Conservation implications of exporting domestic wood harvest to neighboring countries

Abstract

Among wealthy countries, increasing imports of natural resources to allow for unchecked consumption and greater domestic environmental conservation has become commonplace. This practice can negatively affect biodiversity conservation planning if natural resource harvest is merely pushed across political borders. As an example, we focus on the boreal forest ecosystem of Finland and northwest Russia. While the majority of protected forests are in northern Finland, the majority of biodiversity is in southern Finland, where protection is more difficult due to high private ownership, and the effectiveness of functioning conservation networks is more uncertain due to a longer history of land use. In northwest Russia, the current protected areas are inadequate to preserve most of the region's naturally dynamic and old growth forests. Increased importation of wood from northwest Russia to Finland may jeopardize the long-term viability of species in high diversity conservation areas in both Russia and Finland, through isolating conservation areas and lowering the age of the surrounding forest mosaic. The boreal forest ecosystem of Fennoscandia and northwest Russia would thus be best conserved by a large scale, coordinated conservation strategy that addresses long-term conservation goals and wood consumption, forest industries, logging practices and trade.

Introduction

Historically, nature conservation has usually occurred domestically, as unique or inspiring landscapes were preserved for recreation, or private hunting and harvesting. Such conservation areas ranged from publicly owned national parks in the United States to the woods and gardens of royal families in Europe (Davenport and Rao, 2002). Landscape conservation has also been driven by the need for products and services supplied by intact ecosystems. For example, conserving forested land in the Catskills watershed was motivated by the demand for a secure water supply for New York City (Chichilinsky and Heal, 1998). With increasing awareness of the current global species extinction crisis, conservation concern has shifted to a more global scale, through prioritizing areas supporting high species diversity (“hotspots”) or endemic and endangered species, especially in tropical biomes (Prendergast et al., 1993, Myers et al., 2000). These different motivations can result in conflicting advice on which lands to conserve or restore. While a focus on domestic habitat conservation may be positive for biodiversity in the short term, exporting the displaced natural resource extraction can endanger domestic biodiversity in the long term if the protected and exploited areas are ecologically connected. Biodiversity conservation, therefore, needs to occur at relevant spatial and temporal scales, not just those relevant for political or economic reasons.

The “environmental Kuznets curve” concept predicts that environmental damage – such as natural resource extraction, which leads to species loss – is highest in societies at intermediate levels of income, where demand for economic growth outweighs demand for environmental protection (Dietz and Adger, 2003). This pattern may not hold in practice, especially if countries with high incomes export their environmental footprint and natural resource extraction to areas with lower incomes and environmental protection (Brachares et al., 2004). When goods production can be geographically separated from consumption through international trade, the point at which environmental deterioration decreases with rising income may be delayed or never realized (Khanna and Plassmann, 2004). Exporting wood harvest to meet domestic demand for consumption and forest protection is common (Sedjo, 1995, Sohngren et al., 1999, Berlik et al., 2002, Leppänen et al., 2005). Ignoring the complicated relationship between biodiversity conservation, income and international trade can frustrate conservation efforts at many scales (Adams et al., 2004, Brachares et al., 2004).

Here, we analyze a case in the boreal region, wherein high income and demand for forest protection in Finland has coincided with an increase in imported wood logged from northwestern Russia. We note that in this case, shifting extraction beyond Finland's border may eventually be to the detriment of not only the last remaining natural forests in Russia, but also Finland's own national conservation efforts. Displaced logging may cut off Finland's forests from the rest of the biome upon which its native species depend—a potential “boomerang” effect. Our objectives are to: (1) illustrate current trends in logging and nature conservation in northern Europe, (2) demonstrate limitations of the current approaches of nature conservation, and (3) suggest a more holistic approach to nature protection, reconciling forest ecosystem protection with consumption through improvements in forestry practices, technologies, consumption patterns, and broad scale conservation planning.