Green Belt from a Finnish perspective

Position of Finnish environmental organizations
January 28, 1997

 

1. Introduction. What is the Green Belt?
2. NGO-proposal for the Green Belt
3. Green Belt in conservation area networks and proposals
4. NGO-statement
5. Appendices and references

1. Introduction. What is the Green Belt ?

Since the beginning of the 1990's the idea of the ecological uniqueness of the forests at the Finnish-Russian state border has been presented on several occasions, increasingly, also by wide sections in both societies and in the international community. The idea emerged originally in a form that emphasized only the forests on the Russian side of the border. Forests which had been left outside intensive, modern forest management practices, mainly because of the Cold War and the consequent low economic activities at the border zone. While it is true that the ecologically most important areas can be found on the eastern side of the border it has been recently noticed how the most valuable of the Finnish old-growth forest areas are also situated at the same border. Together they form the Green Belt of Fennoscandia - reaching from the Gulf of Finland in the south to the Arctic Ocean in the north.

The Green Belt crosses all three boreal main zones: the southern, middle and northern boreal vegetation zones. This fact makes it possible to sustain evolutional and distributional dynamics - the elementary parts of biological diversity - on an exceptional scale. It is a crucial feature in terms of the changes that will take place due to the inescapable climate change as well. The warming climate will cause the vegetational zones to move northwards. The flora and fauna will try to adjust accordingly. It is reasonable to claim that in fragmented landscapes the adjustment can prove to be an impossible task for a large group of species.

Many studies have confirmed that even in the shorter-term small fragmented conservation areas are not capable of maintaining many of the endangered species. Larger unified areas should be set aside for conservation purposes. In the Finnish context the Green Belt has received special attention. The Belt can be seen as the major source of population maintenance and species diversity on which our smaller areas are dependent on, as they cannot maintain their own regeneration processes to a full extent. (see e.g. Safeguarding...1994, Virkkala 1996)

It should also be recognized that, Fennoscandia in itself forms a unique environment on a global scale. The warming impact of the Gulf-stream, the short history of evolution after the last ice age, the natural features attached to Fennoscandian bed rock and the oceanic climatic features distinquish this area as a spesific area with its own special character, the like of which cannot be found elsewhere in the world. (see e.g. Committee reports 1991, 1995, Safeguarding...1994) When it is taken into account, in addition, that also ever larger areas of boreal (taiga) forests east of Fennoscandia are now taken into commercial use, it is reasonable to view our area from an evolutional standpoint as an island - as separated from the main taiga forest continent.

The introductory part of the Red Book of Finland (Committee report 1991,11) states that a differentiation of species is taking place under the special Fennoscandian conditions and that after a (quite a) while separate new endemic species would eventually emerge. It is stated that this will happen, however, only on the condition that the species aren't destroyed before the process has reached that stage.

The Green Belt is also the westernmost point for many species whose main distribution areas are further in the east. It also sustains the largest populations of many species which used to be more abundant further south before the era of intensive human impact. It can be concluded that an evolutionally exceptionally young area is facing an era where its diversity resource base is more and more concentrated in a few areas - most of all in the Green Belt. This has been caused by intensive management and fragmentation covering the most of the area.

Forestry represents the greatest threat to the majority of endangered species in Finland. Out of almost 1700 species listed as endangered close to 50 per cent are forest species. Roughly one half of them are directly dependent on old-growth forests which exist nowadays mainly as isolated small fragments surrounded by landscapes modified by modern intensive forestry. (see e.g. Committee reports 1991, 1995 and Safeguarding...1994) Estimates about the amount of remaining old-growth forests vary from two to five per cent of the total forest area at most.

Several scientists have put forth claims according to which it is uncertain whether a considerable amount of our species will survive at all in those isolated fragments, which offer the only suitable habitats for these species. As a matter in fact, there is a certain time lag which separates the long-term impact of forestry from the current visible changes. One talks about the "extinction debt" - the idea that the total costs of fragmentation and habitat destruction will be payed by future generations. (see e.g. Virkkala 1996.) Already now the wide-scale disappearance of old-growh forests in the southern part of Finland, due to intensive forestry, has meant -in addition to dozens of species having disappeared from the area - that several hundred, possibly over a thousand species have faced a significant impoverishment of their genetic diversity (Safeguarding... 1994, 28).

