Browsing by Subject "Forest certification"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Taivalantti, Tuuli (Helsingin yliopisto, 2019)
    Non-wood forest products (NWFP) refer to wild berries, mushrooms, herbs and other special NWFPs gathered from forests. Finnish forests have been certified with forest certificates (PEFC and FSC) and as organic wild collection areas. The globally largest organic wild collection areas in Finland have provided organic NWFP raw material for the commercial trade. However, NWFPs are not certified in Finland within forest certificates, unlike in some other European countries. The aim of this study was to collect expert perceptions of NWFP certification, its possible benefits and creation of added-value, and qualifications for applying forest- and organic certificates to NWFP certification. This qualitative study was carried out in thematic interviews to Finnish experts in NWFP and forestry fields. The results indicate that both forest and NWFP experts see the importance of NWFP certification to increase in future. Majority of interviewees appreciate the forest origin as a differentiating factor, which is important to verify. Both expert groups were familiar with organic wild collection areas in Finland. According to experts, the organic wild collection areas are possibility in the exports of NWFPs, though in domestic markets, organic labeled NWFPs rarely create added value for the customers. Majority of interviewees viewed the application of forest certificates to certify NWFPs positively. However, opinions towards it were more divided among the group of forest experts.
  • Kuuluvainen, Timo; Lindberg, Henrik; Vanha-Majamaa, Ilkka; Keto-Tokoi, Petri; Punttila, Pekka (2019)
    In managed forests, leaving retention trees during final harvesting has globally become a common approach to reconciling the often conflicting goals of timber production and safeguarding biodiversity and delivery of several ecosystem services. In Finland, the dominant certification scheme requires leaving low levels of retention that can benefit some specific species. However, species responses are dependent on the level of retention and the current low amounts of retention clearly do not provide the habitat quality and continuity needed for declining and red-listed forest species which are dependent on old living trees and coarse woody debris. Several factors contribute to this situation. First, the ecological benefits of the current low retention levels are further diminished by monotonous standwise use of retention, resulting in low variability of retention habitat at the landscape scale. Second, the prevailing timber-oriented management thinking may regard retention trees as an external cost to be minimized, rather than as part of an integrated approach to managing the ecosystem for specific goals. Third, the main obstacles of development may still be institutional and policy-related. The development of retention practices in Finland indicates that the aim has not been to use ecological understanding to attain specific ecological sustainability goals, but rather to define the lowest level of retention that still allows access to the market. We conclude that prevailing retention practices in Finland currently lack ecological credibility in safeguarding biodiversity and they should urgently be developed based on current scientific knowledge to meet ecological sustainability goals.
  • Kuuluvainen, Timo; Lindberg, Henrik; Vanha-Majamaa, Ilkka; Keto-Tokoi, Petri; Punttila, Pekka (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2019)
    Abstract In managed forests, leaving retention trees during final harvesting has globally become a common approach to reconciling the often conflicting goals of timber production and safeguarding biodiversity and delivery of several ecosystem services. In Finland, the dominant certification scheme requires leaving low levels of retention that can benefit some specific species. However, species responses are dependent on the level of retention and the current low amounts of retention clearly do not provide the habitat quality and continuity needed for declining and red-listed forest species which are dependent on old living trees and coarse woody debris. Several factors contribute to this situation. First, the ecological benefits of the current low retention levels are further diminished by monotonous standwise use of retention, resulting in low variability of retention habitat at the landscape scale. Second, the prevailing timber-oriented management thinking may regard retention trees as an external cost to be minimized, rather than as part of an integrated approach to managing the ecosystem for specific goals. Third, the main obstacles of development may still be institutional and policy-related. The development of retention practices in Finland indicates that the aim has not been to use ecological understanding to attain specific ecological sustainability goals, but rather to define the lowest level of retention that still allows access to the market. We conclude that prevailing retention practices in Finland currently lack ecological credibility in safeguarding biodiversity and they should urgently be developed based on current scientific knowledge to meet ecological sustainability goals.