Centralised National Risk Assessment for Category 3 of FSC Controlled Wood

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Risks to High Conservation Values in Finland

Finalised Report. February 2015

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

About The Proforest Initiative and HCV Resource Network Since 2011, the Proforest Initiative has been hosting the HCV Resource Network, a global multi-stakeholder initiative established by a group of organisations who use the HCV approach, including environmental and social NGOs, international development agencies, timber and forest product certifiers, suppliers and buyers, and forest managers. The Network aims to encourage collaboration, provide information and support on the evolving usage of HCV, and ensure that a consistent approach to HCV is understood and applied throughout the world. To promote consistency and best-practice in the use of the HCV concept, the Network has established a globally representative Technical Panel composed of experts in the use and interpretation of the HCV concept. A significant function of the panel is to undertake peer reviews of specific HCV assessments or uses and it has developed a standard process and criteria for conducting such reviews.

For this report, your contact persons are:

Audrey Versteegen [email protected]

Anders Lindhe [email protected]

HCV Resource Network South Suite, Frewin Chambers, Frewin Court, Oxford OX1 3HZ United Kingdom E: [email protected] T: +44 (0) 1865 243439

The Proforest Initiative is a registered charity in England and Wales (no. 1137523) and a company registered in England and Wales (no. 07293440)

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Table of contents

1 Background ...... 5

2 Methodology ...... 6 2.1 Risk ...... 6 2.2 Stakeholder feedback ...... 6 2.3 Process ...... 7 2.4 References and data sources ...... 12

3 Identification of low risk areas for HCVs in Finland ...... 13 3.1 The Finnish context ...... 13 3.2 Indicator 3.1: HCV1 Species diversity ...... 16 3.3 Indicator 3.2: HCV2 Landscapes ...... 25 3.4 Indicator 3.3: HCV3 Ecosystems ...... 29 3.5 Indicator 3.4: HCV4 Ecosystem Services ...... 32 3.6 Indicator 3.5: HCV5 Basic needs of local communities ...... 34 3.7 Indicator 3.6: HCV6 Sites of cultural significance ...... 35

Annex 1. Data Sources ...... 38

Annex 2. Background Data ...... 42

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

List of Figures

Figure 1: Stepwise decision-making tree for risk assessment to High Conservation Values within the Controlled Wood framework. Each step is detailed in Section 2.3 of this report.8 Figure 2: Statutory protected area network of Finland...... 14 Figure 3: Natura 2000 Network in Finland...... 15 Figure 4: Nature Conservation Programme areas in Finland...... 16 Figure 5: Natural forests in late successional stages. Adapted from Finland NFI 2011 data...... 20 Figure 6: Natural, mixed forests in medium-late successional stages (Note that the map is for illustrative purposes: at the scale of the country some pockets of forests do not show). Adapted from Finland NFI 2011 data...... 21 Figure 7: Risk Map for HCV1 in Finland...... 25 Figure 8: Very old forests (>180 years) in Lapland, according to NFI2011 data, and Intact Forest Landscapes in Lapland (www.intactforests.org)...... 26 Figure 9: Areas (in red) included in the Forest Lapland agreement of 2009 (top). Land uses have been designated as part of the agreement (see as example the map of Isoselka, below). Note that Forest Lapland areas are not legally protected (Source: http://www.metsa.fi)...... 27 Figure 10: Larger areas of, legally or by agreement, unprotected very old forest that may qualify as HCV2...... 28 Figure 11: Risk Map for HCV2 in Finland...... 29 Figure 12: Important Bird Areas and mire reserves (designated under the Nature Conservation Act) in Finland. These mire reserves represent only a subset of mires that meet the ‘extensive’ threshold...... 30 Figure 13: Detail of typical Important Bird Areas in relation to the hydrological network in Finland...... 31 Figure 14: Hydrological network of Finland (Source: SYKE)...... 33 Figure 15: Important catchments and aquifers in Finland (Finnish Water Act)...... 34

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

1 Background

The development of full National Risk Assessments (NRA) for each Controlled Wood (CW) category is a priority identified within the scope of Motion 51 (2011 FSC General Assembly), in order to replace the current CW risk assessments led by individual companies.

Motion 51 aims at strengthening the existing CW system by introducing standardised methodologies and procedures to achieve more consistency and credibility through the process. As part of this, FSC has developed a draft framework for National Risk Assessments of each of the 5 CW categories. Additionaly, FSC has initiated Centralised National Risk Assessments (CNRAs) for identifying “low risk” areas for sourcing of CW (as opposed to areas where additional control measures need to be specified and implemented in order to comply with the requirements of the CW system).

The development of CNRAs is carried out in collaboration with FSC National Partners (NP), with the aim to initiate the full NRA process, and in consultation with national experts and stakeholders. It follows guidance set out in the draft procedure FSC-PRO-60-002a V1-0 for National Risk Assessments. Two pilot countries were selected to develop and test operational methodologies, Finland and Brazil.

In the absence of applicable HCV assessments, CNRAs identify potential HCVs at the national level through the use of proxies for the 6 categories of HCVs, in agreement with the FSC National Standard for forest management in Finland. This report presents and locates proxy areas selected for subsequent risk analysis, and its findings.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

2 Methodology

The methodology designed to assess the likely occurrence and the threat to HCVs and HCV areas follows the guidelines of the FSC National Risk Assessment Framework (FSC-PRO-60- 002a V1-0). Best practices in HCV identification are based on the HCV Resource Network Common Guidance for the Identification of High Conservation Values (October 2013).

2.1 Risk

A core question of any risk assessment is what constitutes “low” risk. How much certainty is required, or put the other way around, how much uncertainty is tolerable? If the threshold is set too low, the system will not be robust and credibility will suffer. If, on the other hand, the bar is set too high, there will be virtually no low risk areas and the whole process of CNRAs becomes redundant. The draft FSC National Risk Assessment Framework provides guidance and thresholds for the designation of low risk areas, where the risk of sourcing timber from unacceptable sources is negligible. In parallel, it indicates that low risk is synonymous with “negligible” as defined by the EU Timber Regulation (No 995/2010). While the term is not defined in the Regulation itself, it is explained in a Commission guidance document to mean that “no cause for concern” can be discerned following full assessment of relevant information1.

Considering this guidance, and FSC’s general precautionary approach, the present study aims to apply a low and transparent uncertainty threshold in each step of the risk assessment process. However, ‘low risk’ is not the same as ‘no risk’ – a certain acceptance of uncertainty is inherit in any risk-based approach. Where quantifiable, we have operated with a risk threshold of 1% (see 2.3.3). As (central and national) risk assessments accumulate in the near future, FSC may evaluate if this risk level represents a reasonable balance of objectives. FSC may also need to guide risk levels applied by NRAs to evaluate if Control Measures designed to mitigate risks are adequate – it seems logical that similar thresholds should apply for mitigation as for identification.

2.2 Stakeholder feedback

The methodology involves stakeholder feedback at the following two key stages:

1. Initial information gathering on HCV occurrence and threats to HCVs. At this stage, environmental and social experts and stakeholders were asked to suggest possible data sources and give input that could be used to define HCV occurrence and threats. This was not a formal consultation process, but part of the data gathering.

