Point of view | Leena Kristeri: The success of restoration will not be decided in Brussels, but together with landowners
Strengthening biodiversity, improving the conditions of waterways and adapting to climate change are goals that we must work for. At the same time, we must remember that to a great extent, restoration in Finland will involve land in private ownership. If landowners do not trust the process and are not committed to it, or if they are not treated fairly, these goals will not be translated into practical action.
The EU’s Nature Restoration Law requires the condition of degraded ecosystems to be improved by 2050. Finland’s national restoration plan is currently under preparation. This is not a short-term project, but will require decisions whose effects will be with us for decades. This is why we must now make wise decisions on the content, funding and national choices of the plan. We cannot afford to overlook its effects on the environment, the landowners, the livelihoods and the national economy.
When making its national choices on restoration, Finland must act with healthy self-interest. This does not mean belittling the nature-related goals, but it does mean making full use of the latitude provided in the regulation and taking account of what is unique to Finland. Forests, agriculture, food production, the availability of timber and rural vitality are of exceptional significance for Finland. Therefore the implementation of the regulation must be in harmony with the conditions in Finland.
The greatest concern, from the landowners’ viewpoint, is related to uncertainty. If there is ambiguity in the interpretation of habitats and if the cost of restoration cannot be known or the impact reliably assessed, it will be difficult to build trust. It is of particular importance that the definitions of forested habitats are precise and predictable, as well as taking national circumstances into account. If demarcations are unclear, this may have unintended effects on decisions taken by the landowners, on the timber market and on investments.
Finland could well follow the example of Sweden, where emphasis is laid on making use of the latitude provided, cost-effectiveness, voluntary action and incentives. The starting point is to have solutions that can be implemented in practice and a realistic level of funding, rather than new prohibitions or restrictions.
The stance adopted in Finland is that restoration measures on private land will be based on voluntary action. This is a proper starting point, but it must also be implemented in practice. If the implementation leads indirectly to new obligations, restrictions of use or what is known as grey protection, trust will quickly be eroded. For this reason, safeguarding the rights of landowners, an open assessment of impact and adequate compensation are the prerequisites of success.
The METSO programme has shown that the state of nature can be effectively improved when landowners themselves are allowed to decide and then receive an appropriate compensation. The same approach needs to be adopted in restoration.
Improving the state of nature can also open up new opportunities. The market for nature values, voluntary restoration projects and the increasing interest of businesses in nature-related investments can create new sources of income for landowners. This, however, requires clear and unambiguous rules, a functioning market and stable funding.
What we need is a plan that improves the state of nature while also safeguarding the rights of ownership, the prerequisites for livelihoods and rural vitality. The commitments given to the Commission must be realistic, legally sustainable and financially viable.
In the end, restoration is not just about hectares or goals expressed in percentages. It is about improving the state of nature in a way that is ecologically, financially and socially sustainable. It is an operation in which landowners are not a problem, but an important part of the solution.