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

References

• Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P. 2019. Best practices in forest management [In Finnish: Metsänhoidon suositukset] [Internet]. Finland; [accessed 2021 Jun 30]. https://tapio.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Metsanhoidon_suositukset_Tapio_2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Alberdi I, Bender S, Riedel T, Avitable V, Boriaud O, Bosela M, Camia A, Cañellas I, Castro Rego F, Fischer C, et al. 2020. Assessing forest availability for wood supply in Europe. Forest Policy Econ. 111:102032. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi S, Huuskonen S, Siipilehto J, Hynynen J. 2020a. Differences in tree growth of Norway spruce under rotation forestry and continuous cover forestry. For Ecol Manag. 458: article id 117689. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi S, Myllymäki M, Siipilehto J, Salminen H, Hynynen J, Valkonen S. 2020b. Comparison of spatially and nonspatially explicit nonlinear mixed effects models for Norway spruce individual tree growth under single-tree selection. Forests. 11(12):1338. doi:10.3390/f11121338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl J, Bingöl Ö, Borges JG, Botequim B, Brukas V, et al. 2020. Forest biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies and trade-offs for Ten forest landscapes across Europe. Front Ecol Evol. 8:547696. doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.547696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, Cochran B, de Vries S, Flanders J, Folke C, Frumkin H, Gross JJ, Hartig T, et al. 2019. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv. 5(7):eaax0903. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax0903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deuffic P, Sotirov M, Arts B. 2018. “Your policy, my rationale”. How individual and structural drivers influence European forest owners’ decisions. Land Use Policy. 79:1024–1038. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DG ENV. 2021. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: bringing nature back into our lives [Internet]. LU: Publications Office of the European Union; [accessed 2021 Jul 20]. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779677548.
   Google Scholar
• Dodev Y, Zhiyanski M, Glushkova M, Shin WS. 2020. Forest welfare services – the missing link between forest policy and management in the EU. Forest Policy Econ. 118:102249. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du X, Chen X, Zeng W, Meng J. 2021. A climate-sensitive transition matrix growth model for uneven-aged mixed-species oak forests in north China. Forestry: Int J For Res. 94(2):258–277. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpaa035.
   Google Scholar
• Eggers J, Holmgren S, Nordström E-M, Lämås T, Lind T, Öhman K. 2019. Balancing different forest values: evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework. For Policy Econ. 103:55–69. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekholm A, Lundqvist L, Petter Axelsson E, Egnell G, Hjältén J, Lundmark T, Sjögren J. 2023. Long-term yield and biodiversity in stands managed with the selection system and the rotation forestry system: A qualitative review. For Ecol Manag. 537:120920. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2023.120920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats [internet]. Brussels: EUR28 European Commission DG Environment Nature ENV B.3. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/Int_Manual_EU28.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2015. Report from the commission to the European parliament and the council: The mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 [internet]. Brussels: European Commission; [accessed 2021 Jul 20]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0478.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018. Communication from the Commission: A Clean Planet for all: A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy [Internet]. Brussels; [accessed 2021 Jul 21]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0773&from=EN.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 - bringing nature back into our lives [internet]. Brussels; [accessed 2021 Jan 6]. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-annex-eu-biodiversity-strategy-2030_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2021. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the region: New EU forest strategy for 2030 [internet]. Brussels; [accessed 2021 Jul 20]. https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/communication-new-eu-forest-strategy-2030_en.
   Google Scholar
• Eyvindson K, Repo A, Mönkkönen M. 2018. Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy. Forest Policy Econ. 92:119–127. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Abson DJ, Butsic V, Chappell MJ, Ekroos J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T, Smith HG, von Wehrden H. 2014. Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv Lett. 7(3):149–157. doi:10.1111/conl.12084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halme P, Allen KA, Auniš A, Bradshaw RHW, Brumelis G, Čada V, Clear JL, Eriksson A-M, Hannon G, Hyvärinen E, et al. 2013. Challenges of ecological restoration: lessons from forests in Northern Europe. Biol Conserv. 167:248–256. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirvelä H, Härkönen K, Lempinen R, Salminen O. 2017. MELA2016: Reference Manual. Nat Resour Bioeconomy Stud 72017 [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Jun 7]. https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/538149.