2. Soliciting feedback on the draft report. The draft report was sent to the FSC Network Partner and representatives from the national social, environmental and economic chambers for feedback. In the case of Finland this process was iterative, and involved several rounds of comments by stakeholders. When feedback provided verifiable information relevant to the risk assessment, it was addressed and incorporated into the

1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eutr2013/_static/files/guidance/guidance-document-5-feb- 13_en.pdf

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

final report. Stakeholder feedback that exceeded the scope of this process, or was not taken on board, was documented and forwarded to FSC International and Network Partners.

2.3 Process

The methodology used to assess risks constitute a stepwise decision making tree for the identification of areas where the risks posed to HCVs by timber management activities are low. Areas where this is not the case are classified as “specified risk” areas. To ensure the process is as efficient as possible, initial steps aim to identify and filter out low risk areas through simple and unambiguous measures. Areas that do not qualify as low risk on these grounds are subjected to further, more in-depth analyses, based on informed judgement and qualitative interpretation of risks in each step of the process. Residual areas that have not been classified as low risk after completion of all steps of the process are classified as specified risk areas. Risks and appropriate mitigation measures for these areas will be identified in a National Risk Assessment process.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Figure 1: Stepwise decision-making tree for risk assessment to High Conservation Values within the Controlled Wood framework. Each step is detailed in Section 2.3 of this report.

2.3.1 Step 1. Scale Determine an appropriate scale for homogenous risk designation i.e. identify existing, geographical subnational units suitable for risk assessment. Select units representing the highest geographical resolution (smallest units) that the data allows for. These geographical units are henceforth referred to as “areas under assessment”. Note that scale determination may not always be finalised during this first step, and may also change depending on the scale of data sources collected during steps 2 and 3. For example, in some cases the unavailability of fine-scale data may mean that scale designation occurs at a coarser scale. This is in-line with the NRA framework which requires scale designation to occur in parallel to information gathering.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

2.3.2 Step 2. HCV components Identify components of HCVs that may occur in the areas under assessment. Several HCVs consist of two or more components that may be associated with different risks and/or be represented by different proxies, e.g. HCV 1 which addresses significant concentrations of biodiversity, as well as centres of endemism and seasonal concentrations of species.

2.3.3 Step 3. HCV occurrence For each HCV component: assess the likelihood that it occurs in each area under assessment. The assessment should rely on the best available information or proxies (note that although all data sources used constitute a proxy in a risk assessment process and are henceforth referred to as proxies), with a preference for data on real HCV occurrence where such information exists.

a) In some countries, national FSC standards have defined and/or mapped HCVs by direct reference to specific inventories, land classifications or designations that represent the complete distribution of the HCV (component). Where this is the case, and designations are well aligned with the HCVRN Common Guidance, the assessment is relatively straightforward: areas under assessment where the value does not occur, or is unlikely to occur, are classified as LOW RISK. In this pilot study we operate with a ‘low threshold’ of 1%2, so that areas under assessment where less than 1% of the total wood volume in that area is found in HCV areas / proxy areas are considered to be of LOW RISK. Areas under assessment where this proportion is higher are subject to further analyses.

b) Values for which there is no direct data on HCV presence must be assessed through proxies. Direct proxies have a general character and may be assessed without mapping. Examples include HCV 5 which are unlikely to occur in areas under assessment where traditional subsistence practices play a very minor role in local economies, and the HCV 4 component erosion mitigation which is unlikely to be an issue in areas under assessment with level topography and low precipitation. Areas under assessment where a certain value is unlikely to be present are classified as of LOW RISK – others are subjected to further analysis in step 4.

c) Values that cannot be assessed by direct proxies at the unit level must be evaluated through delineated/indirect proxy areas - areas (mapped or easy to map based on existing data) that serve as adequate and reliable indicators of HCV presence. All suggested proxy areas must be carefully chosen to fit with values. In order to be valid, proxy areas (these may be single proxies, sums of various proxies, or various combinations of single proxies) should overlap closely with areas likely to host a certain value. While precise fit may be difficult, accurate risk assessments require a good match between proxy areas and values. Proxy areas that only reflect a limited subset of the HCV tend to underestimate risk and so exaggerate the extent of low risk areas, while proxy areas that go beyond the value to include larger areas where the HCV is unlikely to occur, tend to exaggerate risks involved and underestimate the extent of low risk areas. Values represented by valid proxy areas are subjected to further analysis in step 4. Areas under assessment where no valid proxy areas

2 1% was chosen as a precautionary threshold to represent ‘low risk’.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

are identified for particular values are classified as areas of SPECIFIED RISK due to a lack of adequate data.

2.3.4 Step 4. HCV threat assessment For remaining areas under assessment and components not already classified in steps 1-3: assess threats of loss or degradation from forest management activities. Consider, as a minimum, the threats listed in the National Risk Assessment Framework (PRO-60-002a), copied in Table 1 below. The specific threats to each HCV are assessed under each category in the following sections. Some particular values may be under no threat, for instance if they occur on very low-productive lands where timber is not harvested. Alternatively, areas under assessment where a certain value only occurs in very small amounts3 are also designated as low risk, based on the logic that there is little likelihood that wood is sourced from such areas (assuming these areas are not preferentially logged). Areas under assessment where a particular component value may be considered under no or negligible threat are classified as LOW RISK areas for that particular value. Where a threat is considered potentially present, the existence of mitigation measures for that threat is assessed as detailed in section 2.3.5 below.

Table 1: Specific categories of threat to assess for each HCV in the analysis of risk to HCV areas from Controlled Wood, according to the National Risk Assessment Framework (PRO-60-002a).

HCV Specific threat categories  Habitat removal HCV1  Habitat fragmentation  Introduction of alien / invasive species

 Fragmentation, including access (roading), HCV2  Logging (applies to IFL)

HCV3  Lack of effective protection of HCV 3

 Reduction of water quality / quantity HCV4  Negative impact on humans health (e.g. poisoning water etc. – see HCVCG)

 Compromising (impacting) fundamental needs of local communities HCV5 by management activities

 Destruction and / or disturbance of rights/ values determining HCV HCV6 6 presence

3 FSC IC has clarified that ‘no occurrence’ in FSC-PRO-60-002a V1-0 table 3.2 shall be interpreted as no occurrence above a risk threshold.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

2.3.5 Steps 5 and 6. HCV safeguards and threat mitigation a) For each remaining component value: are proxy areas effectively safeguarded in legally protected areas? To be considered effectively safeguarded, a) the absolute majority of proxy areas4 must be located within protected areas, and b) the protection must be effective in terms of management, law enforcement and respect for the law. Areas under assessment where proxy areas are considered effectively protected are classified as LOW RISK areas for that particular value. b) For each remaining component value: are proxy areas effectively safeguarded by other, voluntary measures? To be valid, measures must be widely implemented across the whole geographical unit. Potential mechanisms include legal requirements and regulations, private reserves, and functional “best practices” like standard operating procedures, voluntary sector certification standards and civil society agreements. To be considered effectively safeguarded, the absolute majority of proxy areas outside legally protected areas must be subject to these measures. Areas under assessment where this is considered to be the case are classified as LOW RISK areas.

2.3.6 Step 7. Specified risk areas Areas under assessment where component values not classified as low risk areas remain, should be classified as areas of SPECIFIED RISK for the whole of the HCV (1-6) to which the HCV component belongs. Taking HCV 4 as an example, in areas under assessment where topography, soils and precipitation combine to make landslides an issue of concern, areas where riparian zones are effectively safeguarded, but without effective protection of slopes, must be considered as SPECIFIED RISK for all of HCV 4.

