Main authors: Minna Pekkonen, Liisa Varumo, Saija Kuusela, Markku Granander, Eeva Primmer
Edited by: Ewert Aukes, Peter Stegmaier
List of Figures
List of Tables
||Finnish Forest Centre
||Finnish Environment Institute
1.1 Overall case description
The Habitat Bank of Finland develops ecological compensation and biodiversity offsets, which constitute a novel mechanism for funding biodiversity conservation. The idea is that actors degrading biodiversity compensate the loss they generate, by buying offsets from private landowners who restore and/or protect sites as offsets. The offsets then contribute to biodiversity conservation, maintaining naturally functioning ecosystems, improving resilience and also providing recreation possibilities. The Finnish innovation focuses on developing offset supply among private landowners, and collaborates with projects identifying demand and analysing regulation as well as administration, businesses and their motivations.
Biodiversity and the ecosystem services that are its joint benefits are public goods. They have thus far been conserved with public funds and regulation. Yet, biodiversity loss is generated by economic activities and actors. Ecological compensation shifts the payment responsibility to the actors who cause loss. Ideally, the mechanism generates new business opportunities for offset providers and develops into a market.
The Habitat Bank is looking for ways to match the biodiversity values on the site that is degraded with those on site that is restored and /or protected. The InnoForESt innovation engages with actors who operate with private landowners and forest management as well as the private landowners interested in offering their lands as offsets. Offering offsets works best on sites where nature values can be improved with restoration but also protecting sites that would otherwise be commercially managed can be an offset. In cases where such sites have high nature values and meet the current private protected area criteria, the land-owner could choose to offer these sites to be protected with public funds, under the so called Metso-programme.
The current forest practice mitigates biodiversity loss, and the new mechanism should not undermine the existing sustainable practices. These include long rotation times, legally protected valuable habitats and certification-driven retention trees. The current legislation allows compensation. The mechanism will not be applied to undermine existing protected areas or financing of conservation programs. The mechanism is about restoring and protecting nature values. In this context, InnoForESt develops the mechanism and practice of ecological compensation, in particular the supply of offsets from private forests.
1.2 Problem background
Biodiversity degradation must be halted. As government steering has not managed to stop degrading activities and public funds have not generated enough conservation activities, the ecological compensation provides a novel solution.
To maximise conservation benefits and connectivity, the offset sites should be located close to existing reserves or source populations of forest species. As regards to compensating degradation, this works best for activities that generate measurable degradation, e.g. through land-use change, e.g. construction, infrastructure development, mining or peat mining. These aspects of ecological and economic criteria, measurement, valuation and grading are developed in collaboration with other projects, with the InnoForESt team supporting with practical experience and considerations institutional feasibility. In particular, legitimacy among forest-owners and administrative practices are considered.
How restoration improves the naturalness of Finland’s managed forests could be a point of discussion. Commercially managed forests are dominantly with even aged rotation, resulting in uniform forest structure. Although the forests are managed with native tree species and long rotation times, there is a lack of natural forest ecosystem characteristics, such as structural heterogeneity, old forest stands, large deciduous trees, burnt wood, undrained peatlands, traditional open habitats and near-natural amounts of dead wood. Offsetting could be about restoring naturalness in these forests. For example, closing ditches to return a natural water balance, generating coarse woody debris by felling trees and leaving them to decay, prescribed burning, grazing or mowing open habitats or removing spruce from fertile herb-rich sites are typical measures that enhance nature values in Finnish forests.
The main question that The Finnish InnoForESt innovation, Habitat Bank, seeks to answer is: “How can private forest-owners supply biodiversity offsets, to match the ecological loss that should be compensated by economic actors causing biodiversity degradation?” This divides to several follow-up questions such as what kind of incentives are needed for compensation demand and supply, are there real income possibilities and so forth. The questions are elaborated when the project proceeds for example in the workshops.
2 Case overview
2.1 Case history
The idea of the Habitat Bank of Finland originates in a Helsinki University launched science application competition in 2015, Helsinki Challenge, in which the idea was awarded second prize. The idea was led by the University of Helsinki with a strong team from the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE).
The innovation benefitted from a comprehensive assessment report on habitat status and restoration needs in Finland published in 2015 (Kotiaho et al., 2015, In Finnish; Kotiaho et al. 2016 A shorter report in English), as a response the EU Biodiversity Strategy restoration target (so called 15 % target). The assessment illustrated the potential for restoration in Finland, which could work as offsets. Moreover, the assessment included the first national effort to quantify the amount of degradation and the potential of different measures to improve the natural state in different habitats, thus offering a mathematical tool to estimate the cost-effectiveness of potential compensation measures. For forests, the assessment could rely on the good knowledge-base that has been developed on forest restoration and nature management (see e.g. Similä & Junninen 2011).
Finnish private forest owners have a positive experience from the voluntary biodiversity conservation payments in the Southern Finland Forest Biodiversity Programme (so called Metso Programme), developed over the last 15 years (Paloniemi and Varho, 2009; Primmer et al., 2013). Due to cuts in public conservation funding in Finland ecological compensations can be seen as one opportunity to increase funding for conservation and possibly enable the inclusion of previously rejected yet valuable Metso sites as conservation sites via compensations.
Currently, there is some excitement about ecological compensation in Finland. The Ministries and the Prime Minister’s office have commissioned studies on the regulation and principles of ecological compensation (Similä et al., 2017; Kotiaho and Moilanen, 2018), the suitability of different nature types for restoration and compensation has been assessed (Raunio et al., 2018), and stakeholder expectations have been processed in workshops (Primmer et al., 2019). Offsets are expected to engage economic actors in conservation, allocate the responsibility of biodiversity degradation and conservation onto the value chains that cause loss and bring reputational benefits for compensating companies. There is also an expectation that offsets could function as a new income source for forest-owners but forest-owner rights and responsibilities have not been clearly delineated (Primmer et al., 2019). What is missing, is the practice-based development of the mechanism, and a system for supplying offsets from private forests.
The idea of compensation is a new for many of the stakeholders, and they are still forming their opinions on its benefits and risks. There is also need for incrementing knowledge compensations in general level. Compared to the increasing interest and even political will to pilot ecological compensations, the crucial steps forward have been relatively slow. Partly this is due to the lack of adequate public/research funding on large enough pilot programs. From the voluntary compensation point of view there is lack of demand; there is not many companies that are ready to compensate the biodiversity losses they cause voluntarily. During 2019 at least two things have happened that may change the mindset in companies and governance. First, the current governmental programme includes a section on ecological compensations where practical compensation pilots and governance framework are mentioned as something that government will promote and push forward in next four years. Second, private compensation market on carbon offsetting is gaining media attention and also demand through for example launching of PURO, a carbon offsetting market place and a start-up company, and Compensate-foundation (actually Compensate foundation officially launched already in 2018, but gained more media attention in 2019, and is also part of the PURO). There are similarities in mechanisms between carbon and biodiversity offsetting, and interest in one could reflect on the other one also.