   Google Scholar
• Hoogstra-Klein MA, Hengeveld GM, de Jong R. 2017. Analysing scenario approaches for forest management — One decade of experiences in Europe. Forest Policy Econ. 85(Part 2):222–234. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynynen J, Eerikäinen K, Mäkinen H, Valkonen S. 2019. Growth response to cuttings in Norway spruce stands under even-aged and uneven-aged management. For Ecol Manag. 437:314–323. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynynen J, Salminen H, Ahtikoski A, Huuskonen S, Ojansuu R, Siipilehto J, Lehtonen M, Eerikäinen K. 2015. Long-term impacts of forest management on biomass supply and forest resource development: a scenario analysis for Finland. Eur J For Res. 134(3):415–431. doi:10.1007/s10342-014-0860-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynynen J, Salminen H, Ahtikoski A, Huuskonen S, Ojansuu R, Siipilehto J, Lehtonen M, Rummukainen A, Kojola S, Eerikäinen K. 2014. Scenario analysis for the biomass supply potential and the future development of Finnish forest resources [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Apr 29]. https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/536208.
   Google Scholar
• Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Kemppainen E, Uddström A, Liukko U-M. 2019. The Red List of Finnish Species 2019 [In Finnish: Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus – Punainen kirja 2019] [Internet]. Finland: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/299501.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson R, Blujdea VNB, Fiorese G, Pilli R, Rinaldi F, Baranzelli C, Camia A. 2018. Outlook of the European forest-based sector: forest growth, harvest demand, wood-product markets, and forest carbon dynamics implications. iForest – Biogeosci Forestry. 11(2):315-328. doi:10.3832/ifor2636-011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsson R, Rinaldi F, Räty M, Sallnäs O. 2016. Integrating forest-based industry and forest resource modeling. iForest – Biogeosci Forestry. 9(5):743–750. doi:10.3832/ifor1961-009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juutinen A, Shanin V, Ahtikoski A, Rämö J, Mäkipää R, Laiho R, Sarkkola S, Laurén A, Penttilä T, Hökkä H, Saarinen M. 2021. Profitability of continuous-cover forestry in Norway spruce dominated peatland forest and the role of water table. Can J For Res. 51(6):859–870. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2020-0305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juutinen A, Tolvanen A, Koskela T. 2020. Forest owners’ future intentions for forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 118:102220. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallio AMI, Solberg B, Käär L, Päivinen R. 2018. Economic impacts of setting reference levels for the forest carbon sinks in the EU on the European forest sector. Forest Policy Econ. 92:193–201. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellomäki S, Strandman H, Peltola H. 2019. Effects of even-aged and uneven-aged management on carbon dynamics and timber yield in boreal Norway spruce stands: a forest ecosystem model approach. Forestry: Int J Forest Res. 92(5):635–647. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpz040.
   Google Scholar
• Korhonen KT, Ahola A, Heikkinen J, Henttonen HM, Hotanen J-P, Ihalainen A, Melin M, Pitkänen J, Räty M, Sirviö M, Strandström M. 2021. Forests of Finland 2014–2018 and their development 1921–2018. Silva Fenn. 55(5):article id 897. doi:10.14214/sf.10662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela T, Karppinen H. 2021. Forest owners’ willingness to implement measures to safeguard biodiversity: values, attitudes, ecological worldview and forest ownership objectives. Small-Scale Forestry. 20(1):11–37. doi:10.1007/s11842-020-09454-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotiaho JS, Ahlvik L, Bäck J, Hohti J, Jokimäki J, Kallio KP, Ketola T, Kulmala L, Lakka H-K, Lehikoinen A, et al. 2021. Metsäluonnon turvaava suojelun kohdentaminen Suomessa. Suom Luontopaneelin Julk 42021 [Internet]. doi:10.17011/jyx/SLJ/2021/4.
   Google Scholar
• Kumpu A, Piispanen R, Berninger F, Saarinen J, Mäkelä A. 2020. Biomass and structure of Norway spruce trees grown in uneven-aged stands in southern Finland. Scand J For Res. 35(5–6):252–261. doi:10.1080/02827581.2020.1788138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laturi J, Lintunen J, Uusivuori J. 2016. Modeling the economics of the reference levels for forest management emissions in the eu. Clim Change Econ. 07(03):1650006. doi:10.1142/S2010007816500068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence A. 2018. Do interventions to mobilize wood lead to wood mobilization? A critical review of the links between policy aims and private forest owners’ behaviour. Forestry: Int J Forest Res. 91(4):401–418. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpy017.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist L, Spreer S, Karlsson C. 2013. Volume production in different silvicultural systems for 85 years in a mixed picea abies–pinus sylvestris forest in central Sweden. Silva Fenn. 47(1):article id 897. doi:10.14214/sf.897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manhães AP, Loyola R, Mazzochini GG, Ganade G, Oliveira-Filho AT, Carvalho AR. 2018. Low-cost strategies for protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity. Biol Conserv. 217:187–194. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntymaa E, Juutinen A, Tyrväinen L, Karhu J, Kurttila M. 2018. Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the ruka-kuusamo tourism area, Finland. J Forest Econ. 33(1):14–24. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2018.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason WL, Diaci J, Carvalho J, Valkonen S. 2022. Continuous cover forestry in Europe: usage and the knowledge gaps and challenges to wider adoption. Forestry: Int J Forest Res. 95(1):1–12. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpab038.