4 In line with the precautionary low risk threshold for HCV occurrence set at 1%, we designate the “absolute majority” as 99% of the corresponding HCV proxy area.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Box 1 - The Six Categories of High Conservation Values

HCV1. Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered species, that are significant at global, regional or national levels.

HCV2. Intact Forest Landscaoes and large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

HCV3. Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia.

HCV4. Basic ecosystem services in critical situations, including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes.

HCV5. Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water, etc.), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples.

HCV6. Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples.

Common Guidance for the Identification of HCV (HCVRN, Oct. 2013)

2.4 References and data sources

The sources for all data used in the risk analysis are listed at the end of the present report. These cover the sources suggested in FSC’s National Risk Assessment Framework procedure (PRO-60-002a Section 5.3.5), which were verified on the basis of consultations with national experts. All data was processed according to the agreed methodology outlined in sections above, and as detailed in the relevant following paragraphs. The conclusions presented were drawn on the basis of this data analysis. Where additional input was used to corroborate findings, exact references to papers and other publications are indicated as footnotes where directly relevant.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

3 Identification of low risk areas for HCVs in Finland

3.1 The Finnish context

3.1.1 Spatial Scale for the Analysis The FSC procedure recommends a maximum scale at which the risk assessments should be conducted for each HCV category (FSC-PRO-60-002a V1, Section 5.4).

Finland is split between 3 ecoregions according to the WWF classification: the “Scandinavian and Russian Taiga” covers the majority of the country, while the southernmost tip of Finland features a small area of “Sarmatic Mixed Forests”, and the northernmost tip very small zones presenting the characteristics of “Scandinavian montane birch forests and grasslands”. While the ecoregions are a good indication of the general type of large scale biomes, they do not capture variation at smaller scales. In the case of Finland, available data allow for analyses at a finer, regional level that provides a higher spatial resolution than the minimum recommended in the FSC procedure for each indicator/HCV category.

3.1.2 Identification and Location of the 6 categories of High Conservation Values Finland has not yet developed a national interpretation for the six categories of HCVs. However, Annex 9 of the Finnish FSC Standard designates “High Conservation Values areas” in Finland. These are used as guidance in this analysis to identify different HCV components, along with proxies based on best practice, generic definitions set out in the HCVRN Common Guidance for the identification of High Conservation Values, and input from environmental and social stakeholders and expertise.

3.1.3 Protected Areas and other Safeguards 3.1.3.1 Legally protected areas The Finnish protected network includes approximately 500 protected areas, among them national parks, strict nature reserves and wilderness areas. The majority of Statutory Protected Areas in Finland are located in the forested north of the country, and represent somewhat less than 10% of the total land area. Neither logging nor permanent settlements are allowed within a protected area, but some activities are, such as reindeer herding and hunting. The Finnish protected area system is a network of National Parks, Strict Nature Reserves and Wilderness Areas on state land, designed to conserve the northernmost part of the country and maintain the customary practices of the indigenous Saami people.

An independent international Management Effectiveness Evaluation of the protected area system of Finland and the Natural Heritage Service of Metsahallitus in charge of its

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

management was completed in 20055. The assessment resulted in a generally good rating of the statutory protected areas in Finland, which were also considered adequately funded by the state.

Additionally, Finland ranks among the “Most Clean” countries in the world according to Transparency International indices: on this basis we assume laws are generally respected, and effectively enforced. This assessment should be completed on the basis of FSC’s legality assessment for Category 1 under the new Controlled Wood system.

Figure 2: Statutory protected area network of Finland.

Protected areas established on state land are managed under the Nature Conservation Act, which defines the objectives and means of protection. The management of protected areas is also guided by the Principles of Protected Areas Management in Finland, a regularly revised document (most recently in 2007). The Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Service is responsible for the management and monitoring of protected areas. The service coordinates regular assessments and documentation on the values protected by the area network, especially biodiversity and habitats. However, further data is needed on cultural values, as well as more comprehensive threat assessments.

Protected areas on privately owned land are established under the Land Use and Building Act at regional level, on the basis of decisions by the ELY centres. Some are directly

5 Brian Gilligan, Nigel Dudley, Antonio Fernandez de Tejada, Heikki Toivonen 2005: Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Finland's Protected Areas. Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series A. 147. 175 pp. Followed by: Heinonen Mervi (toim.) 2007, State of the Parks in Finland - Finnish Protected Areas and Their Management from 2000 to 2005. Metsähallitus.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

connected to state-owned protected areas and may benefit from some shared management.

3.1.3.2 Other safeguards The European Habitat Directives offers some generic level of protection but areas are not delineated. The absolute majority of Finnish forest land is PEFC certified, and the Finnish PEFC standard recognises Natura 2000 network as areas to be safeguarded and not deteriorated. However, the Habitats Directive and PEFC certification (most of which is implemented through regional certification requiring less individual commitment than regular group certification) may not be sufficient for mitigating risks.

Figure 3: Natura 2000 Network in Finland6.

The national conservation programme delineates areas that are candidates for official protection. Some of these are in advanced stages of the process, and so may be de facto safeguarded, while others have just entered the process. Even though most may eventually be protected, maintenance in the interim only relies on informal mechanisms.

6 All maps were projected in the national grid EUREF FIN TM35FIN.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Figure 4: Nature Conservation Programme areas in Finland.

3.2 Indicator 3.1: HCV1 Species diversity

3.2.1 HCV definition and components

Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered species, that are significant at global, regional or national levels.

To identify values under this category, we consider concentrations of species important at the national level. The HCVRN Common Guidance for HCV identification lists nationally rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species, as well as endemic and temporally occurring species as components of HCV1.

There are no endemic species of forest ecosystems in Finland, and nationally significant temporal use areas (key sites for migrating birds, as indicated by recognised Important Bird Areas) largely consist of non-forest areas and forested lands assumed to be of little interest for forestry. Thus, our risk assessment focuses on areas of significance for RTE species.

3.2.2 Areas of occurrence Annex 9 of the Finnish FSC standard for forest management lists of areas and habitats considered as HCV 1 / HCV 3. It is very comprehensive and includes a number of habitats that may serve either as indicators of biodiversity or represent rare or threatened ecosystems. Some of these habitats seem likely to reflect nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity in line with the global definition of HCV1. Others may

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

represent rare or threatened ecosystems even if they do not host concentrations of RTE species and as such qualify as HCV3. However, Annex 9 also lists as HCV 1 / 3 a number of habitats that do not meet these requirements, even though they fit into Principle 6 (the point of FSC Principle 9 is to provide safeguards over and beyond Priniciple 6). This poses certain challenges. We have addressed them by evaluating all Annex 9 areas/habitats as potential HCV1 candidates, and then again consider if habitats that do not meet the definition of HCV1 may qualify as HCV3 in section 3.4.

HCV1 areas listed in Annex 9 of the Finnish FSC standard include:

 Natura 2000 areas - Figure 3.  Statutory protected areas7 on state land under the Nature Conservation Act, and on privately owned land through decisions by local Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY-Centres) - Figure 2.  Nature Conservation Programme areas - Figure 4. These are further considered below in section 3.2.4. In addition, Annex 9 refers to a number of habitats specified in indicator 6.4.1 of the national FSC forest management standard as HCV 1 / 3 if these habitats are “extensive” and “uniform” (guidance on size and properties in the standard). These additional habitats are:

Statutory sites: a. Habitats of special importance referred to in the Forest Act, section 10. b. Protected habitat types referred to in the Nature Conservation Act, section 293. c. Trees hosting large birds of prey referred to in the Nature Conservation Act, section 39. d. Habitats of species under strict protection referred to in the Nature Conservation Act, section 473. e. Breeding sites and resting places of species referred to in the Nature Conservation Act, section 49, and listed in Annex IV (a) of the Habitats Directive.3 f. Small waters meeting the criteria of the Water Act, sections 15 a, and 17 a.