Table 1: Brief history of the Habitat Bank of Finland
||Idea of the Habitat Bank originates through the Helsinki Challenge science competition application
||Workshops with stakeholders hosted by the Habitat Bank of Finland in March and May
||The Ministry of the Environment commissions a study on regulatory feasibility (Primmer et al., 2017; Similä et al., 2017)
||The regulatory feasibility study is presented at the Minister of the Environment, Agriculture and Forestry’s Round Table (including high-level stakeholders from forestry and environmental organisations).
||The Habitat Bank initiates talks with land-owners and forestry administration
||Kone Foundation hosts a big seminar in June 2016 and later funds over ten research projects on ecological compensation
||A corporate social responsibility seminar with a talk on ecological compensation attracts the interest of Helsinki and Espoo.
||The Habitat Bank of Finland team wins a project for studying the feasibility of ecological compensation, EKOTEKO, which seeks to pilot offsetting.
||The Habitat Bank of Finland starts facilitating a pilot between a company and a public forest owner.
||Prime Minister’s Office orders a research assessment on the current legal basis for ecological compensations
||InnoForESt has organised one-on-one discussions with The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners and with the environmental administration
||A session on ecological compensations in the 5th European Congress of Conservation Biology in Jyväskylä, Finland
||First CINA Stakeholder workshop held with mainly forest stakeholders in Helsinki
||The Habitat Bank team visits pilot offset sites in Central Finland with the Finnish Forest Centre (FFC) to evaluate the types of lands landowners are willing to offer for piloting.
||Second CINA Stakeholder workshop held with focus on business sector and private forest owners in Vantaa
||Governmental Programme 2019, where piloting of ecological compensations is included.
2.2 Brief stakeholder constellation
The stakeholder table provides an overview of the different types of stakeholders relevant or possibly relevant to the Finnish case (Table 1). Some of them are clearly defined organisations which already have a role and have participated in activities or discussions with the Habitat Bank and some are stakeholder types that we have recognised as relevant through our activities, but which currently are not tied to a specific organisation.
Benefits of the case for the stakeholders and society
The innovation offers opportunities for companies degrading biodiversity, as they can compensate the degradation and reap responsible reputation benefits. Land-owners who can offer sites for restoration (and possibly do the restoration work themselves) have a new income opportunity, without having to undertake logging. Intermediaries supporting site assessment can gain business opportunities. Local people, who might lose recreation areas because of e.g. infrastructure, can get new areas for recreation. Eventually, the innovation benefits forest biodiversity by increasing the amount of suitable habitat for species, and supports the provision of other jointly produced ecosystem services. Through these public good type ecosystem services, the entire society benefits. The wishes, expectations and uncertainties of stakeholders are discussed in the workshop descriptions (sections 4 and 5).
Table 2: Stakeholders of Habitat Bank of Finland
||Description, role and activities
|Private forest owners
– the main stakeholder type, our main target group, as we are developing biodiversity offset supply
||Would offer sites for offsets and possibly conduct the restoration on their land. Would require a payment for giving up commercial management for a fixed period or permanently (permanent conservation would be through establishing a privately owned protected area).
Hold diverse values (use, conservation, active management) that have been shown to evolve over time. Are legally autonomous but rely heavily on expert advice. Conserve nature and ecosystem services for altruistic reasons and value autonomy.
|Non-industrial forest owner unions
||MTK: The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (Associate Partner)
||The objective of MTK is to make forest ownership profitable and ensure the good state of forests. For ecological compensations they are one of the key players influencing forest policy in Finland.
|Forestry professionals developing new forest management practices
||FFC (partner, but many other offices and sections)
||Implements forest policy on private lands. Significant competence and a central role in planning and guiding forestry practices and taking up new conservation practices. With new instruments, tends to maintain an orientation of maintaining economic use of forests and a contractual approach respecting forest-owners’ rights.
|Forestry professionals developing new forest management practices
||Tapio (Associate Partner)
||Significant competence, developing, guiding and standardising practices.
The upcoming National Forest Strategy might further open up the forestry advice and service market.
||Metsähallitus manages state forests and is keen to develop ecological compensation because they have restoration expertise and duties. They might be relevant for InnoForest due to this capacity.
Long history, large organisation and a lot of framing power and capabilities in ecosystem management, restoration, etc.
Has done a pilot deal with a company, in which the Habitat Bank has supported the assessment of the sites.
|Forestry professionals directly serving forest owners
||Local Forest Management Associations (members of The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners)
||Advice forest owners and offer planning and operational services to their members. Main focus in maintaining economic use of forests. A large proportion of land-owners are members of Forest Management Associations.
||Ministry of the Environment (Associate Partner)
||Leads environmental and nature conservation policy in Finland, with a strong orientation on conserving endangered species and nature types. As to ecosystem services, focuses on securing regulating ecosystem services and long term resilience.
||Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
||Nature management, ecological compensations. Leads forest policy in Finland, represent more the use orientation than conservation but integrates new approaches as they emerge. As to ecosystem services, emphases on provisioning services.
||ELY-centre (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)
||Assessing and contracting private protected areas and planning some restoration activities.
Is responsible for implementing nature conservation policy, with endangeredness as an important orientation principle. Views permanent conservation as a central tool.
|Business and Industry
||Construction sector, Mining sector, Energy infrastructure, other
||Would compensate. Have participated in the 2016 workshops
The Habitat Bank has active discussions with several companies from different sectors interested in buying offsets related to their degrading activities.
|Business and Industry
||Forestry Industry – UPM
||(active discussions in 2016-2017)
|Consultants and SMEs
||Several consultants (Gaia, Ramboll, etc.)
||Claim expertise in compensation. Interested in assessing sites and generating new business. Expect a public sector organisation or research to produce the assessment framework.
|Knowledge brokers and virtual services providers
||Possible provider of an online platform service with datasets of the compensation and degradation sites facilitating the matching of sites.
Has been identified in the 2016 workshops.
||Participated in the first workshop 9/2018
||City of Jyväskylä
||Has expressed interest in offering offset sites.
||City of Helsinki, city of Espoo, city of Turku, city of Lahti
||Have participated in 2017 seminars and expressed interest in compensations. Municipalities in Finland are also landowners. They have double role in compensation: 1) could compensate for the ecological loss due to land use change, 2) are interested in offering offset sites.
||Universities of Helsinki, Jyväskylä and Tampere
||Closest collaboration with the university of Helsinki through EKOTEKO-research project. Research on different aspects of ecological compensations / biodiversity offsetting in Finland is done also in Jyväskylä and Tampere universities.
||Financial enterprises (e.g., banks, funding agencies; business support funds)
||Could push change for more ecologically sustainable business that could include ecological compensations in the future. Not mainstream yet. Some forest funds might be interested especially new FES.
||Would be one option for taking responsibility for validating the restoration activities carried out. These do not exist yet for ecological compensation.
