{"id":17724,"date":"2022-02-02T09:31:43","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T09:31:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/?p=17724"},"modified":"2022-02-28T14:10:22","modified_gmt":"2022-02-28T14:10:22","slug":"scientists-investigate-biodiversity-denial-finnish-forest-owners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/scientists-investigate-biodiversity-denial-finnish-forest-owners\/17724\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientists investigate biodiversity loss denial among Finnish forest owners"},"content":{"rendered":"
Various surveys conducted regarding forest owners have found that private family forest owners in Finland value nature and biodiversity. However, these findings tell us more about the general ideals regarding Western culture than about forest owners as protectors of biodiversity.<\/p>\n
The collaborative research team identified three common modes of thought, that forest owners employ to conceptualise the maintenance of biodiversity, and their own role within that process. These modes of thought also consider various concepts regarding sustainable forest use among family forest owners, who hold control over the use of two thirds of Finland\u2019s forests.<\/p>\n
Scientists discovered that just under 40% of forest owners fall back on a mode of thought, which calls for them not to promote biodiversity more than the law requires. Owners may agree to the management measures that are recommended for their commercial forests by forestry professionals to appease them, but they do not perceive a genuine need for these measures.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo this group, the problem of biodiversity loss does not exist, and concerns about the environment are seen as unrealistic fringe ideas held by nature conservationists. Modern ideas about sustainability are not part of this mode of thought,\u201d explained Tuomo Takala, a researcher at the University of Eastern Finland.<\/p>\n
In comparison, the next 40% of forest owners are left with a positive feeling that they have done their part to conserve biodiversity, so long as they follow the standard measures for taking biodiversity into account in cutting operations, such as, a buffer zone on the shoreline, or a group of retention trees left in a clear-cut area.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the habitats of endangered species can also be saved in cutting operations without any opposition, as long as the habitats are known beforehand, and are not too large or many.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo this group, finding existing areas of high nature value and preserving them in an economically optimal way is precisely what is meant by conservation of biodiversity. Thanks to the best forestry in the world, there cannot be such a thing as biodiversity loss here,\u201d Takala commented.<\/p>\n
Scientists have noted that forest owners prefer to leave responsibility for conserving biodiversity to the forestry professionals who plan the cuttings. This multi-objective forestry outlook is also the mainstream view of sustainable forestry in Finnish forest policy.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can think of it as a weak-sustainability model that approaches the different dimensions of sustainability equally in principle, but in which commercial forest use ultimately sets the framework that conservation efforts operate within,\u201d Takala added.<\/p>\n
The modes of thought considered illustrate two of the ways that forest owners keep the unpleasant idea of biodiversity loss out of their observation, even if biodiversity loss in Finnish forests is well documented and frequently raised in the media.<\/p>\n
Scientists stress that these modes, and other manifestations of biodiversity loss denial, should be discussed more; just like climate change denial was discussed in the recent past.<\/p>\n
\u201cAccording to this mode of thought, we are quickly destroying our forest nature,\u201d Takala explained. \u201cAccording to this group, the way we use forests needs to be changed fundamentally and quickly, either voluntarily or through further regulation.<\/p>\n
\u201cEspecially old-growth forests need to be removed from commercial forestry use in significant numbers. Specific sites of high nature value and areas where endangered species currently exist are not the only things worth preserving \u2013 some sites where endangered species could settle in the coming decades should also be saved.\u201d<\/p>\n
Considering the requirements of nature means that concerned forest owners will have a framework that they can employ to plan their commercial forest use in a way that prioritises the ecological dimension of sustainability over the commercial dimension.<\/p>\n
Therefore, these forest owners would take the responsibility of conserving biodiversity into their own hands. This also means that they will not outsource the obligation to the forestry professionals who plan their cuttings, knowing that conserving biodiversity is not the primary task of these professionals.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this strong-sustainability mode of thought, the most impactful decisions from the biodiversity perspective have already been made before any forestry professionals enter the picture,\u201d Takala commented.<\/p>\n