These habitats are further considered in section 3.2.4.

Other sites: a. Sites meeting the criteria of a habitat of special importance referred to in the Forest Act, section 10, despite their size and regional occurrence. b. Heath forests and transformed mires rich in deadwood (as defined in Annex 7 of the standard). c. Wooded bedrock, cliffs and boulder fields with old growth and deadwood (as defined in Annex 8 of the standard). d. Spruce-dominated, advanced and older mesic herb-rich forests with more than 15 m3/ha of deadwood (created during a minimum of 10 years, DBH >10 cm). e. Mixed, advanced and older herb-rich forests with more than 10 m3/ha of deadwood (created during a minimum of 10 years, DBH >10 cm). f. Deciduous-dominated (>50%), advanced or older herb-rich forests with a natural and near-natural stand structure, and more than 5 m3/ha of deciduous deadwood.

7 Note that the current HCVRN Common Guidance considers protected areas as proxies for HCV1 rather than as values in and of themselves.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

g. Moist herb-rich forests with natural and near-natural hydrological conditions, and herb-rich forests with old, large or decay-damaged southern broadleaved trees. h. Wooded flood meadows. i. Spruce-dominated kettles. j. Rivers and brooks with natural or near-natural beds including their banks, as well as springs with a similar zone. k. Forests adjacent to water courses and small waters with an uneven-aged structure or a visible amount of deadwood. l. Natural or near-natural flads and gloe lakes including their shores. m. Natural or near-natural succession series, or single representative parts of succession series, of forests along emergent coastlines. n. Spruce mires, pine mires and bogs, fens, rich fens and (flooded) wooded swamps with natural and near-natural hydrological conditions. o. Natural or near-natural low-productive and non-productive lands.

In the following, we consider item a in the general context of statutory sites under the Forest Act Section 10. Items c, h, i, l and n are considered in the context of HCV3 in section 3.4.3. Items j and k, while certainly important habitats in the forest landscape, do not meet the definitions of either HCV1 or HCV3, this is also the case with item o. Item m is a somewhat special case: it includes a number of vegetation types representing first successional stages on new land created by uplift of previously submerged coastlines. We acknowledge that the uniqueness of early alder/birch-dominated successions on virgin, unleached soils merits designation as HCV3, but doubt if later coniferous-dominated succession stages diverge enough from other coniferous forests to be considered as separate ecosystems, and disregard them on these grounds. Thus, items b, d, e, f and g remain as potential HCV1 candidates. These may all be characterised as natural forests in medium-late stages of succession.

3.2.2.1 Natural forests in medium-late stages of succession In contrast to areas that are clearly delineated, mapped and designated under regional or national schemes (e.g. the Natura 2000 network under the EU Habitats Directive), Annex 9 forest types b, d, e, f, and g are difficult to precisely locate and delineate, and therefore need to be addressed through proxies. We have chosen two proxies, based on data from the most recent National Forest Inventory (NFI), in order to to capture the essence of values associated with these forest types:

Proxy 140-: Forests older than 140 years (180 years in Lapland where the harsh climate slows growth rates). This proxy addresses biodiversity values associated with natural forests in later successional stages: largely insects, polypores, liverworts and other organisms that utilise coarse conifer woody debris.

Proxy 100-140/20%: Forests older than 100 years where deciduous trees make up 20% or more of the canopy cover8. This proxy addresses biodiversity values associated with medium/later forest succession stages: species that utilise older living aspen and other

8 Canopy cover used here as an indicator of volume. Timber volumes were calculated on the basis of the study by Siitonen et al. (2000) – see footnote 12 and methodology in subsequent sections.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

deciduous trees include mosses, lichens, and hole-dwellers like flying squirrels9 and grey- headed woodpeckers. Organisms that utilise dead aspens and other deciduous trees include many beetles, hover-flies, some species of flat bugs, a number of polypores, and the white-backed woodpecker.

Heath forests and transformed mires rich in deadwood (b): We assume that (coniferous-dominated) heath forests rich in deadwood would normally be old or very old. SY 8 200810 distinguishes between mesic, sub-xeric and xeric sub-types: Old heath forests: Mesic spruce-dominated forest is classified as VU in northern Finland, where the total area is around 200,000 hectares, most of which is situated outside protected areas – see further section 3.2.4.3. Mesic deciduous-dominated forest is classified as EN in the south and VU in the north - this forest type is addressed by proxy 100-140/20%. Old sub-xeric and xeric forests are addressed by proxy 140- and 180- in S and N Finland, respectively. Very old heath forests: These are addressed by proxy 140- in S Finland and proxy 180- in Lapland.

Spruce-dominated, advanced and older mesic herb-rich forests (d), and mixed, advanced and older herb-rich forests (e), both with abundant coarse deadwood: These types are addressed by combining proxy 140- and proxy 100-140/20%.

Deciduous-dominated, advanced or older herb-rich forests with a natural and near-natural stand structure and some deciduous deadwood (f): We consider this type reasonably well addressed by proxy 100-140/20% (in combination with proxy 140- in SW Finland, where this forest type partly coincides with “herb-rich forests with old, large or decay-damaged southern broadleaved trees” as specified under g below).

Moist herb-rich forests with natural and near-natural hydrological conditions (g-1): (not adequately addressed by any of the proxies and considered as potential HCV 3 in section 3.4) and herb-rich forests with old, large or decay-damaged southern broadleaved trees (g-2): considered adequately addressed by proxy 100-140/20% and proxy 140-.

Next we calculated, for all regions, the total area meeting our proxy conditions, and multiplied this area with average volumes of wood reported from ‘mature old-growth forests’ (396m3/ha11) and ‘over-mature’ (331m3/ha) forests in southern Finland by Siitonen et al12. We consider these forest types to correspond well with our 140- and 100-140/20%

9 Reunanen, P., Mönkkönen, M, & Nikula, a. 2002. Habitat requirenments of the Siberian flying squirrel in northern Finland: comparing field survey and remote sensing data. Annales Zoologici Fennici 39:7-20. 10 Raunio, A., Schulman, A. & Kontula, T. 2008. Suomen Luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus – Osa 2. Suomen Ympäristö 8. Helsinki. 11 For Lapland 180- forests we used an estimated average volume of 300 m3. 12 Siitonen, J., Martikainen, P., Punttila, P. & Rauh, J. 2000. Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature and managed old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 128:211-225.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

proxies, respectively. Finally we calculated the proportion of the total wood resource in each region found in proxy areas (Table 1).

As is evident from the table and from Figure 5 and 6, three regions stand out: Lapland, Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia where the relative proportion of forest resources found in proxy areas is considerably higher than in the rest of Finland. This holds also if we correct for the fact that these areas are comparably well protected in state and private reserves (Table 2). In all other regions less than 1% of the total forest volume is found in proxy areas. Note that wood volumes in ‘mixed deciduous’ proxy areas are minute, compared to volumes of very old forest (i.e. a truly rare habitat in need of restoration as well as protection). Based on these proportions we consider all regions but Lapland, Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia to be of LOW RISK in relation to forest type b, d, e, f, and g2. Lapland, Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia are considered further below in section 3.2.4.3.