2.3 Reflection: overall governance situation before workshop
When InnoForESt started there was no binding legislation concerning ecological compensations / biodiversity offsetting in Finland except the EU level legislation for Natura 2000 network. During the last years different sectors have done surveys and assessments on compensations from their own point of view. For example, the scientific discussion and research on ecological compensations has increased and gained more public attention especially in during Helsinki Challenge research idea competition in 2015 and after Kone Foundation funded several research projects on ecological compensations in 2017 (EKOTEKO). Business sector identifies compensations as something that will most likely in one form or another be a part of their social responsibility in the future.
Actually, the development of governance situation has not changed much since summer 2018 when the governance situations was assessed, and key stakeholders identified for InnoForESt (in a separate document). General atmosphere has changed so that compensations are more discussed, but mostly in context of climate change mitigation, not so much in relation to biodiversity loss. From the governance point of view, the biggest change is that piloting compensations are in the Governmental Programme of the current Finnish Government (since spring 2019). This, potential change in governance could be triggered if the piloting of ecological compensations and changes in relevant legislations are pushed forward according to the Governmental Programme through ministries (especially Ministry of the Environment). Especially, if new legislation is implemented, the compensations would become mainstream in Finland. But what happens with the legislation is still unsure and it might take a relatively long time before the new legislation is formulated.
3 Overall approach
3.1 Innovation strategy of the case study
The Habitat Bank of Finland collaborates broadly with Finnish stakeholders and other relevant projects. The idea is to co-produce a knowledge-base that allows developing the ecological compensation mechanism.
In the network of projects and actors, the InnoForESt innovation is about generating offset supply from private forests. For this reason, the innovation engages private forest owners and their organisations, in discussing and piloting offsetting. This includes the strategic workshops and also importantly pilot sites at which the practicalities of assessment, restoration and contracting can be tested and developed.
Different, possibly new, ecosystem services are always on the agenda when meeting stakeholders. In discussions practical questions and scenarios of the future forestry are compared and analysed. CINA workshops have given some thoughts and new viewpoints to take into account in these meetings. Workshops have been also opportunities for networking.
Decision-making in forestry is so multidimensional and complex that modelling it is very difficult. It seems to be impossible to model and simulate genuine case in Habitat bank. So the RBG has been more like a test that showed the complexity of different FES.
3.2 Platform and network process
The innovation has built on experiences from 2015-2016 and focused on the engagement of new stakeholders and the advanced discussions around actors who operate in private forests, or seek to do so. Effort has been made to reach the private forest owners who would be willing to offer offset areas and those who need to compensate, for example companies and municipalities that cause land use change. In general, the number of key stakeholders is limited in Finland and most have already been involved at the early stages of the Habitat Bank or the participating organisations (SYKE, FFC) work with them in other projects. The stakeholders are described in more detail in the CINA workshop descriptions later on in this report. Building trust, one-on-one meetings have been organised with the land-owner organisation and several public sector organisations. In general, the working relationship with stakeholders has been successful, exchange of ideas, views and knowledge have been the main part so far. With municipality of Lahti the possibility of stepping from theory to practice in compensation piloting is most promising.
The project has Finnish language websites under SYKE and FFC and also under the Habitat Bank project cluster at the University of Helsinki. There are altogether ten active members from these organisations that make up the main platform or team for developing the ecological compensation in Finland. Four of them (see authors of this report) are working mainly for the InnoForESt innovation, others are funded through other projects. To support the piloting, the team has developed a one-page document describing offsetting to private land-owners and is developing this strategy and land-owner engagement further. The next step is to produce a handout in Finnish.
3.3 Overall CINA workshop strategy
One of the first steps was to identify and reach relevant stakeholders. Idea was to receive inputs from workshop participants and also share information on the innovation. At the beginning there was a need for common understanding and knowledge of ecological compensation. Workshops were facilitated to support co-production of feasible scenarios for habitat banking of Finland.
The overall goal of the workshops is to find practical solutions for implementing the innovation and go forward. Three topics that are needed for implementing the innovation have been or will be worked on are:
- Discussing the scenarios how to implement the innovation of Habitat bank in Finland.
- Elaborating the detailed scenarios.
- Finding the potential pathways to realize the innovation (builds on scenarios in previous workshops).
4 Type 1 workshop(s): Innovation analysis and visioning
4.1 Visioning workshop 1
4.1.1 Scenarios used
The participants received bullet-point descriptions of three scenarios beforehand. The scenarios built on the knowledge generated during 2015-2018.
As background material for the first workshop we developed a brief overall description of the idea of ecological compensations and three descriptions of alternative futures for organizing the compensation mechanism. The participants were asked to familiarize themselves with the alternative futures and consider the opportunities and risks they bring to the group they represent.
- The authority sets the conditions
- Assessment of nature values starts from the site that will be degraded
- The mechanism seeks to find offsets that match the nature values loss
- Landowners offer sites for restoration
- The added (nature) value will be assessed by the authority or an assigned expert
- The authority chooses the suitable offset sites
- The offset site will be protected as a private protected area
- The (moderate) monitoring responsibility is with the authority
- The terms is be negotiated between the actor needing the compensation and the landowners offering the offsets.
- The nature value losses and restoration is assessed iteratively in parallel
- Supply and demand develops in a network like market
- The assessment is carried out by an accredited consultant
- The compensating actor receives a certificate
- A fixed-term contract on site for the site will be made.
- The landowner restores and possibly manages the site
- The consultant will monitor the impact of the offset
- The authority sets the principles for the contract and oversees the legality of the contracts
Nature values bank
- The nature values bank is a foundation like actor and an intermediary
- The bank sets the conditions for offsetting, following legal and possible strategic guidance principles
- The bank assesses nature value losses and gains, but it can also outsource it
- The landowner sells or leases the sites to the bank as nature capital
- The bank sells the added nature values to actors needing compensations.
- The supply and demand meet through the bank.
- The bank is well known: the actors needing and offering offsets whom to contact.
- The bank monitors the sites and the development of nature values.
- The authority oversees only the bank
The first workshop was held in Helsinki in a meeting room close to the railway station, allowing easy access for participants coming from outside Helsinki (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Impression of first CINA workshop in Helsinki.
The programme was constructed so that first there were four brief introductions into different aspects of ecological compensations followed by commentaries. For this section the set-up was a normal classroom type setup with the speaker in front and the audience seated in rows in the room. After the first part the actual workshop begun and some tables were brought together so that the group would all sit in a circle around the tables being able to see all participants.
Since there were only 14 participants (including the Habitat Bank team) in the workshop portion of the day we decided to all discuss in one group. The group had one facilitator and two people taking notes on post-its that were then used to wrap up the discussions and get an overview of the ideas that came up. The workshop was divided into two sections and guided by the three scenarios:
- Expectations regarding ecological compensations (perspective of the organisation you represent)
- From other perspectives than your own organisation
- Needs for a functioning compensation scheme
- Rules and regulation
All the above-mentioned questions were discussed from perspective of each scenario.