It has been noticed during the last few years when the remaining old-growth forests have been surveyed in Finland, that the largest areas of old forests are in most cases also the ones which have the lowest level of human impact throughout the human history of the region. They are mainly situated along the main watershed between the Arctic Ocean and the Baltic Sea, which in the middle and northern boreal zones runs along the Finnish-Russian state border to a significant extent . Watershed areas with their tiny, upper head waters were due to difficulties in timber floating the last areas to be used for selective cuttings of the earlier logging history.

Relative remoteness has also meant a much lower impact of slash-and-burn agriculture as well as tar and charcoal production, all of which have had a strong impact on forest structures in most parts of Fennoscandia. Several studies have found that some of the areas on the watershed can be classified as totally intact by any kind of logging practices. (see e.g. Pyykkö 1996, Safeguarding...1994)

2. NGO-proposal for the Green Belt

2.1. Transition zones

The proposal of major Finnish environmental non-governmental organizations for the Finnish part of the World Heritage Site -presented in the maps available - is based on two main ideas. Firstly, there is the justified claim that the future of biodiversity in Finnish forests is to a significant extent dependent on the large primeval forest landscapes found mainly on the other side of our eastern border. Accordingly, several areas which contain a relatively fine-meshed network of valuable old-growth forest areas when found in the vicinity of a forest wilderness on the Russian side have been defined as so called transition zones. They are considered to form the lifelines of biodiversity that not only maintain but also hopefully later on restore our impoverished forest nature furher away from the border. In the NGO-proposal for the Green Belt they are:

      • Transition zone 1 (watershed between N-Karelia and Kainuu
      • Transition zone 2 (Northern Kainuu)
      • Transition zone 3 (Tuntsa-area in Lapland)

2.2. Northernmost forests

    Secondly, it has become clear that some of the Finnish areas need to be included if the full ecological value of the Belt is to be realized in the proposal. This is necessary for two reasons. First, in Finnish Lapland one can find the northernmost continuous pine forests in the world. They have been classified as a special biotope for several reasons. In Lapland they form the ultimate limit of coniferous forests toward the north while spruce is dominating the transition zone both in the east and west from Finnish Lapland. (see Natural...1994) These areas include:

      • Lake Inari -area
      • Hammastunturi Wilderness Area
      • Lemmenjoki National Park
      • Angeli forests

2.3. Key zones

Second, in certain spesific sections of the Belt the Russian side has been altered strongly by human activities while the Finnish side consist of relatively large areas of ecologically valuable forest areas. Accordingly, in order to maintain one of the essential features of the Belt - continuity - some Finnish areas must be payed special attention. They are having significant sections still at the moment threatened by forestry management planning. These key zones are:

      • Koitajoki
      • Transition zone 1 (eastern parts)
      • Ulvinsalo-Elimyssalo -area
      • Kuusamo National Park -proposal
      • Transition zone 3

Some areas may serve more than one purpose. There is also a certain amount of areas which are not placed in special categories mentioned above. It does not mean, however, that they would be ecologically non-valuable. The categories above are meant to highlight certain particular areas in relation to their special function as part of the Green Belt.

2.4. Other aspects

When the NGO-suggestions are compared to the World Heritage -proposal from the Ministry of the Environment in Finland, it can be stated that in a rough sense they have been constructed on the same basis. The main difference is that NGO-proposal, contrary to the one from the ministry, include the majority of those areas which have been proved to be ecologically valuable by experts and/or environmental officials but which for different political reasons have not been given official conservation status (yet). In addition to this, there are included some high land areas and a smaller group of other forests - both almost in their totality situated in the northern part of Lapland - which have not been officially surveyed but which have been found so valuable that they need further investigations. More details on this subject are provided below.