   Google Scholar
• Material Economics. 2021. EU biomass use in a net-zero economy - A course correction for EU biomass [Internet]. Sweden. https://media.sitra.fi/2021/06/28151630/material-economics-eu-biomass-use-in-a-net-zero-economy.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Miina J, Bohlin I, Lind T, Dahlgren J, Härkönen K, Packalen T, Tolvanen A. 2021. Lessons learned from assessing the cover and yield of bilberry and lingonberry using the national forest inventories in Finland and Sweden. Silva Fenn. 55(5):article id 10573. doi:10.14214/sf.10573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miina J, Hotanen J-P, Salo K. 2009. Modelling the abundance and temporal variation in the production of bilberry (vaccinium myrtillus L.) in Finnish mineral soil forests. Silva Fenn. 43(4):577–593. doi:10.14214/sf.181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miljand M, Bjärstig T, Eckerberg K, Primmer E, Sandström C. 2021. Voluntary agreements to protect private forests – A realist review. Forest Policy Econ. 128:102457. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohren GMJ. 2003. Large-scale scenario analysis in forest ecology and forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 5(2):103–110. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00016-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mönkkönen M, Juutinen A, Mazziotta A, Miettinen K, Podkopaev D, Reunanen P, Salminen H, Tikkanen O-P. 2014. Spatially dynamic forest management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. J Environ Manag. 134:80–89. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mönkkönen M, Reunanen P, Kotiaho JS, Juutinen A, Tikkanen O-P, Kouki J. 2011. Cost-effective strategies to conserve boreal forest biodiversity and long-term landscape-level maintenance of habitats. Eur J For Res. 130(5):717–727. doi:10.1007/s10342-010-0461-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostegl NM, Pröbstl-Haider U, Jandl R, Haider W. 2019. Targeting climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest owners. Forest Policy Econ. 99:83–99. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2019. Official statistics of Finland (OSF): Forest protection [web publication] [Internet]. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland; [accessed 2021 Oct 6]. https://stat.luke.fi/en/forest-protection.
   Google Scholar
• Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2020. Felling potential estimates [web publication] [Internet]. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland; [accessed 2021 Sep 29]. https://www.luke.fi/en/natural-resources/forest/forest-resources-and-forest-planning/felling-potential-estimates/.
   Google Scholar
• Natural resources institute Finland. 2021a. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Total roundwood removals and drain [web publication] [Internet]. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland; [accessed 2021 Sep 29]. https://statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/.
   Google Scholar
• Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2021b. Official statistics of Finland (OSF): stumpage earnings [internet]. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland; [accessed 2021 Oct 20]. https://stat.luke.fi/en/stumpage-earnings.
   Google Scholar
• Nordström E-M, Holmström H, Öhman K. 2013. Evaluating continuous cover forestry based on the forest owner’s objectives by combining scenario analysis and multiple criteria decision analysis. Silva Fenn. 47(4) article id 1046. doi:10.14214/sf.1046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Packalen T, Sallnäs O, Sirkiä S, Korhonen KT, Salminen O, Vidal C, Robert N, Colin A, Belouard T, Schadauer K, et al. 2014. The European forestry dynamics model: concept, design and results of first case studies. EUR – Sci Tech Res Rep. doi:10.2788/153990.