The morning section with the presentations had 14 participants and the workshop section had 11 participants (excluding the Habitat Bank team). One (1) of the participants represented business, six (6) research, four (4) landowner or forestry organisation representatives. The representatives of the environmental NGO WWF, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as well as Forest Owners of Helsinki could not participate in the workshop section. Additionally 22 were invited, representing environment and forestry administration, researchers, professionals, forest companies and one forestry entrepreneurs were invited, but were not able to participate. Thus the participation was heavily researcher and landowner oriented, with no representation from NGOs and administrations (in workshop), which was a shame. The timing of the workshop might have influenced the low participation rate. Despite this, the group discussion worked well and allowed for a balanced input from all participants.
The participants reflected well the spectrum of stakeholders listed in section 2.2. with only one surprising representative from business. The business representative was interested in the intermediary role of bringing together the compensations buyers and landowners and developing the calculations for matching sites and providing an online platform for these activities.
4.1.4 Key thematic findings
The comments and ideas expressed by the participants were in many cases not directly connected to only one scenario, but mixed elements of the different scenarios or discussed ecological compensations in general.
The opportunities regarding ecological compensations for landowners were tied to the idea of new business opportunities. Especially landowners with biodiverse forests or potential for restoration would be in a good position for new income models by offering their land as a compensation site. Real monetary incentives for landowners were perceived as arising if a competitive market with offer and demand would emerge. Also landowners as the ones carrying out the restoration activities were seen as beneficiaries, as this activity would bring new income. Metso Programme, an existing PES programme, was perceived as a good potential basis on which to build the ecological compensation scheme both from the perspective of administration and landowners.
As intermediaries, different habitat banks and other new actors in conservation were envisioned but in a rather tentative tone. Currently there are no intermediary organisations for this purpose in Finland, so the talk of them was visionary and hypothetical. The possibility to have several banks was mentioned, but for the sake of clarity and transparency the idea of one intermediary organisation seemed preferable. A local, Finnish, intermediary was seen as the desirable option in order to ensure the actor has a good understanding of the local context. Another new type of actor that seemed necessary in all of the models was an accreditation entity that would be responsible for validating the restoration activities carried out. This would have to be a different entity than the one buying, selling or realising the compensation activity. Some types of internet platforms for matching and finding sites that fill different types of criteria was seen as necessary, but the entity responsible for upkeep of such a platform was not decided, since it could be a private business or a government owned and upheld platform. However, open and comparable data and maps were seen as necessary for a smoothly functioning system. The opinion was shared that for the credibility of the compensation mechanism transparency in all of the phases and the criteria of compensations would be central for building trust among the different actors.
The authority driven mechanism was perceived as possibly rigid and not able to foster a competitive market. The authority driven model might require separate funds and could be confused as basically being the same as the existing Metso Programme. Voluntariness and some elements of flexibility were felt as crucial to an innovative and new scheme for landowners.
Many of the uncertainties were related to who would carry the responsibility and risk if the ecological compensation, i.e. the restoration activity, would fail. Risks relate to many elements of compensations; the case that the restoration does not produce the natures values purchased, the company that buys the compensation goes bankrupt, the intermediary goes bankrupt, the landowner sells his/her land etc. Mechanisms to ensure that the buyer and seller are secured were called for, and as an option for this, clear guidelines for monitoring and evaluation were suggested.
There were also doubts about whether there would be enough monetary incentives in ecological compensations for forest owners currently involved in profitable forestry on their land, since these would most likely also be lands with good nature values.
The length of the contracts or how they would be binding in the case of change in ownership of the restoration sites was touched upon. The options were between permanent conservation (privately owned protected area) and contracts from 30 up to 100 years. Settling the issue was perceived as challenging, since from an ecological perspective long or permanent contracts are necessary, but securing them is difficult from a social/technical/legal perspective.
It was concluded that piloting of the offsetting mechanism, whichever model was chosen, would be needed to clear many of the existing technical uncertainties. Also how biodiversity and ecological compensations relate to carbon offsetting and whether they could be combined or happen at the expense of one another was talked about.
4.1.5 Detailed thematic findings
Nature values bank
- Authority sets the conditions
- Terms negotiated between the actor needing the compensation and the landowners offering the offsets
- Bank sets conditions for offsetting, following legal and possible strategic guidance principles
- Ministry of the Environment
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
- Landowners’ Union
- Companies needing compensations
- Nature values bank, which is a foundation like actor and an intermediary
- Government-driven, can include competitive supply
- Supply and demand develops in a network like market
- Landowner sells or leases the sites to the bank as nature capital
- Bank sells added nature values to actors needed compensations
- Supply and demand meet through bank
|Role of citizenry
- Expressing social demand for compensation?
- Small / no role?
- Expressing social demand for compensation?
|Role of technology & science
- Moderate, organized & predictable demand for impact assessment & monitoring
- Selection & pairing of sites can benefit from new technologies & algorithms
- Impact assessment & monitoring can benefit from innovative knowledge processing
- Selection & pairing of sites can benefit from new technologies & algorithms
- Possibly new virtual market space
- Impact assessment & monitoring can benefit from innovative knowledge processing
- Selection & pairing of sites can benefit from new technologies & algorithms
- Possibly new virtual market space
- Mechanism seeks to find offsets that match the true nature values loss
- Offset site will be protected as private protected area so that investment on nature is permanent
- Strict control from authorities better guarantees “no net loss” of nature values
- Voluntariness is intuitively promoted starting point, but also concretely builds on success of Finland’s biodiversity payments under Metso Programme
- Even a voluntary contract is perceived as “better than nothing” for nature conservation
- Much hype around a bank, but it remains a fairly vague idea
- One central bank or intermediary is seen as making transactions and compensations easier and more transparent
||Possible new regulation from the EU, e.g. while defining post-2020 targets?
||De-regulation of the environmental governance issues (e.g. from permits to negotiations)
|Even stronger private governance and liberalization
- Less uncertainty because arrangement will be predictable
- Legitimacy of compensation among economic actors uncertain
- System might be rigid & landowner profits remain low, if no market mechanism emerges in the authority driven model
- Securing nature values & reaching no net loss remains uncertain, also organization is uncertain
- Who carries out the accreditation of the compensations?
- Organization uncertain: who takes the role of the bank / intermediary?
- Role of the citizens / social aspects of the compensations?
- Would there be only one bank or several banks?