3. Green Belt in conservation area networks and proposals

The bulk of the NGO-proposal for the Green Belt (see Appendices 1 and 2) consists of areas which are either already conserved, officially proposed to be conserved or which are having at the moment - at least in principle - considerable felling restrictions (esp. so called high areas and landscape ecological areas). Consequently, the establishment of an officially strictly conserved (from logging practices) Green Belt would not mean considerable changes in current practices but would only increase the conservational status of several areas which stay outside commercial forestry anyway. In the following the different status categories (used in the list) are described more in depth.

3.1. Existing protected areas

      • national parks
      • strict nature reserves
      • wilderness areas
      • wetland protection areas
      • other protected areas

In these areas forestry, peatland drainage, construction and other activities that affect nature heavily are normally forbidden. Recreation, controlled hunting and fishing as well as collecting berries and mushrooms are generally allowed.

However, the wilderness areas contain 100 000 ha of forests where so called natural forestry is allowed according to the Wilderness Act. The Ministry of the Environment has already confirmed management plans for part of the Hammastunturi Wilderness Area. It already seems probable that not all of the 100 000 ha will ever be managed.

Protected areas are not ecologically representative to a sufficient extent as most of them are situated in northern Lapland and contain mostly unwooded areas and non-productive forests.

3.2. Areas in confirmed protection programs

      • old-growth forest protection program
      • shoreline protection program
      • program for protection of mires

Old-growth forest protection programs were finally confirmed in June 1996. Most of the old-growth forests delineated in the inventories were left out of the program as proposed by a working group representing environmental and forestry administration, the Forest and Park Service, forest industry and some non-governmental environmental organisations. The reasons for this were partly purely political, partly the idea promoted by the group that smaller valuable areas can be set aside as part of the forestry planning without establishing officially protected areas.

Programs for protection of shorelines and mires have not been implemented completely. Most of the areas in those programs are also very important from the point of view of forest conservation.

3.3. Other officially recognized sites

      • areas to be preserved by means of ecological landscape planning
      • areas recognized as valuable in the official old-growth forest inventories
      • preliminary Natura 2000 -areas defined by environmental authorities
      • areas protected by the decisions of the Forest and Park Service

There is a large number of sites of high conservation value which have been recognised by environmental administration but which are not yet included in the official protection programs.

Most of the areas that were found valuable in the old-growth forest inventories where left out of the now confirmed protection proposal by the old-growth forest protection working group. However, according to the proposals of the working group, also conservational values of the areas left outside the program should be taken into account in their commercial utilization. Also part of the areas left out of the program shall be preserved by means of ecological landscape planning. The environmental NGO:s and an expert member of the working group - professor of botany - left an dissenting opinion to the working group's proposal, saying that the ecological landscape planning does not provide sufficient means for protecting old-growth forest values of the inventoried areas, if the true meaning of the concept is not clearly defined after thorough scientific studies.

So the Green Belt proposal by Finnish NGO:s includes those old-growth forests delineated in the official inventories which are clearly connected to the Green Belt network.

Most of the areas in the preliminary proposal for Natura 2000 -site list can be found among already conserved or areas in the confirmed protection programs. There are, however, some unprotected areas potentially valuable on the European Union level according to the local environmental authorities. These areas should clearly be part of the Green Belt especially in cases where they are connected to other valuable areas.

The most important areas containing large areas of forests of this category are:

      • Transition zone 1
      • Transition zone 2

3.4. High land areas of the Forest and Park Service

In these areas forestry has been quite restricted due to regeneration difficulties in the harsh climate. Therefore their commercial value is small compared to other forest land. On the other hand high areas are the most unfragmented old-growth forest areas and thus valuable though they cannot replace more diverse forests of lower altitude level. Accordingly, the old-growth forests of high areas near the Russian border are included in the Green Belt proposal made by NGO's. Only those high areas which have not been accepted into officially confirmed conservation programs are included in this category. Most of the areas have not been surveyed by authorities at all. Of all those areas listed in the NGO-proposal there is, however, enough information to back up the demand that they should be examined thoroughly as soon as possible.

