relationship

Commensuration

yhteismitallistaminen

At the heart of the debate related to our forests lies the fact that the forest resources are limited and are subject to competing needs. We expect forests to supply us raw materials, sequester CO₂, safeguard biodiversity and adapt to the warming climate. This generates conflicts and misconceptions in politics and society.

To be able to address this issue commensurating is needed. To make something commensurate means it can be measured by a common standard. A group of researchers studied three overlapping strategies concerning the forests of Finland. They wanted to see whether they are compatible, so they estimated what kind of forest use is needed for each.

Management solutions for three policy scenarios

% share of forest management type

The Finnish national forest strategy from 2019 specifies the main objectives for forest-based business and activities until 2025.

The biodiversity strategy from 2012 aims to ensure a favourable status of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050.

The bioeconomy strategy from 2014 aims to simultaneously mobilise the resources for bioeconomy purposes and safeguard biodiversity.

Biggest conflicts lie between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. There were conflicting objectives even within individual policy strategies.

It turned out that they are conflicting. Not one of them can be reached with our current forest use. However well we calculate possible solutions and models, what it all comes down to in the end is values and choices. Do we think biodiversity is valuable? How much of it do we want to save? Do we only save what’s beneficial for humanity’s wellbeing, or do we have a duty to do more? First, a dialogue is needed, and political coordination is the key for implementation.