- Who carries out the accreditation of the compensations?
||Less favoured among some of the key stakeholders (e.g. companies, landowners’ union, ministries)
More preferred among the nature conservation NGOs and regional environmental authorities
|Currently preferred among many of the key stakeholders
||Currently preferred among many of the key stakeholders as a combination with Scenario 2 (against Scenario 1), but still vague ideas
Despite a fairly homogenic group of stakeholders, the discussions in the workshop brought out some new elements to the discussions. Originally the idea was to have 2 or 3 groups discussing and then a wrap-up of each group’s discussions, but since there were fewer participants than expected this idea was discarded. However, having for example 3 different groups could have enabled each group discussing one of the scenarios and then sharing their ideas with the other groups at the end. This could have been one way to keep the discussion more limited and focused to one scenario at a time.
The facilitator’s role was to gently guide the conversation and asking specifying questions or giving ideas for inspiration when necessary. We did not want to guide the discussion too much but rather let it flow organically letting participants discuss what they felt important since this would give us a better understanding of the pressing open questions and relevant issues to the stakeholders. All the predetermined topics were discussed to a satisfactory degree despite the free flow of dialogue.
Also a board where the post-its could have been placed visibly already during the discussions, allowing people to add their own post-its to topics close to their ideas could have been a nice addition and perhaps helped keep the lines of thought clearer. Altogether if we would have had more participants we probably could have extended the length of the workshop into the afternoon (now we ended at 1pm for lunch). Weather this would have given us more in-depth and detailed discussions is debatable however.
4.1.7 Stakeholder interactions
The discussion was calm and civil and no real disagreements were evident regarding any of the topics. Since the mechanism of ecological compensations in Finland is still non-existent the discussion is about hypotheticals and still on a rather vague level since no one really has a clear image of what the mechanism should be like. As participants argued or reasoned for their opinions no real conflicts were born because all options still seem feasible at this point. Also the absence of compensation buyers and administration made for a discussion focused on the perspectives of landowners and possibly intermediaries on which the stakeholders present did not have much disagreement.
If there had been a more diverse set of stakeholders some of the core questions, such as should the system be obligatory (enforced by law) or voluntary and what the prices of compensation would be, might have created more heated discussions. We hope to tackle these themes in later workshops. However, in order of the ideas of compensation to progress it is not fruitful to seek conflict, but rather find the uniting elements on which the stakeholders can agree upon and discuss in a productive way resulting in a socially and ecologically acceptable compensation scheme.
In order to keep up the interest of the stakeholders each workshop should take the idea forward to more concrete visions of the scheme. There has been a great amount of talk around the topic in the past few years and since Finland is a rather small country with the same stakeholders often gathered around for the same topics some novelty is always required in order to avoid stakeholder fatigue on the topic.
4.1.8 Lessons learnt
Developing three scenarios was rather easy but discussing them in silos was impossible. This is due to the fact that the scenarios each contain factors that can be adapted to or placed as such into the other scenarios. As the discussion mixes the factors from the scenarios this naturally allows us to pick up on the factors that seem most favoured by the stakeholders. Based on this we can develop the next scenario or scenarios with perhaps more detail or just new configurations of the existing factors. However, since not all stakeholder types were represented in the first workshop it might not be advisable to build the new scenarios and factors solely on what was discussed at the workshop. In order to diversify perspectives a survey or interviews with the missing stakeholders (business, administration) could be carried out to add to the scenarios of the next workshop.
The factors recognised beforehand proved to be relevant in developing ecological compensations and habitat banking in Finland and were discussed further. The 1st CINA workshop did not yet give reason to exclude any of the identified factors. The importance or relevance between different factors was not clarified or determined based on the workshop discussion; depending on the actor the importance or relevance of a factor was weighed differently. You can also refer to Stefan Sorge’s output on WP3, for which the interviews were done after the 1st and 2nd CINA workshop.
Based on the 1st CINA workshop the preferred option was voluntary compensation.
5 Type 2 workshop(s): Prototype assessment
5.1 Prototype workshop 1
5.1.1 Scenarios used
Out of the three scenarios (authority driven, voluntary contracting, nature values bank), we took the voluntary contracting as a starting point. We included some features of the two others, that were still somewhat unresolved, such as authority driven criteria and an intermediary that could in some ways take a role of a market place and advance the negotiation. The 2nd workshop iterated particularly these features.
The voluntary contracting is the main scenario in the 2nd CINA workshop. There is potential for numerous choices how ecological compensations could be arranged. From the starting point of voluntary compensation, we identified key elements and questions that need to be addressed when developing habitat banking system based on previous workshop and ecological compensation related research and experiences (in other projects, outside Finland). These are listed below. In the workshop these were presented and discussed. The main scenario, voluntary compensation, divides into several sub-scenarios that workshop participants were producing with us. List below includes many open questions, such as who is the authority that could set the compensation conditions or who is the credible actor that could assess compensations. These were the topics we wanted participants to comment on in facilitated workshop discussion. So, at this stage of the innovation process, the workshop focused on different options on how the voluntary contracting could work in practice. Participants were explained different questions that may be relevant in voluntary ecological compensation (listed above) and they were given a possibility to express their views and ideas of how different practical steps of compensation could be solved. The aim was to generate new ideas, without preliminary detailed set of options.
Different aspects and questions of ecological compensation when it is based on voluntary contracting (not in chronological order)
- The authority sets the conditions.
- The detailed contract terms are negotiated between the company needing the compensation and the landowners offering the offsets.
- The nature value losses and restoration are assessed iteratively in parallel with a feasible metrics.
- Supply and demand develops in a network like market.
- The assessment is carried out by a credible actor.
- The compensating actor receives a proof of compensation.
- A fixed-term contract for the site will be made on a contract template.
- Land-owner might need support in the contracting.
- The site is protected or added to some other register of sites.
- The landowner restores and possibly manages the site, these activities are included in the contract.
- Authorities will monitor the impact of the offset.
- The authority sets the principles for the contract and oversees the legality of the contracts.
The second workshop was organised in Vantaa in a meeting facility of a hotel located near the railway station. Place was easy to reach by participants from Helsinki and also those arriving either by train or plane connections.
The schedule of the workshop was planned so that there was enough time for brief introductory presentations with possibility to comment and ask questions and the actual workshop. Participants were recommended to reserve a full workday for the workshop.
For the introductory talks the meeting place was arranged so that the speaker was in front and the audience was seated in small (4-6 people) groups. Tables in the meeting room were organised to these small groups already before participants arrived.
All the workshop participants were contacted beforehand. “Save the date” preliminary invitations were sent in mid-March, the invitation to workshop with preliminary programme in mid-April and reminder to enrol circa two weeks before the workshop. The main questions that were discussed at the workshop were given to the participants in advance. Short interviews were made to find private landowners and company representatives who would be willing to participate in simulated negotiation on compensation one-on-one. The interviews were done by Akordi. One landowner-company pair willing to discuss at the workshop was found by Akordi through the interviews.
The workshop started with three brief presentations. Basic information on InnoForESt, backroung information from previous workshop and different scenarios were presented by InnoForESt. Representatives from both local authority (ELY, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment of the Southwest Finland) and business sector (Rudus PLC) gave commentary presentations on potential and pitfalls of ecological compensation and habitat banking from their sector perspective.
