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland. The initiative stresses that work for biodiversity should be an essential part of all rural policy in Finland.

While, for example, forestry activities are a normal part of the daily lives of rural inhabitants, the underlying thought in the initiative is that work for biodiversity should have a similar role.

The experiences gained from the Metso Programme create pressure towards the same direction. However, since the Programme is only in its pilot phase, it is not able to respond to these pressures.

For example, the four forest owner co-operatives (Forest Commons) in Southwestern Finland have submitted an initiative to the Ministry of the Environment as well as to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, that they should, with help from the Government, modify their forestry in a more nature-friendly direction. This is because the forests owned by these bodies happen to lie between two strictly protected areas, the Kurjenrahka National Park and the Vaskijärvi nature reserve.

Mr. Jukka Koivumäki, director of the union of forest owners in Western Finland, presented a real surprise for the Director of Nature Protection at the Ministry of the Environment, Mr. Ilkka Heikkinen, by suggesting that the strict protection criteria in the Metso Programme should be relaxed in some cases, one of which could be the forest areas situated between strict nature reserves.

“Never in my life did I think to see the day when forest owners suggest relaxing the criteria for forest protection in order to be able to protect more of their own forest,” was Heikkinen’s comment.

Metso provides material for the next Government’s programme
The seminar took place during the last but one, and maybe the most active, year of the Metso Programme. Most of the pilot projects within Metso have been completed and the Programme is concentrating on gathering together research and follow-up information.

The report on the extensive research work is to be published in the beginning of September. The final follow-up report of the whole Programme will be published in October.

The results will be available by the time when the political parties start to write the programme for the new Government after the parliamentary election in March 2007. In connection with the revision of the national forest programme and the studies made on the future perspectives of the forest sector, decisions will be taken as to which of the Metso projects will be adopted as permanent procedure and to what extent.

“That’s when we will also be able to estimate the financing needed for the programme further on,” said Project Manager, Mr. Mikko Kuusinen from the Ministry of the Environment.

We do know by now that some elements of the Metso Programme will be adopted permanently. One of the most important ones is the voluntary forest biodiversity protection. It is supported by forest owners as well as taxpayers. The forest owners are satisfied with lower compensations, especially if the forest area remains their property – even if the decision is for permanent protection.

As an example, the compensation awarded on the basis of the agreements made within the Trading in Natural Values in Southwestern Finland project was initially 170 euros per hectare and year on the average, but last year the figure was below 140 euros.

“Temporary protection at wrong sites”
In particular, the enthusiasm with which local people and forest owners have participated in the Metso Programme has been something that no one could foresee. It has been one of the lessons of the pilot phase of the Programme.

However, according to Koivumäki, there have also been some problems. “For example, the role of voluntary protection has not been as clear to the regional environmental authorities as it has been to the Ministry,” he said.

Koivumäki also demanded that the follow-up of the Metso Programme should take the local activity into consideration. “Otherwise the programme will only really benefit researchers and would not help the safeguarding of biodiversity at all,” said Koivumäki.

Mr. Harri Hölttä, forest specialist at the Finnish Association of Nature Conservation, was more critical. “The Metso Programme has no measurable targets. In addition, the Programme only enables the safeguarding of such biodiversity as is offered by the forest owners. In other words, it is impossible to plan a comprehensive nature protection network by means of the Programme,” Hölttä said.

Ms. Anu Rautiainen from the forest owners’ association of the Western Uusimaa region and Ms. Irmeli Ruokanen from the Forestry Centre of Ostrobothnia commented that in projects which they know of, it has been fairly easy to make plans of this kind. “We do know where the nature values are situated and who owns those forests. When we asked those forest owners to participate, they all did,” said Rautiainen, who is the leader of the Metso project MetsäVasu in the Lohja region.

Hölttä took his words back “as far as this aspect was concerned”. However, he pointed out that the temporary protection in the Metso Programme is usually applied to nature values that are permanent in character.

Temporary protection is suitable, according to Hölttä, after forest fires, for example, but not with forests that resemble old-growth, which, however, is the type concerned in most of the Metso Projects. In presenting this criticism Hölttä was not alone.

“The choice of the sites has been successful”
The ecological effect of the Metso Programme has been studied by Professor, Mr. Mikko Mönkkönen from the University of Jyväskylä. His message was clear: the choice of the protected areas has been successful. The result was determined by comparing the chosen sites with those not chosen.

According to Mönkkönen, the forest owners prefer the ten-year protection period, although longer periods also gained significant support and should thus also be considered.

The willingness of forest owners to participate in the Metso Programme was also inquired after – on the basis of experiences gained in Southwestern Finland – outside the regions where Metso pilot projects were active. The result satisfied Mönkkönen: 25 percent would probably participate.

In the Lohja project, for example, it has been discovered that 30 percent of the forest owners have, even without the Metso Programme and on their own initiative, taken some of their forests out of commercial use. Mr. Risto Murto, Environmental Manager of the City of Lohja, said the forest owners have the right to know the details of the nature values in their forests.

According to Mönkkönen, the biggest question not dealt with so far is to determine the best overall combination of Metso tools. Heikkinen’s comment to this was that this is exactly the same as the biodiversity target of the national forest programme of Finland.

According to Heikkinen, there are no longer any doubts as to whether this target is shared. “By means of the Metso Programme we have reached a situation where we all know that we have a common target, safeguarding biodiversity in a decent and sufficient manner. The only thing requiring discussion is what tools to use,” said Heikkinen.

Hannes Mäntyranta, Turku



Metso-programme
Metso actions
The homepage of the Metso Programme