I realized I’d become so accustomed to seeing wildlife in forests that I didn’t make much of the encounter. Still, the comparison made was intriguing. The pine dominated forests we walked do not fit FAO’s description of natural forests as they had been planted after final felling some 70-80 years ago, but certainly nobody felt we were touring a fast-growing monoculture plantation. The current condition of the forests is not given, however. Forest owners must take action to safeguard and improve biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

The case for additionality is intriguing in Finland. The Finnish Forest Act is surprisingly flexible. As an example, the Forest Act does not require buffer zones alongside water bodies such as lakes or rivers. One can also final fell stands completely without retention trees, and there is no minimum diameter or age limitation. Put differently, one can implement forest management policies that do not fully take into account nature’s well-being. However, the Forest Act and Nature Conservation Act impose limitations to commercial use of forests.

Read the full ‘Thought Leadership’ article at the link below