The presentations and follow-up discussions were scheduled for the morning. After the lunch break participants were divided in small groups, 8-10 people per a group, altogether 3 groups. Altogether there were 36 participants at the workshop, including organisers. Each group had one facilitator and one person taking notes. All small groups remained in the same meeting room. The landowner and the company representative pair that had volunteered for the simulated one-on-one negotiation had a separate room to discuss privately.
The main aim in the small group discussions was to identify what practical steps need to be taken, what challenges overcome to launch an offsetting scheme, the habitat bank, in Finland. What needs different stakeholder groups have, what type of support they would require, what is the existing level of knowledge and what are the information gaps that need to be filled. Also the roles of different stakeholders were discussed. Thematically the discussion topics were resources, actors, tools, and rules and regulations.
Following thematic questions were used in guiding the discussion:
- How to proceed with the piloting in practice? (Miten päästään pilotoimaan käytännössä?)
- What you or your organisation still would need to be able to proceed with ecological compensations? (Mitä sinä tai organisaatiosi vielä tarvitsette, jotta voisitte edetä konkretiaan kompensaation toteutuksessa?)
- Is there still information you would need, that stops you from going forward with compensations? (Puuttuuko sinulta vielä jotakin sellaista tietoa, mitä ilman et ole valmis etenemään?)
- What kind of support would be most helpful in making compensation contracts / actual compensations /monitoring? (Millaisesta tuesta olisi eniten apua sopimusvaiheessa / toteutuksessa / seurannassa?)
- How to ensure fairness? (Miten varmistetaan reiluus?)
- How could authorities speed up compensation pilots? Who are the key authorities? (Miten viranomaiset voisivat vauhdittaa kompensaatiopilotteja? Mitkä viranomaiset ovat avainasemassa?)
Both the small group discussions and the one-on-one simulated negotiation were given an hour time slot. Thereafter all groups briefly presented what topics they had discussed and if they any summarizing thought or comments had arisen. The main topics discussed in simulated one-on-one negation were summarised for all participants. Both the landowner and the company representative found it the existence of a third party very important. Questions of price, equity and reliability had also risen. The publicly summarised points from the otherwise private discussion were included in the workshop memos.
The final part of the workshop was general open discussion, identification of potential next steps. InnoForESt summed up the days discussion. At the end of the workshop each participant got to comment with few words how they felt about participating at the workshop and with what mood or thought they will be parting. InnoForESt thanked the participants.
Altogether there were 36 participants at the workshop, including organizers. Participants represented private forest owners, administration from two municipalities and Ministry of the Environment and private sector including environmental consultants, construction, extraction and gravel industries, and others.
Extra effort was put in contacting and inviting private landowners. Three of all invited landowners were able to attend the workshop. Though the number was low, their input and insight to the workshop discussion were valuable due to active participation.
Compared to the first workshop, the participants represented a selected subset of relevant stakeholders. Emphasis was more on business sector and landowners than on administration, NGOs or researchers.
5.1.4 Key thematic findings
In Finland there already is know-how and experience based and FSC-certification and METSO-programme (voluntary forest conservation programme) that based on the workshop participant views could be useful in developing ecological compensation in Finland. Though there is this knowledge space, many compensation specific questions are still without answer. Some of these were discussed in the workshop and potential solutions were suggested.
One discussed topic were the role of different actors in compensation process, the responsibilities and duties but also the rights. The summary of this discussion can be found at b) in the bullet point list below. Reliability and transparency were seen as crosscutting the whole process and of major importance for successful implementation of ecological compensations.
From a practical point of view different tools are needed and rules and regulations need to be addressed, even if the compensation system would be built on voluntary basis. The workshop participants identified the common market place (without detailed description how it would be organized) and offset estimation / calculation metrics as the most important practical tools that are needed for implementing compensations. Simple enough and robust biodiversity indicators are needed for the metrics. Also, the role of marketing was pointed out, but not discussed further. In general, not only biodiversity estimation metrics but also rules for evaluation and exchange of nature values are needed. There needs to be a method to confirm that offsetting is adequate, that is adequate compensation is done.
Landowners identified need for contracting rules that define among other things which actions or what kind of areas are qualified as offsets, should the offset area be protected temporarily or in perpetuity. They also brought out the questions related to the constitutional protection of property.
Developing governance that is needed for compensations and habitat banking was not discussed in detail. There was common understanding that the key points that are listed below need to be addressed to be able to move forward with compensations, but there were not clear solutions to who should take the main responsibility, or when and how these would be solved. For example, there is common understanding that biodiversity metrics and exchange rules are needed, but who is the right authority to define these was not yet solved in the workshop.
Thematic summary of the topics that were discussed in small groups.
- Know-how and experiences from METSO -programme and FSC -certification system can be utilized in developing a system for ecological compensation in Finland.
- The role of authorities, governance:
- Ecological compensations or offsetting could be launched by public sector, municipalities or government e.g. in their construction projects.
- Environmental officials should monitor biodiversity losses.
- A habitat bank or other intermediary organization that works between companies needing compensation and landowners providing offsets was seen as a prerequisite for going forward
- There was discussion who would take this role. One of the participants (start up company) saw themselves as potential intermediaries (or a certifying actor, see below). Most participants preferred public actor, which was seen as more neutral and reliable.
- Landowners have potentially a new source of income from offsetting. Several questions remain to be solved; many of them are directly or indirectly connected to money.
- Ownership of the offset area?
- How competitive is the price for offsetting vs. wood production or other more traditional way of using the forests?
- A certifying actor is needed. It could be governmental organization or other type of actor such as a foundation or a trust.
- There were new enterprises offering to take this role.
- Based on the discussion there is expectation that authority type activities are or could be connected to the certifying actor.
- A common market place to bring together supply and demand for offsetting was identified as critically important by both the landowners and industry. First as a pilot, ensures the status of the offset due diligence, informs tax authorities and financial supervisory authority.
- The importance of a simple enough calculation method was highlighted in conversations, preferably resulting in numbers.
- Practical biodiversity indicators are needed.
- Rules and regulation
- Landowners identified need for contracting rules that define among other things which actions or what kind of areas are qualified as offsets, should the offset area be protected temporarily or in perpetuity.
- Landowners brought out the questions related to the constitutional protection of property.
- Rules for evaluation and exchange of nature values are needed.
- A method to confirm that offsetting is adequate / adequate compensation is done.
5.1.5 Detailed thematic findings
The landowners were represented at our workshops for the first time. Their message was that there is interest in finding new ecologically sustainable ways of using forests economically. However, they were also very clear about the fact that it has to be economically competitive option, meaning that in practice the price paid for managing and/or protecting a forest area for compensation needs to be the same or preferably higher that alternative economic use, such as timber production, would be.