The most important of these areas is:

      • Transition zone 3 (mostly high land)

3.5. Other important sites

Majority of these areas have never been inventoried by authorities. Most of them are situated in northern Lapland where no official old-growth forest inventories have been made. The category contains those forests which are situated outside high land areas and are, therefore, threatened by forest management. These areas have been examined, however, by environmental organizations and individual experts. They have proved to be so valuable that they should be examined officially thoroughly and related to the Green Belt -consideration. The most important areas are:

      • Kirakka
      • Peurakaira

4. NGO-statement

Based on the argumentation presented above, we - five major non-governmental nature conservation organizations in Finland - state, therefore, following:

1. The Finnish Government should promote the inclusion of areas proposed by both Finnish and Russian environmental NGO's into the conservation efforts on the Finnish-Russian Green Belt of primeval and old-growth forests. We consider the Green Belt worth being nominated to the World Heritage Site -list maintained by UNESCO.

2. In the Finnish context, this would mean above all, that areas within the Green Belt which have been proved by different authorities and experts to harbour significant ecological values should be considered as part of the Green Belt protection process. We ask the Finnish Government to start to evaluate these areas (incl. ecological landcsape planning -areas) in relation to their status in the Green Belt. It would also mean that areas which have been left outside official ecological surveys would be examined thoroughly immediately.

Areas that should be included in the Green Belt -work are listed and delineated in the Appendices 1 and 2.

We state that the way, the Finnish Forest and Park Service has introduced loggings in some of these areas,even if in the name of ecological landscape planning, have not been justified so far, nor have they been based on the complete account of ecological values in these areas.

The application for the World Heritage Site -status together with Russia, and possibly with Norway, makes the Green Belt the most important international conservation effort in Finland. Therefore, we see that the Green Belt should be taken as the most essential part of Natura 2000 -process as well. We urge, accordingly, the Finnish Ministry of the Environment and the Forest and Park Service, to take into account all ecologically valuable areas attached to the Green Belt -context -and join them into the Natura 2000 -proposal made by Finland to EU. Particularly, we see that areas which have been defined as key and transition zones should be given special attention.

We also ask the Finnish Government to send a truly ecologically feasible Green Belt-proposal for the World Heritage List as soon as possible -hopefully during this year.

3. We request, therefore, the Finnish Government to give clear orders that all the areas proposed by the NGO's for the Green Belt -process should be left outside management practices for the time period which is needed for a thorough survey of the areas.

4. In the south-eastern parts of Finland, forest conservation planning and surveys have not been carried out to a full extent. We consider that the existing shoreline protection program sites together with existing old-growth forests could form the basis for Green Belt -planning in this region. The work should be started as quickly as possible.

5. In addition, we would like to see that conservation proposals made by Russian environmental NGO's concerning the Green Belt on both sides of the border are taken into serious consideration. We also ask our own Government to give its full support to all Russian conservation efforts. We anticipate that this will require a significant amount of financial assistance among other activities.

6. Our organizations are ready to co-operate with authorities in a joint effort to save the Green Belt - a unique chain of western taiga in the world.

Rauna Mannermaa, chairman, The Nature League, Finland

Marcus Walsh , international Officer, BirdLife Finland

Timo Helle, chairman, Finnish Association for Nature Conservation

Harri Karjalainen, Forest Manager, WWF Finland

Matti Ikonen, Forest Campaigner, Greenpeace

Appendices

App.1: List of Green Belt -areas proposed by NGO's

App.2: Maps of Green Belt -areas proposed by NGO's

References

Committee report 1991:30. Report of the Protection of Threatened Animals and Plants. Helsinki. 1992. (in Finnish) (The Red Book of Finland)

Committee report 1995:4. Report of the Biodiversity Working Group. Ministry of the Environment 1995. (in Finnish)

Natural Forests in Nordic Countries (Naturskogar i Norden). Nordic Council. Nord 1994:7. (in Swedish)

Pyykkö, Jarmo (ed.): Survey in Russian Karelian Natural Forests in Vienansalo. WWF-Finland Report. October 1996.

Safeguarding Biodiversity in Finnish Forest Nature. Report. Ministry of the Environment 1994. (in Finnish)

Virkkala, Raimo: Reserve network of forests in Finland and the need for developing the network - an ecological approach. Finnish Environment Institute, Nature and Land Use Division. May 1996. (in Finnish)



Feedback and questions: forest(@)luontoliitto.fi
Pages optimized for browsers 3.0 and newer versions