Figure 5: Natural forests in late successional stages. Adapted from Finland NFI 2011 data.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Figure 6: Natural, mixed forests in medium-late successional stages (Note that the map is for illustrative purposes: at the scale of the country some pockets of forests do not show). Adapted from Finland NFI 2011 data.

3.2.3 Threat assessment Most or all habitats and proxies considered above as HCV 1 are potentially threatened by forestry operations in terms of habitat removal, and to an extent, habitat fragmentation. Introduction of alien / invasive species is not an issue in Finnish forests, though.

3.2.4 Threat mitigation Statutory sites referred to in Annex 9 have a fair amount of legal protection through the Forest Act section 10 and the Nature Conservation Act, but safeguards are not complete. However, these habitats are mostly limited in extent and/ or productivity and thus of less interest to foresters, and management practices widely implemented across the majority of Finnish forestry operations can offer additional protection. We assume the combination of the legal framework enforced in Finland and those management practices provides adequate protection in most cases. Consequently we classify these statutory sites as of LOW RISK in all Areas under assessment.

However, for natural forests in medium-late and later stages of successions that exceed 5% of the forest management unit there is an explicit loophole in these provisions. In all regions but Lapland, a majority of these forests are found outside protected areas (see Table 2 and 3), and neither Natura 2000, nor the National Conservation Programme offers adequate complementary protection in the three regions where these forests occur at

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

levels above the 1% volume threshold - Lapland, Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia (see Table 1). Ironically, the relatively ambitious level of forest protection in Lapland may even increase the risk that timber sourced from the region will derive from older forests outside legally protected areas.

Table 2: The proportion of forest volume found in proxy areas in each of Finland’s regions. (See Annex 1 for background data used).

Total Total forest % mixed % very old found volume 100-140 yrs Total Region forest outside (million forest (%)14 (volume) protection m3)13 (volume) (%) Åland islands 12 5.10 0.60 5.70 5.70

Central Finland 183 0.19 0.03 0.22 0.19

Central Ostrobothnia Southern 140 0.32 0.01 0.33 0.31 Ostrobothnia Satakunta 151 0.50 0.01 0.51 0.49 Finland Proper Kainuu 167 11.86 0.03 11.89 9.82 Lapland 385 33.89 4.63 38.52 14.95 North Karelia 183 0.73 0.00 0.73 0.65 Northern 234 8.54 0.07 8.61 0.10 Ostrobothnia North Savonia 179 0.06 0.00 0.06 8.94 Ostrobothnia 58 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.32 Pirkanmaa 137 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.18 South Karelia 112 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 Kymenlaakso Southern Savonia 176 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Tavastia Proper Eastern Uusimaa 215 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.36 Paijanne Tavastia Uusimaa

13 Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2013. 14 Sum of the two previous columns.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Table 3: Level of overlap of Natura 2000 and National Conservation Programme with protected areas in each of the 19 regions of Finland considered (see Annex 1 for background data used). Proportion of the Proportion of the area found in area found in protected areas Area Region privately owned on state owned protected areas land (%) (%) Central Finland 16.47 6.69 Central Ostrobothnia 36.50 17.31 Eastern Uusimaa 9.37 21.91 Finland Proper 21.39 15.01 Kainuu 39.78 0.47 Kymenlaakso 20.49 16.93 Lapland 71.35 0.12 North Karelia 24.98 6.70 North Savonia 10.50 16.75 Natura 2000 Northern Ostrobothnia 44.78 5.10 Ostrobothnia 11.83 40.25 Paijanne Tavastia 8.82 11.38 Pirkanmaa 44.00 13.52 Satakunta 19.63 7.69 South Karelia 0.07 3.89 Southern Ostrobothnia 44.97 4.15 Southern Savonia 8.49 4.98 Tavastia Proper 25.78 7.34 Uusimaa 21.44 19.44 Central Finland 9.68 7.75 Central Ostrobothnia 24.70 19.55 Eastern Uusimaa 0.41 8.75 Finland Proper 5.38 7.40 Kainuu 30.77 0.58 Kymenlaakso 6.37 5.68 Lapland 44.60 0.44 North Karelia 13.63 9.03 National North Savonia 5.23 12.00 Conservation Northern Ostrobothnia 25.51 3.86 Programme Ostrobothnia 4.38 17.60 Paijanne Tavastia 2.88 5.61 Pirkanmaa 7.81 4.72 Satakunta 16.35 8.42 South Karelia 0.04 3.71 Southern Ostrobothnia 9.60 1.97 Southern Savonia 3.53 6.49 Tavastia Proper 3.44 4.01 Uusimaa 4.34 10.33

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Table 4: Level of overlap of Very old forests and Natural forests in medium-late stages of successions with protected areas in each of the 19 regions of Finland considered (see Annex 1 for background data used). N.B. Very old forests were defined as over 140 years old for all regions but Lapland, where the threshold was set at 180 yr, using data from the latest National Forest Inventory (2011). Proportion of Proportion of proxy area found proxy area found in protected in privately Area Region areas on state owned protected owned land areas (%) (%) Central Finland 3.12 0.65 Central Ostrobothnia 3.38 0.51 Eastern Uusimaa - 0.28 Finland Proper 1.13 1.86 Kainuu 16.73 0.28 Kymenlaakso 27.82 0.25 Lapland 55.46 0.02 North Karelia 9.36 1.29 Very old forests North Savonia 8.63 4.03 (>140 years old, Northern Ostrobothnia 19.45 0.50 >180 years old in Ostrobothnia 0.01 1.67 Lapland) Paijanne Tavastia 0.04 - Pirkanmaa 6.16 0.12 Satakunta 0.26 0.25 South Karelia - 1.73 Southern Ostrobothnia 0.45 0.06 Southern Savonia 1.42 5.96 Tavastia Proper 6.85 - Uusimaa 14.61 4.32 Central Finland 0.96 1.12 Central Ostrobothnia 1.70 1.96 Eastern Uusimaa 32.70 13.95 Finland Proper 7.19 28.48 Kainuu 86.68 0.44 Kymenlaakso 13.43 10.89 Natural forests in Lapland 78.96 0.08 medium-late North Karelia 1.00 1.77 stages of North Savonia 0.27 0.68 successions (>20% Northern Ostrobothnia 10.52 0.20 deciduous canopy Ostrobothnia 0.03 1.19 cover, 100-140 yr Paijanne Tavastia 0.74 0.76 old) Pirkanmaa 0.53 0.19 Satakunta 0.88 0.63 South Karelia 0.00 0.02 Southern Ostrobothnia 0.17 0.04 Southern Savonia 1.90 1.81 Tavastia Proper 2.36 0.49 Uusimaa 2.88 3.73

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

3.2.5 Risk assessment for HCV1 in Finland The Åland islands, Lapland, Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia are classified as of SPECIFIED RISK, all other regions are classified as of LOW RISK.

Figure 7: Risk Map for HCV1 in Finland.