From the business sector, we heard the same type of comments that have been voiced in previous workshops or one-on-one discussions: fore-runner companies have interest in developing more ecologically sustainable practices and follow closely what kind of policies are developed for ecological compensations but at the same time they worry what new liabilities this would bring, how expensive, time-consuming and/or laborious they would be.
In addition, the workshop organizers, noticed that the at least in some of the sub-groups, the climate and biodiversity compensations were easily mixed. This pinpoints the need for clear and interactive communication when meeting representatives from different stakeholder groups. There is also large variation in the level of knowledge between workshop participants.
One key point that came out already at the first CINA workshop was confirmed: there is a need for an actor that would keep a register on the compensation sites. One start-up company even marketed that they could easily do this. This stimulated further discussion between workshop participants and also organizers where the end result was that FCC would be in many ways good option for keeping the register. This idea will be developed further during 2020.
The workshop built upon the previous one. The scenarios for the workshop were chosen so that they would advance the innovation, the Habitat Bank and help us to identify needs and potential obstacles. The discussed questions were all related to practical aspects of compensation. The opinions, needs, and questions that participants brought forward helped in developing the scenarios further.
The one-on-one simulated negotiation between forest owner and business representative was something we did not have in previous workshop. The content of the discussion was confidential, and only the general atmosphere and few main topics were shared with other workshop participants. We felt that discussing the main points from the negotiation together highlighted some of the most important practical questions that need to be solved in offsetting, such as contracting and pricing of offsets and matching the ecological loss and gain. Also, bilateral negotiation proved to be a useful tool for finding the key points that could advance compensations to practice and create more trust between actors.
The facilitated discussion in small groups was lively. The role of the facilitator was to gently redirect the discussion to the main questions, for example in cases when focus tried to shift from biodiversity to carbon offsetting. We got the impression that in general all participants got an equal chance to comment and share their thoughts and questions.
5.1.7 Stakeholder interactions
The atmosphere at the 2nd CINA workshop could be described even as enthusiastic. There was a shared will to move forward in putting ecological compensations into practice. The business representatives were mostly so-called forerunner companies who already have more ambitious goals for social responsibility. Also the private forest owners were maybe more aware of biodiversity and nature conservation aspects in forestry than most. In general, all participants had a positive attitude to the day’s topics, which most likely was the reason that there were no obvious conflicting views on main issues.
5.1.8 Lessons learnt
The discussion in workshop 2 gave valuable insight in questions that are relevant in putting biodiversity offsetting and habitat bank in action. The possible negotiating parties (land-owner and company) participating and also some potential intermediaries (certifying enterprises) gave us a practical approach to what is needed.
Though for organisers and some of the participants the concept of ecological compensation / biodiversity offsetting is very familiar, the easily gets confused to other compensation model, mostly compensation of carbon and to other biodiversity promoting mechanisms. Take home message to organisers is that the basic principles and key concepts of biodiversity offsetting need to be explained, even if only briefly, also in the following workshop.
Our reflection: these configurations remain under debate:
- An intermediary: public or private?
- Negotiation: between land-owner and company, or through an intermediary?
- The Authority: requires offsetting or merely allows offsetting and sets criteria?
- The destiny of the offset sites: protected or registered as fix-term contracts?
Figure 2: Possible institutional arrangements for an offsetting mechanism. The arrows point the expectations for taking on responsibility (securing rights) by one actor type over another. The darkness of the arrows signals the literature and case-based evidence for these expectations. (Primmer et al. 2019)
Voluntary negotiation remains a key starting point but the above points need to be resolved.
6 Overall lessons learnt
At the point where we have held two CINA workshops, we feel that the workshops have given structure to the process and helped us to keep up with the schedule. Workshops have been an informative and successful discussion platform with the stakeholders, resembling roundtable discussions. When stakeholders were given an open possibility to share their views and ideas both novel solutions but also potential problems and bottlenecks in implementing the innovation were identified.
When we started planning the first workshop, the concept of CINA workshop was not yet fully clear to all. Partly for that reason the workshops may not fulfil all criteria or principles of a CINA workshop. We have, however, with the 2nd and 3rd workshop tried to utilize the principles of CINA workshop. Looking back, more information and understanding of the CINA process might have been helpful. Also, we feel that our innovation did not fully fit into the CINA process – but this might also be due to lack of deeper understanding the process.
Interest on ecological compensation remains high. Even though we have suddenly faced exceptional times due to the global corona pandemic the trend for environment awareness will be strengthen. The large and diverse network of different stakeholders including f. ex. administration, research, private sector and NGOs is difficult to maintain without funding and common mission. If there would be funding for “InnoForESt 2” the network for developing Finnish innovation further would already exist. Even without large scale funding co-operation will likely continue in smaller sub-groups of the wider network. In some cases, the co-operation becomes bilateral. A large part of the network of Finnish IR co-operates also outside InnoForESt, only the focus of co-operation varies. We estimate that it may be more challenging to keep the innovation of voluntary ecological compensations and habitat banking going than keeping the network alive.
From the InnoForESt and Finnish IR point of view, the plan is to continue the work towards mainstreaming ecological compensations in Finland. The scale of the work depends on future funding and focus of the new projects. At the moment, InnoForESt project still continues at least until the end of planned funding period, potentially longer if the project time is prolonged due to corona-pandemic and challenges it has brought in our work. We still have on workshop planned for next autumn. We continue to think solutions on how the network could be maintained, developed and utilized in the future.
In the future, it would be highly useful to widen the co-operation and potential for networking between private forest owners from different European countries. Regarding forest ecosystem services the international / European exchange of knowledge and experiences is more common among scientists or governance and scientists than within private sector. Networks developed within InnoForESt-project are one potential way to widen network from national to international level.
Moilanen, A. & Kotiaho, J.S. (2018). Planning biodiversity offsets – Twelve operationally important decisions. TemaNord 2018:513. Nordic Council of Ministers. 73 p. https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1201285/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Kotiaho, J.S., Kuusela, S., Nieminen, E. & Päivinen, J. (eds) (2015). Elinympäristöjen tilan edistäminen Suomessa. Suomen ympäristö, 8/2015.
Kotiaho, J.S., Kuusela, S., Nieminen, E., Päivinen, J & Moilanen, A. (2016). Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation. Reports of the ministry of the environment 15en | 2016.
Paloniemi , R. & Varho, V. (2009). Changing ecological and cultural states and preferences of nature conservation policy: The case of nature values trade in south-western Finland. J. Rural Stud. 25(1): 87 –97.
Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Evolution in Finland’s Forest Biodiversity Conservation Payments and the Institutional Constraints on Establishing New Policy. Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1137–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820814
Primmer, E., Varumo, L., Kotilainen, J. M., Raitanen, E., Kattainen, M., Pekkonen, M., . . . Ollikainen, M. (2019). Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of rights and responsibilities. Land Use Policy, 81, 776-784. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.040
Raunio, A., Anttila, S., Pekkonen, M. & Ojala, O. (2018). Suitability of habitat types for biodiversity offsetting in Finland. Publications of the Ministry of Environment 2019:9
Similä, M. & Junninen, K. (eds.) 2011. Metsien ennallistamisen ja luonnonhoidon opas. [Guide for forest habitat restoration and management.] Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja. Series B 157. 192 p. Available in Finnish with an English abstract at: https://julkaisut.metsa.fi/assets/pdf/lp/Bsarja/b157.pdf
Similä, J., Primmer, E. & Salokannel, V. (2017). Luonnonarvoja korvaavat toimenpiteet, markkinat ja sääntely. [Biodiversity offsets, the market and regulation.] Oikeus 4/2017, 46: 416–441.
Annex I: Invitation to the first workshop
Tervetuloa keskustelemaan ekologisista kompensaatioista InnoForESt-hankkeen ensimmäiseen työpajaan keskiviikkona 19.9. klo 9-13.00 Helsinkiin, pääpostin vihreään huoneeseen (10krs., Mannerheiminaukio 1 B).
InnoForESt on EU Horisontti 2020 ohjelman rahoittama hanke, jossa tutkitaan metsäekosysteemipalveluiden innovaatioita. Suomessa InnoForESt kehittää ekologisten kompensaatioiden tarjontapuolta metsäympäristöissä. Hankkeessa kehitetään toimintamallia sopivien metsäisten luontokohteiden tunnistamiseen, arvioimiseen ja ennallistamiseen yhdessä metsäalan toimijoiden ja metsänomistajien kanssa. Lisäksi hankkeessa pohditaan ekologisten kompensaatioiden leviämisen mahdollisuuksia ja pullonkauloja toimijoille järjestettävissä työpajoissa.
Tässä ensimmäisessä työpajassa keskustellaan ekologisen kompensaation mahdollisuuksista yksityismailla. Keskustelua alustavat ja kommentoivat InnoForESt-hankkeen toteuttajat, Suomen habitaattipankki- hankeklusterin tutkijat sekä kestävän metsätalouden toimijat eri näkökulmista.
- Alustukset 9-10.30:
- Ekologinen kompensaatio innovaationa ja mahdollisuutena, Eeva Primmer, Suomen ympäristökeskus
- Yksityismetsätalouden rooli ja odotukset, Markku Granander Suomen metsäkeskus
- Kohteiden ekologinen vertailu kompensaatiossa, Peter Kullberg, Suomen ympäristökeskus
- Taloudelliset kannustimet ja kompensaatio, Johanna Kangas, Helsingin yliopisto
- Työpaja 10.30-13.00
- Kompensaatiota koskevat odotukset
- Kompensaation edellytykset
Työpajaa voi kommentoida jälkikäteen vastaamalla palautekyselyyn ja tuloksia hyödynnetään ekologisen kompensaation käytännön kehittämisessä ja niitä käytetään tutkimusaineistona InnoForESt-hankkeessa. Seuraava kompensaation käytännön toteutustapoja tarkentava työpaja järjestetään kevättalvella 2019.
Ilmoittaudu oheisesta linkistä: https://www.metsakeskus.fi/tapahtumat?id=7886
Voi mielellään kysyä lisätietoja etukäteen.
kehittämishankkeiden johtava asiantuntija
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 under the Grant Agreement number 763899, InnoForESt project, within the Innovation Action.
Ennakkokutsu – Save the date 16.5.!
Annex II: Save the date – invitation to the second workshop
Ekologiset kompensaatiot kohti pilotointivaihetta
InnoForEst ja Ekoteko toivottavat sinut lämpimästi tervetulleeksi ekologisten kompensaatioiden pilotointia käsittelevään työpajaan 16.5. 2019 Tikkurilaan, Sokos hotelli Vantaalle.
Työpaja tuo yhteen ekologisen kompensaation osapuolet: kompensaatiokohteita tarjoavat maanomistajat ja kompensoimisesta kiinnostuneet yritykset. Lisäksi työpajaan on kutsuttu kompensaatioiden kannalta keskeiset viranomaiset.
Työpajan ja kuluvan vuoden aikana käynnistyvien pilottien tavoitteena on selventää sitä, miten kompensaatioiden toteutuksen voisi Suomessa käytännössä tulevaisuudessa järjestää.
Työpajassa käydään pilotteja pohjustavia alustavia neuvotteluja maanomistajien ja yritysten kesken siitä, millaisilla edellytyksillä kukin olisi valmis lähtemään kompensaation toteutukseen. Tutkijat ja viranomaiset seuraavat keskustelua ja tuovat lopuksi esille reunaehtoja omista näkökulmistaan.
Ilmoittautumisen yhteydessä tiedustellaan halukkuutta osallistua pilottiin ja sitä valmistelevaan neuvotteluun työpajassa. Työpajassa on mahdollisuus 3–5 rinnakkaiseen yritys – maanomistaja -parin neuvotteluun.
Työpajaan kannattaa varata koko päivä, klo 10.00–15.00.
Tarkempi päivän aikataulu ja ohjelma ilmoitetaan myöhemmin.
10.00 Aloitus — päivän tavoite ja rakenne
10.15–10.30 Kompensaatioiden toteutusvaihtoehtojen esittely
12.45–14.00 Ohjatut keskustelut
14.15 Yhteenveto, päivän tulokset
14.45 Seuraavat askeleet
Ennakkoilmoittautumiset sähköpostitse: markku.granander(at)metsakeskus.fi
Markku Granander, Suomen metsäkeskus
Eeva Primmer, Suomen ympäristökeskus
InnoForESt on EU Horisontti 2020 ohjelman rahoittama hanke, jossa tutkitaan metsäekosysteemipalveluiden innovaatioita. Suomessa InnoForESt kehittää ekologisten kompensaatioiden tarjontapuolta metsäympäristöissä. Hankkeessa kehitetään toimintamallia hyvityksiksi sopivien metsäisten luontokohteiden tunnistamiseen, arvioimiseen ja ennallistamiseen yhdessä metsäalan toimijoiden ja metsänomistajien kanssa. Lisäksi hankkeessa pohditaan ekologisten kompensaatioiden leviämisen mahdollisuuksia ja pullonkauloja toimijoille järjestettävissä työpajoissa.
Toukokuun työpaja on osa InnoForEst-hankkeessa järjestettävää työpajojen sarjaa. Edeltävä työpaja järjestettiin syyskuussa 2018 ja sen materiaalit löytyvät hankkeen SYKEn verkkosivuilta.
EKOTEKO-hanke tutkii ekologisen kompensaation toteutettavuutta tieteellisesti ja yhteistyössä kompensaatioista kiinnostuneiden käytännön toimijoiden kanssa. Hanke laajentaa monitieteistä tutkimusta ja käytännön työtä niihin toimijoihin, joiden motivaatiot ja toimintatavat poikkeavat edelläkävijöistä. Hanke on Koneen säätiön rahoittama.