EU wood production vs. biodiversity goals – possible reconciliation in Finland?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of Finland divided into vegetation zones: lightest shade – boreonemoral and southern boreal; middle shade – middle boreal; and darkest shade – northern boreal from south to north [Bio-geographical regions / Source: Finnish Environment Institute].

Figure 2. Simulation setup: area allocation and data (NFI sample plots, Scenarios, Targeting of protection and nature maintenance management, Initial data of EFDM model in 2016, Forest management regimes); components of the EFDM and simulation (EFDM model, Target harvest level, Matrices 1—3, Simulation 5-year time steps); and results (Areas in 2016—2051, Converting area with result coefficients and Results ).

Figure 3. (a) Allocation of productive forests currently available for wood supply to different management regimes, and (b) initial age distribution of area in 2016 in scenarios BAU, Double, and All.

Table 1. Allocation of productive forest land available for wood supply to different forest management regimes in different management scenarios by boreal vegetation zones and total.

Management scenario	Regime	Vegetation zone, Mill. ha			Total, Mill. ha
		Southern	Middle	Northern
BAU	Current practices	7.6	7.2	3.7	18.4
Double	Current practices	5.6	5.5	3.7	14.7
	Strict protection	0.2	0.3	0	0.6
	Continuous cover	0.4	0.5	0	0.8
	Closer-to-nature	1.4	0.9	0	2.3
All	Current practices	0	0	0	0
	Strict protection	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.8
	Continuous cover	1.2	1.5	0.6	3.4
	Closer-to-nature	5.9	5.5	2.8	14.2

Table 2. Criteria for selecting strict protection in scenarios by vegetation zones and forest site types, defined either by age (AGE) or diameter at breast height (DBH).

Forest site type	Southern boreal	Middle boreal	Northern boreal
Herb-rich forests:
dominant species broadleaf other than birch	DBH > 20 cm
dominant species spruce	DBH > 40 cm	AGE > 100 years	AGE > 0 years
dominant species broadleaf		AGE > 0 years	AGE > 0 years
mixed broadleaf forest			AGE > 0 years
Old-growth coniferous forests
herb-rich – mesic heath	AGE > 100 years	AGE > 120 years	AGE > 160 years
sub-xeric – xeric/dry heath	AGE > 100 years	AGE > 140 years	AGE > 220 years

Table 3. Stumpage prices of sawlogs and pulpwood (€/m³) linked to management activities.

	Sawlogs			Pulpwood
	Pine	Spruce	Broadleaf	Pine	Spruce	Broadleaf
Thinning (age < =  35 years)	41.81	41.93	37.12	12.60	14.92	12.07
Thinning (age > 35 years)	50.24	49.73	41.66	15.63	19.52	14.28
Final felling	59.33	58.96	48.95	18.36	23.77	17.88
Selective cutting	50.24	49.73	41.66	15.63	19.52	14.28

Figure 4. Results for current harvest level simulations: (a) volume of cutting removal; (b) total growing stock volume; (c) forests’ age distribution in 2051; and (d) area of treatments for scenarios: BAU (Business-as-Usual), Double (double the current strict protection in the South, extent of protection 20% of land area, but no changes in the northern boreal vegetation zone), and All (protection cover entire area) by five-year simulation steps.

Figure 5. Results for maximum sustained harvest level simulations: (a) volume of cutting removal; (b) total growing stock volume; (c) forests’ age distribution in 2051; and (d) area of treatments for scenarios: BAU (Business-As-Usual), Double (double the current strict protection, extent of protection 20% of land area, but no changes in northern boreal vegetation zone), and All (protection cover entire area) in five-year simulation steps.

Table 4. Net present value of scenarios with different interest rates and harvest levels in billions of euros.

	Current level			Maximum sustained level
Interest rate	3%	4%	5%	3%	4%	5%
BAU	52.5	45.8	40.3	56.9	49.7	43.8
Double	51.4	44.8	39.5	51.4	44.8	39.5
All	46.3	40.7	36.1	38.3	33.4	29.4

Table 5. Values of ecosystem service indicators at the initial state in 2016 and in the end of the simulation in 2051, when scenarios were run at current or scenario-specific maximum sustained harvest levels.

	Indicator	Initial/	Current level/2051			Maximum sustained level/2051
	unit	2016	BAU	Double	All	BAU	Double	All
Deadwood	m^3/ha	4.3	4.6	6.5	11.7	4.4	6.5	11.1
Bilberry yield	kg/ha	8.2	9.7	8.6	5.5	8.1	8.6	11.2
Bilberry coverage	%	9.9	10.7	9.6	6.5	9.2	9.6	11.3
Cowberry yield	kg/ha	10.8	10.3	11.2	14.1	11.4	11.2	10.5
Cowberry coverage	%	7.1	7.3	7.0	5.8	6.8	7.0	7.5

Table 6. Cost-effectiveness indices (Indicator unit/billion euros) for ecosystem service at current and scenario-specific maximum sustained harvest levels with an interest rate of 3%.

	Indicator	Current level		Maximum Sustained level
	unit	Double	All	Double	All
Deadwood	m^3/ha	1.6	1.2	0.4	0.4
Bilberry yield	kg/ha	−1.1	−0.7	0.1	0.2
Bilberry coverage	%	−1.0	−0.7	0.1	0.1
Cowberry yield	kg/ha	0.8	0.6	−0.03	−0.05
Cowberry coverage	%	−0.3	−0.2	0.02	0.04

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, M. R., upon reasonable request.