3.3 Indicator 3.2: HCV2 Landscapes

3.3.1 HCV definition and components

Large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

The critical aspect of this second category of HCV is functional connectivity of natural, relatively undisturbed, ecosystems at the landscape scale. For the purposes of this analysis, we apply a size threshold of 10,000 ha to characterise a potential HCV2, consistent with the HCVRN Common Guidance and several other national interpretations.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

3.3.2 Areas of occurrence The Finnish FSC standard refers to protected areas in regional plans as areas of HCV2. However, these are typically much smaller than 10,000 ha, and to the extent they contain natural forests in medium-late succession stages they are addressed though proxies for HCV1. Here we consider Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) as defined by Greenpeace, the World Resources Institute and Transparent World15, and other forest landscapes larger than 10,000 ha dominated by very old forests, as valid proxies for HCV2 (see the HCV Resource Network’s Common Guidance for HCV Indentification and Interpretation).

While some old and very old forest are present in most regions of Finland, it is only in Lapland that such forests occur in patterns of connectivity and size that justify their consideration as HCV2 (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Very old forests (>180 years) in Lapland, according to NFI2011 data, and Intact Forest Landscapes in Lapland (www.intactforests.org).

3.3.3 Threat assessment of HCV2 in Lapland IFLs and other older forests are potentially at risk from forestry activities, in terms of habitat removal and, particularly, fragmentation. IFL areas without legal protection have been the subject of heated disputes between Finnish conservation NGOs and the authorities. These were largely settled in 2009 with the Forest Lapland agreement, which set out specific land use designations for each area (including “no forestry use” (Figure 9).

15 www.intactforests.org

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

1. Raakevuoma 2. Pokka-Pulju 3. Peurakaira 4. Painopää 5. Jooseppitunturi 6. Ahmatunturi 7. Isoselkä 8. Moukavaara

Figure 9: Areas (in red) included in the Forest Lapland agreement of 2009 (top). Land uses have been designated as part of the agreement (see as example the map of Isoselka, below). Note that Forest Lapland areas are not legally protected (Source: http://www.metsa.fi).

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

3.3.4 HCV safeguards and threat mitigation The vast majority of IFL area in Lapland is legally protected under the Nature Conservation Act, and as such effectively safeguarded. The Forest Lapland 2009 agreement includes additional IFL areas and sets aside most – but not all - of them from logging, at least temporarily. While this lasts, we assume this agreement to effectively mitigate threats where it applies.

However, some HCV2 candidate landscapes identified through the NFI 2011 data fall outside IFLs, are not protected through the Nature Conservation Act, and are not included in the Forest Lapland agreement (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Larger areas of, legally or by agreement, unprotected very old forest that may qualify as HCV2.

3.3.5 Risk assessment for HCV2 in Finland Based on the above considerations, we classify Lapland as of SPECIFIED RISK. All other regions are classified as LOW RISK.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Figure 11: Risk Map for HCV2 in Finland.

3.4 Indicator 3.3: HCV3 Ecosystems

3.4.1 HCV definition and components

Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia.

While there is no explicit qualifier in the definition, we apply the same national-global significance threshold to RTE ecosystems as to HCV1 and 2, in line with the HCVRN guidelines. Note that, as a result of the close link between certain RTE species and their habitats, there is a considerable overlap between HCV3 and HCV1.

3.4.2 Areas of occurrence Annex 9 of FSC Finnish Standard identifies as HCV3:

 Important Bird Areas (IBAs)  Extensive mire formations

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

In addition, habitats listed under indicator 6.4.1 of the FSC standard for forest management are designated as HCV 1/3 if they occur extensively and uniformly. To avoid duplication, we do not discuss again here habitat categories already assessed as potential HCV1. ‘Left-overs’ from section 3.2.2 to be considered as potential HCV3 candidates include:

 Wooded bedrock, cliffs and boulder fields with old growth and deadwood (c)  Moist herb-rich forests with natural and near-natural hydrological conditions (g- 1)  Wooded flood meadows (h)  Spruce-dominated kettles (i)  Natural or near-natural flads and gloe lakes and their shores (l)  Spruce mires, pine mires and bogs, fens, rich fens and (flooded) wooded swamps with natural and near-natural hydrological conditions (n)  (Younger stages) of natural or near-natural succession series of forests along emergent coastlines (m)

Figure 12: Important Bird Areas and mire reserves (designated under the Nature Conservation Act) in Finland. These mire reserves represent only a subset of mires that meet the ‘extensive’ threshold.

3.4.3 Threats and mitigation Important Bird Areas: A monitoring report16 published in 2011 highlighted deterioration of Finnish IBAs, particularly on wetlands, and indicated that these are inadequately protected and managed. The report also pointed to the need for funding and appropriate

16 Ellermaa, M. and Lindén, A. (2011) Suomen linnustonsuojelualueiden tila: suoejlu on unohdettu ja linnut voivat huonosti [Birds are not taken seriously in Finnish bird protection areas]. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/IBAs/MonitoringPDFs/2011_Finnish_IBA_report.pdf

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

planning to maintain important wetlands in the country: although site specific management plans are required by law, they are still lacking in over 50% of Finland’s IBAs. However, as most IBAs consist of shorelines, lakes and wetlands (Figure 13), we assume that they are unlikely to be impacted by forestry operations and classify them as of LOW RISK.

Figure 13: Detail of typical Important Bird Areas in relation to the hydrological network in Finland.

Extensive mire formations, mires, bogs, fens, swamps as well as moist, herb-rich forests with natural hydrology: We assume that forest regeneration as required by the Forest Act in moist and wet areas normally require lowering of the water table. While Finland has a history of massive draining of various kinds of wetlands17, mires, bogs and fens to increase the area of productive forest land, there are now explicit provisions for most of these habitats, both in the Forest Act section 10 and in Criterion 9 of the PEFC standard (applied in the vast majority of forestry operations in all regions of Finland). The costs of logging such areas are also higher, and average returns lower, than on mesic sites. We consider it unlikely that wood from such areas would be sourced as CW and classify them as of LOW RISK.

Wooded bedrock, cliffs and boulder fields with old growth and deadwood: Although the productivity on wooded bedrock in fact often exceeds the low threshold used to define non-productive forest lands, the costs of forest management on such sites generally outweighs economic returns. This is also the case for operations on cliffs and boulder fields, provisioned for in the Forest Act, section 10. We classify all of these as of LOW RISK.

17 Aapala K., Kokko A., Mikkola-Roos M. 2011. State of Wetlands in Finland – Threatened Wetland Types, SYKE.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Wooded flood meadows, spruce-dominated kettles, flads and gloe lakes, and younger succession stages of forests along emergent coastlines: These are generally small areas (refer to methodology), explicitly provided for in the Forest Act. We consider them to be of LOW RISK.

3.4.4 Risk assessment for HCV3 in Finland Based on the above considerations, we classify all Finland as of LOW RISK for HCV3.

3.5 Indicator 3.4: HCV4 Ecosystem Services

3.5.1 HCV definition and components

Basic ecosystem services in critical situations, including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes.

The fourth category of HCV addresses ecosystem services in critical situations, i.e. in situations where loss or degradations would have severe consequences for the parties relying on them. The HCVRN Common Guidance considers three components of HCV4:

 Protection against soil erosion in critical situations, e.g. severe landslides  Barriers to destructive fires  Protection of water quality and quantity Critical soil erosion is not considered a problem in Finland where the topography is mostly flat and precipitation rates are low, as is typical of a subarctic climate. Fires are part of the natural dynamics in the biome, but they are normally effectively controlled, and the problem in a biodiversity perspective is rather the low incidence of fire compared to natural conditions. Thus, fire breaks are not considered relevant in the Finnish context, and our risk assessment focuses of water quality and quantity.

