innofor finland

Comments

Transcription

innofor finland
From Science to Society: Pioneering
Uneven-aged Forest Management Services
Marcus Walsh
Innofor Finland Ltd
www.innofor.fi
INNOvative FORestry:
• Why Innofor was founded (a history of
Finnish forestry in one slide)
• Who wants us
• What we do
• Experiences so far – 3 years after founding
• What we’d like to do better
100 years of Finnish forestry
– the short course
• Forestry was predominantly CCF 100 years ago.
• Major logging increases and change to clearcutting
after WW II driven by pulpwood needs.
• Statement against ”creaming” (plentern) in 1948 by
six leading forestry / industry professionals.
• Very little research into alternatives to clearcutting
up to 1990s (”one truth society”), but now rapidly
increasing. Forestry law improved a little in 1997.
• Now considerable pressure for multifunctional
commercial forestry approaches as society’s
perspective on forests changes Æ business opport.
WHO WANTS IT ?
Finnish forest owner groups’ attitudes
to clearcuts (2004, n = 573)
Conserv.
jäsenryhmä
6
49
Random
vertailuryhmä
Individual
19
kunnat
44
54
9
27
72
19
Municip.
seurakunnat
16
61
23
Parishes
0%
25 %
suhtautuu
varauksetta
Approves
50 %
suhtautuu
tietylläwelcome
varauksella
Alternatives
75 %
100 %
suhtautuu
Dislikeskielteisesti
INNOFOR FINLAND – WHAT WE DO
• A private Finnish forestry consultancy company
specialising in UAFM, founded 2007. Employees:8
• ”Critical moment”: change in Finnish forestry law
and studies showing UAFM viable in the Boreal.
• All aspects of forest management from planning
to logging and timber sales. Also FSC certification.
• Private and municipal clients, total about 10 000 ha.
• No own machinery, uses and trains local operators.
What is thinning, what is
regeneration felling ?
- Requirements based on evenaged thinking don’t always fit!
Natural regeneration requirements
for CCF?
- Not just seedlings but also
remaining trees!
POSITIVE EXPERIENCES SO FAR
– 3 YEARS AFTER FOUNDING
• Company fills a new niche: inordinate influence on
public debate in relation to its size.
• ”UAFM can’t be done with big machinery” has been
proven false.
• Treat local forestry officials with respect
Æ no legal troubles despite ”unorthadox” loggings.
• Best customers are those who
- know UAFM as effective, but are scared to use it
- owners who want to avoid clearcuts at all costs
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED SO FAR
• Paper companies give a bad price Æ hard to
operate in regions where they dominate as buyers.
• Group owners and municipalities often divided
over change of management Æ status quo remains.
• Expected more city-based owners, but these
passive and hard to activate through advertising.
• Many small farmers excellent customers but
uneconomical to service.
• Best customers widely scattered, increasing costs.
Margins small because of state-subsidised operators
WHAT WE’D LIKE TO DO BETTER
• Use the UAFM image better: FSC/PEFC dominates.
•Join up the quality manufacturing chain:
UAFMÆ quality woodworking Æ fine wood product
(www.wisewood.fi)
• Need to find ways to service smallholders more
profitably Æ ”grass roots management revolution.”
• Break even! ”Hmm, that’s interesting- I must try it sometime”
Activating grass roots customers too expensive
relative to costs.
• Use Innofor forestry sites for research follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS:
• CCF and similar approaches viable in
Finland and probably everywhere in (atn
least) the boreal and temperate zones
• Marketing and attitudes bigger problem
than lack of science
• Are you involved in CCF as a business? –
Innofor would like to hear from you!
KIITOS –
Thank you!

Similar documents