ESC-strategy for rational operationalization of forest biodiversity maintenance in Finland

Since the introduction of the idea of sustainability in the human use of natural resources, there have been profound changes in the operating environment of commercial forestry also in Finland. Despite that grand goals are set and different ‘green policies’ adopted, only seldom there is any consensus among different interest groups about the real contribution of these performances to sustainability of the activity itself. Evidently, the ultimate task for forestry related projects in the recently initiated multidiciplinary research program (Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme – FIBRE, Academy of Finland) is to construct firm prerequisites for this consensus to grow. The purpose of this paper is above all to bridge the gap between societal demand for rationality in forest biodiversity conservation acts, and the point that natural state of ecosystems is often considered as the only acceptable model for nature conservation. At first we give a brief overview of the control mechanisms and regulations concerning relations between forestry and the maintenance of forest biodiversity in Finland. Regarding to different components of biological diversity, it seems that the defined goals of these control mechanisms are adequately extensive. Their operationalization, however, is unsatisfactory and also biased towards a certain subset of species due to some problems relating to the structure of managed forest landscape. These problems are discussed in their own chapters. By accounting also the social and economical considerations of sustainability, a feasible operational approach for forest biodiversity maintenance must base on both the spatial allocation of maintenance responsibilities and, depending on site-specific parameters in the target area, the clustering of species’ resources. In the latter part of the paper we present a preliminary idea of a dynamic ESC-strategy for country-wide maintenance of biodiversity in managed forests. In the strategy forest species are divided according to the best achievable occurrence of their populations (E stands for ‘Everywhere’, i.e. species occur in practically all suitable managed forest habitats; S stands for ‘Somewhere’, i.e. species occur only in some proportion of suitable managed forest habitats; and C-species are able to occur almost exclusively only ‘in Conservation areas’). This best achievable occurrence or ‘ecological optimum for managed forests’ is constrained by socio-economic aspects of sustainable forest management.

[1]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Operationalization of biological diversity as a decision objective in tactical forest planning , 1996 .

[2]  L. Hansson,et al.  Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation , 1992 .

[3]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating biodiversity into forest management planning and decision-making , 1993 .

[4]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes , 1995, Springer Netherlands.

[5]  K. Kauhala,et al.  Distribution history and present status of the raccoon dog in Finland , 1991 .

[6]  I. Hanski Effects of landscape pattern on competitive interactions , 1995 .

[7]  T. Ahti,et al.  Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe , 1968 .

[8]  Harto Lindén,et al.  Breeding success of black grouse and capercaillie in relation to mammalian predator densities on two spatial scales , 1997 .

[9]  R. Bergström,et al.  Moose, trees, and ground-living invertebrates : indirect interactions in Swedish pine forests , 1999 .

[10]  A. Seiler,et al.  Population response to landscape changes depends on specialization to different landscape elements , 1997 .

[11]  L. Hämet-Ahti The boreal zone and its biotic subdivision , 1981 .

[12]  H. Andrén Predation processes in fragmented boreal forest landscapes , 1989 .

[13]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Ecological Processes That Affect Populations in Complex Landscapes , 1992 .

[14]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology , 1993 .

[15]  P. Angelstam,et al.  Conservation of Communities — The Importance of Edges, Surroundings and Landscape Mosaic Structure , 1992 .

[16]  L. Hansson,et al.  Landscape ecology of boreal forests. , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  T. Kuuluvainen Gap disturbance, ground microtopography, and the regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous forests in Filand: a review , 1994 .

[18]  Lars Ericson,et al.  Boreal Forests—The Focal Habitats of Fennoscandia , 1992 .

[19]  N. B. Kotliar,et al.  Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity , 1990 .

[20]  D. Padilla,et al.  Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns , 1987 .

[21]  Risto Kalliola,et al.  Landscape structure and forest dynamics in subcontinental Russian European taiga , 1994 .

[22]  H. Andrén,et al.  Effects of landscape composition on predation rates at habitat edges , 1995 .

[23]  T. O. Crist,et al.  Critical Thresholds in Species' Responses to Landscape Structure , 1995 .

[24]  J. Niemelä,et al.  Forestry and the boreal fauna: matching management with natural forest dynamics , 1994 .

[25]  H. Andrén,et al.  Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review , 1994 .