A potential role for EIA in Finnish forest planning: learning from experiences in Ontario, Canada

Forestry administrator framings of responses to socioeconomic disturbance: Examples from northern regions in Canada, Sweden, and Finland

“…Algoma in Northern Ontario, Canada; Norrbotten in Sweden; and Lapin lääni (Lapland) in Finland hold large forested areas of importance to major forestry industries but also local interests and multiple other industries, such as tourism industries, which use the forests for multiple uses, including hunting, fishing, berry picking, and traditional/customary uses. While forests are managed for and support multiple users, forest policy and planning decisions are primarily controlled by government and industry decision makers (Bullock, 2013;Hanna et al, 2012;Klenk et al, 2013). In Canada, however, most forest land is publically owned (Kant, 2009;Luckert et al, 2011), which constitutes an important difference because private ownership of land is common in Sweden and Finland (Table 1).…”

Reconsidering the role of public participation in the Finnish forest planning system

“…When preparing RFPs, forest centres must collaborate with other parties representing forestry, regional councils, environmental authorities and other relevant parties (Section 4.2 of the FA and Section 2.2 of the Decree on the Sustainable Forest Use and Management, 1234/2010). Regional forest programmes are general in nature and, have no legally binding effects at the stand level (Hanna et al, 2011;Salila, 2005). Regional forest programmes steer the funding policy of the forestry centres; otherwise they have little practical meaning for private forest owners.…”