3.5.2 Areas of occurrence As illustrated in the hydrology map below (Figure 13), Finland has an abundance of rivers and lakes, some of which form large interconnected aquatic systems.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Figure 14: Hydrological network of Finland (Source: SYKE).

3.5.3 Threat assessment A considerable portion of the human population of Finland relies on water from ground water sources. However, negative impacts on ground water quality from forestry activities have been assessed as negligible18 in existing literature, and lead to the conclusion that negative impacts of forestry management activities on human health (see specific threat to HCV4 in the FSC NRAF PRO-60-002a) are likely to be limited. Furthermore, the large surplus of precipitation over evaporation also ensures that aquifers are adequately recharged regardless of land use, and so that water quantity should not be impacted.

Surface waters are more exposed, and forestry operations, particularly clear-felling, drainage and soil scarification may potentially cause negative impacts such as turbidity, siltation and eutrophication. Also, roads built across streams, or river crossings by machinery more generally, may disturb water flow and block aquatic connectivity. Use of pesticides, otherwise a potential threat to water quality, is negligible in Finnish forestry.

3.5.4 HCV safeguards and threat mitigation Several large watersheds and aquifers have been identified as of high value for water quality and recharge under the Water Act (Figure 15), which we assume provides for effective protection, even if it mostly regulates activities that have little to do with forestry. Other potential impacts appear to be mitigated through provisions in the Forest Act, section 10.2.11 which address the immediate surroundings of springs, brooks,

18 Rusanen K., Finér L., Antikainen M., Korkka-Niemi K., Backman B., Britschgi R. (2004) The Effect of Forest Cutting on the Quality of Groundwater in Large Aquifers in Finland, Boreal Environment Research 9:253-261.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

permanent rivulets and small ponds, and widely applied standard operating procedures that maintain vegetation cover of riparian zones and regulate stream crossings.

Figure 15: Important catchments and aquifers in Finland (Finnish Water Act).

3.5.5 Risk assessment for HCV4 in Finland Based on the above considerations, we classify all Finland as LOW RISK for HCV4.

3.6 Indicator 3.5: HCV5 Basic needs of local communities

3.6.1 HCV definition and components

Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water, etc.), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples.

3.6.2 Areas of occurrence In order to qualify as HCV5, forest sites or resources must be of fundamental importance to satisfy basic livelihood needs. This is unlikely to be the case in regions where traditional subsistence practises play a very minor role in local economies. Consequently, we consider most regions to be LOW RISK. Regions with a long history of reindeer husbandry – Lapland and Northern Ostrobothnia – are subject to further discussion below.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

3.6.3 Threat assessment The FSC NRAF (PRO-60-002a) identifies ‘compromising (impacting) fundamental needs of local communities by management activities’ as the main potential threat to HCV5 from forestry activites. Forest sites and resources utilised for reindeer husbandry are likely to be affected both by logging (trees with pendulous lichens provide important winter fodder during snowy winters) and other forest management practices (such as soil scarification which may reduce the amount of lichens on the ground, another staple food for reindeer during lean seasons). We assume that such sites and resources may be fundamentally important for Saami reindeer herding (essentially a traditional way of life, albeit utilising modern means of transport and communication).

3.6.4 HCV safeguards and threat mitigation Comparatively large areas of northernmost Finland are safeguarded as National parks, Wilderness areas and other protected areas. While these protect much land where reindeer husbandry is practised, substantial areas, including significant areas of old growth forest particularly important in this context, lack formal protection (see 3.3.4).

The state forest enterprise is required to consult with Saami representatives about forest management and protection that may impact on their rights as outlined in the Saami Parliament Act, section 9 (1995). These provisions, and the extent of protected areas, appear to effectively safeguard the interests of reindeer husbandry. While feedback demonstrates that this has not always been the case in the past, information19 related to Controlled Wood indicator 2.3 provided by Jan Saijets, Finnish Saami reindeer herders´ association, and Kirsi-Marja Korhonen, Metsähallitus Regional director of Forestry, indicates that earlier disputes have been settled, and that adequate dispute resolution mechanisms are in place. Consequently we classify also regions where reindeer husbandry occurs as LOW RISK. However, we do recognise the particular challenges of assessing social aspects from afar, and recommend that this classification is revisited and confirmed, or if necessary revised, as part of the national specification of risks and mitigation measures. This would also provide an opportunity to take into account Finland’s projected ratification of ILO Convention 169 on the rights of Indigenous and tribal peoples (planned for 2015).

3.6.5 Risk assessment for HCV5 in Finland Based on the above considerations, we classify all Finland as of LOW RISK for HCV5.

3.7 Indicator 3.6: HCV6 Sites of cultural significance

3.7.1 HCV definition and components

19 Available through FSC Finland.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples.

The definition includes two major components: archaeological and/or historical values of national or global significance, and such values of critical importance for traditional local and indigenous culture.

3.7.2 Areas of occurrence The seven endorsed, and six prospective, globally significant World Heritage sites in Finland demonstrates that globally significant archaeological or historical sites are found in several parts of the country, and we assume nationally significant sites to be present in all regions.

3.7.3 Threat assessment For HCV6, FSC’s NRAF highlights the ‘destruction and / or disturbance of rights/ values determining HCV 6 presence’ as the main potential threat resulting from forestry activities.

3.7.4 HCV safeguards and threat mitigation The Finland Antiquities Act (1963) provides strong legal protection to monuments, remnants and artefacts from Finland’s past history and settlement. Values explicitly included are mounds of earth and stone; old graves and burial sites; stones and rock faces with inscriptions or paintings; sacrificial springs, trees and stones and other ancient places of worship; remains of ancient dwellings; ancient dwellings; stones, crosses and statues erected in the past for religious purposes; and remains of ancient roads. These items, not to be altered or damaged in any way, are mapped and included in the Finnish Land Register.

Thus, already known and/or readily visible elements of archaeological or historical significance seem to be well catered for by an adequately implemented legislation. Unknown sites are less effectively protected. These are particularly vulnerable to soil scarification – even though the legislation in theory requires that activities are stopped immediately if there are signs of impacts on ancient remains, this does not always happen in practice as the machine driver may not detect them. However, short of a general ban of soil scarification, this is a threat that is difficult to effectively mitigate in practise, and on balance we classify all of Finland as of LOW RISK related to the national-global component of HCV6.

The Antiquities Act also explicitly safeguards structures and sites of critical importance for the cultures of indigenous peoples and local communities. These provisions, and the requirements on consultations with Saami people laid out in the Saami Parliament Act,

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

appear to effectively protect such values wherever they occur, including in regions inhabited by the Saami. Consequently, all of Finland is classified as LOW RISK.

3.7.5 Risk assessment for HCV6 in Finland Based on the above considerations, we classify all Finland as low risk for HCV6.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Annex 1. Data Sources20

Methodology references

Brown, E., Dudley, N., Lindhe, A., Muhtaman, D.R., Stewart, C. and Synnott, T. (eds.). 2013. Common guidance for the identification of High Conservation Values. HCV Resource Network.

FSC National Risk Assessment Framework (FSC-PRO-60-002a V1-0). 2014.

International agreements Environmental agreements http://www.ym.fi

International Agreements on Nature Conservation http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/SpeciesandHabitats/Internation alAgreementsonNatureConservation/Sivut/InternationalAgreementsonNatureConservatio n.aspx

HCV1 Protected areas 2013 managed by Metsähallitus as of 1.1.2013 http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/Sivut/Protected AreasmanagedbyMetsahallitus.aspx

Putkuri E., Lidholm M., Peltonen A. 2013, State of the Environment in Finland 2013, Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE Publication

Saving Nature for People, National Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland 2013-2020.