   Google Scholar
• Peura M, Burgas D, Eyvindson K, Repo A, Mönkkönen M. 2018. Continuous cover forestry is a cost-efficient tool to increase multifunctionality of boreal production forests in fennoscandia. Biol Conserv. 217:104–112. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohjanmies T, Eyvindson K, Triviño M, Mönkkönen M. 2017. More is more? forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol. 32(12):2337–2349. doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0572-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohjola J, Laturi J, Lintunen J, Uusivuori J. 2018. Immediate and long-run impacts of a forest carbon policy – a market-level assessment with heterogeneous forest owners. J Forest Econ. 32(1):94–105. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2018.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pynnönen S, Paloniemi R, Hujala T. 2018. Recognizing the interest of forest owners to combine nature-oriented and economic uses of forests. Small-Scale Forestry. 17(4):443–470. doi:10.1007/s11842-018-9397-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranius T, Korosuo A, Roberge J-M, Juutinen A, Mönkkönen M, Schroeder M. 2016. Cost-efficient strategies to preserve dead wood-dependent species in a managed forest landscape. Biol Conserv. 204:197–204. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Räty M, Kuronen M. 2022. Efdm–An R package offering a scenario tool beyond forestry. PLoS One. 17(8):e0264380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing [internet]. Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Sallnäs O, Berger A, Räty M, Trubins R. 2015. An area-based matrix model for uneven-aged forests. Forests. 6(5):1500–1515. doi:10.3390/f6051500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salminen H, Lehtonen M, Hynynen J. 2005. Reusing legacy FORTRAN in the MOTTI growth and yield simulator. Comput Electron Agric. 49(1):103–113. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savilaakso S, Johansson A, Häkkilä M, Uusitalo A, Sandgren T, Mönkkönen M, Puttonen P. 2021. What are the effects of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on boreal forest biodiversity in fennoscandia and European Russia? A systematic review. Environ Evidence. 10(1):1. doi:10.1186/s13750-020-00215-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelhaas MJ, Eggers J, Lindner M, Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, Päivinen R, Schuck A, Verkerk PJ, van der Werf DC, Zudin S. 2007. Model documentation for the European Forest Information Scenario model (EFISCEN 3.1.3) [Internet]. Wageningen: Alterra; [accessed 2020 Nov 6]. https://edepot.wur.nl/31239.
   Google Scholar
• Seedre M, Felton A, Lindbladh M. 2018. What is the impact of continuous cover forestry compared to clearcut forestry on stand-level biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evidence. 7(1):7–28. doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0138-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahvonen O, Rämö J. 2016. Optimality of continuous cover vs. clear-cut regimes in managing forest resources. Can J For Res. 46(7):891–901. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J. 2019. Competing discourses of the forest shape forest owners’ ideas about nature and biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 28(13):3445–3464. doi:10.1007/s10531-019-01831-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turtiainen M, Miina J, Salo K, Hotanen J-P. 2013. Empirical prediction models for the coverage and yields of cowberry in Finland. Silva Fenn. 47(3):article id 1005. doi:10.14214/sf.1005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valkonen S, Aulus Giacosa L, Heikkinen J. 2020. Tree mortality in the dynamics and management of uneven-aged Norway spruce stands in southern Finland. Eur J For Res. 139(6):989–998. doi:10.1007/s10342-020-01301-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vauhkonen J, Berger A, Gschwantner T, Schadauer K, Lejeune P, Perin J, Pitchugin M, Adolt R, Zeman M, Johannsen VK, et al. 2019. Harmonised projections of future forest resources in Europe. Ann For Sci. 76(3):79. doi:10.1007/s13595-019-0863-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vauhkonen J, Packalen T. 2019. Shifting from even-aged management to less intensive forestry in varying proportions of forest land in Finland: impacts on carbon storage, harvest removals, and harvesting costs. Eur J For Res. 138(2):219–238. doi:10.1007/s10342-019-01163-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verboom J, Alkemade R, Klijn J, Metzger MJ, Reijnen R. 2007. Combining biodiversity modeling with political and economic development scenarios for 25 EU countries. Ecol Econ. 62(2):267–276. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verkerk PJ, Fitzgerald JB, Datta P, Dees M, Hengeveld GM, Lindner M, Zudin S. 2019. Spatial distribution of the potential forest biomass availability in Europe. Forest Ecosystems. 6(1):5. doi:10.1186/s40663-019-0163-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verkerk PJ, Mavsar R, Giergiczny M, Lindner M, Edwards D, Schelhaas MJ. 2014. Assessing impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services provided by European forests. Ecosystem Serv. 9:155–165. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinbrenner H, Breithut J, Hebermehl W, Kaufmann A, Klinger T, Palm T, Wirth K. 2021. “The forest Has become Our New living room” – The critical importance of urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Forests Global Change. 4:672909. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2021.672909.
   Google Scholar