National Parks http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/nationalparks/Pages/Default.aspx

Strict Nature Reserves http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/StrictNatureRes erves/Sivut/StrictNatureReservesareforStudyingNature.aspx

Mire Reserves http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/MireReserves

Herb-rich Forest Reserves http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/HerbrichForest Reserves

Old-growth Forest Reserves http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/OldgrowthFore stReserves

Seal Reserves http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/SealReserves

20 See Section 2.4.

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Other Protected Areas http://www.outdoors.fi/DESTINATIONS/OTHERPROTECTEDAREAS/Pages/Default.aspx

Wilderness Areas http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/WildernessArea s

National Hiking Areas http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/NationalHiking Areas

Natura 2000 Areas http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/Natura2000Site s

Certified Protected Areas in Finland http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/CertifiedProtect edAreas

Finland Global 200 Eco regions http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/fenno_scandia_tundra_taiga.cfm http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/neatlantic_shelf_marine.cfm

Helcom Red list species information sheets - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Database of threatened species in Finland) http://helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Background/HEL COM%20RedList%20All%20SIS_Macrophytes.pdf

Finland Threatened forest species http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/sustainability/c4-threatened-forest.htm

Threatened Mire Species http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/SpeciesandHabitats/MireRestor ation/ThreatenedMireSpecies/Sivut/ThreatenedMireSpecies.aspx

Threatened Plants http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/SpeciesandHabitats/Threatened Plants/Sivut/ThreatenedPlants.aspx

Threatened Animals http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/SpeciesandHabitats/Threateded Animals/Sivut/ThreatenedAnimals.aspx

HCV2 large landscape level Greenpeace intact natural forest landscapes http://intactforests.org/world.map.html

Global Forest watch http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/FIN

HCV3 – Ecosystems and Habitats Natura 2000 Areas http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/Natura2000Site s

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

RAMSAR sites http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-notes-anno-finland/main/ramsar/1-30- 168%5E16405_4000_0__ HTTP://WWW.NORBALWET.ORG/OUR-WETLANDS/FINLAND/

Marine habitat http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/SpeciesandHabitats/MarineHabi tats

HCV5 and HCV6 Sami Homeland areas http://boreale.konto.itv.se/laante.htm http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/ProtectedAreas/WildernessArea s/Sivut/WildernessAreasinNorthernFinland.aspx http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/wildernessareas/Pages/Default.aspx

Cultural Heritage of the Sámi in Northern Lapland http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/historyandculture/culturalheritageofthesamiintheno rthernlapland/Pages/Default.aspx http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/CulturalHeritage/SamiCulture/Si vut/MetsahallitusPlaysaPartinPreservingSamiCulture.aspx

Heritage Farms and Heritage Landscapes http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/historyandculture/heritagefarmsandheritagelandsca pes/Pages/Default.aspx

National landscape http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/historyandculture/nationallandscapes/Pages/Defaul t.aspx http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Luonto/Maisemat/Kansallismaisemat

Prehistoric sites http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/historyandculture/prehistoricsites/Pages/Default.as px

Cultural Heritage http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/CulturalHeritage/Sivut/Metsaha llitusAlsoWorkstoConserveCulturalHeritage.aspx

World Heritage sites (UNESCO) http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/CulturalHeritage/WorldHeritage Convention/Sivut/WorldHeritageListSitesinMetsahallitusAreas.aspx www.minedu.fi http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Kansainvaeliset_asiat/kansainvaeliset_jaerjestoet/unesco/m aailmanperinto/index.html?lang=en

Cultural Environments http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/CulturalHeritage/CulturalEnviro nment/Sivut/ThreatenedCulturalEnvironmentsNeedConservation.aspx

Ancient Sites http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/NaturalHeritage/CulturalHeritage/AncientSites/Si vut/MetsahallitusisResponsibleforthePreservationofAncientSites.aspx

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

General data and maps Finland forest portal http://forestportal.efi.int/listg.php?c=FI

SYKE http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Services/Environmental_information_data_systems http://www.syke.fi/en-US/SYKE_Info/Organisation/Data_and_Information_Centre(3037)

OIVA - the environmental and geographical information service for experts http://wwwp2.ymparisto.fi/scripts/oiva.asp

Finland Forestry Centre http://metsakeskus.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html

Finnish Geological Survey http://en.gtk.fi/informationservices/map_services

National land survey Finland http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/file_download_service

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Annex 2. Background Data

Nature Conservation Natural mixed (>20% deciduous canopy Very old forests (>140 years Natura 2000 Programme cover) 100-140 year old forest old, >180 years old in Lapland)

Region Area in Area in Area in Area in Area in Area in Area in Area in private state Area private state Volume private state Area private state Area (ha) Area (ha) reserves reserves (ha) reserves reserves (m3) reserves reserves (ha) reserves reserves (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)

Åland islands ------218 72,158 0.81 - 1887 35.24 - Central 84,787 5,672 13,963 52,505 4,068 5,081 173 57,236 2 2 891 6 28 Finland Central 35,204 6,094 12,847 32,053 6,268 7,917 52 17,141 1 1 468 2 16 Ostrobothnia Eastern 12,657 2,773 1,186 31,083 2,719 129 3 1,117 0 1 31 0 0 Uusimaa Finland 37,420 5,617 8,004 66,274 4,905 3,565 30 9,951 9 2 1,158 22 13 Proper Kainuu 170,281 800 68,062 165,552 966 50,931 127 41,919 1 110 50,033 140 8,371 Kymenlaakso 14,239 2,411 2,918 44,692 2,538 2,846 5 1,539 1 1 46 0 13 Lapland 3,657,716 4,389 2,572,765 926,514 4,060 413,242 53,902 17,841,496 41 42,560 434,904 89 196,176 North Karelia 116,389 7,798 29,088 117,743 10,633 16,053 1 372 0 0 3,378 44 316 North 57,146 9,572 5,998 58,699 7,043 3,067 3 1,070 0 0 50,455 252 9,813 Savonia Northern 261,540 13,339 117,167 293,659 11,329 74,919 509 168,478 1 54 252 10 22 Ostrobothnia Ostrobothnia 21,085 8,487 2,495 42,675 7,509 1,869 4 1,264 0 0 474 8 0 Paijanne 20,441 2,326 1,802 34,375 1,930 989 0 58 0 0 14 0 0 Tavastia Pirkanmaa 35,380 4,783 15,566 72,309 3,416 5,646 1 361 0 0 682 1 42

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland

Satakunta 48,442 3,725 9,513 45,262 3,810 7,398 1 178 0 0 740 2 2 South Karelia 31,266 1,216 21 47,893 1,775 21 0 42 0 0 18 0 0 South 31,038 1,288 13,954 59,339 1,168 5,697 4 1,363 0 0 667 0 3 Ostrobothnia South 202,222 10,071 17,177 130,849 8,489 4,624 1 318 0 0 35 2 0 Savonia Tavastia 24,519 1,800 6,325 42,418 1,701 1,460 0 32 0 0 10 0 1 Proper Uusimaa 36,043 7,007 7,729 55,032 5,683 2,387 6 2,126 0 0 2,318 100 339

FSC Controlled Wood Centralised National Risk Assessment Category 3 (HCV) in Finland