Regulatory innovations for biodiversity protection in private forests - Towards flexibility

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-31

  Fromond, Louise ^a   Similä, Jukka ^b   Suvantola, Leila ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Biodiversity conservation; Forest management; Innovation; Regulation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; INNOVATION; NATURE CONSERVATION; REGULATORY APPROACH;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA; EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; FRANCE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 62649141386     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqn033     Document Type: Article

References (175)

1. Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 6 Decision VI/26 (The Hague, 7-9 April 2002).
2. Presidency Conclusions, Gothenburg European Council 15 and 16 June 2001, 8.
3. Commission (EC), 'A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development' (Communication), COM (2001) 264 final, 15 May 2001, 12.
4. P Kangas, JP Jäppinen and M von Weissenberg (eds) Suomen biologista monimuotoisuutta koskevan kansallisen toimintaohjelman toteutuminen vuosina 2002-2004: Kolmas seurantaraportti (Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki 2005) 69
5. M Hildén, AP Auvinen and E Primmer (eds), Suomen biodiversiteettiohjelman arviointi (Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki 2005) 171.
6. In Western Europe (eg France), activities such as forestry are permitted in protected areas or in parts of them (buffer zones). GM Robinson, Conflict and Change in the Countryside (Belhaven Press, London 1990) 308-313
7. Environmental Code (France), s L.331-1.
8. P Angelstam and L Andersson, 'Estimates on the Needs for Forest Reserves in Sweden' (2001) 16 Scand J For Res (supp 3) 38, 45.
9. See eg P Luoma, Vihreät viirit: Muutos ja pysyvyys Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliiton ympäristöpoliittisissa näkemyksissä vuosina 1980-2000 Maataloustuottaja-lehden valossa (University of Oulu, Oulu 2002) 157-188
10. P Horne, T Koskela and V Ovaskainen (eds), Metsänomistajien ja kansalaisten näkemykset metsäluonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaamisesta (Metsäntutkimuslaitos, Vantaa 2004) 60-64
11. P Horne, 'Use of Choice Experiments in Assessing the Role of Policy Instruments in Social Acceptability of Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Southern Finland' in E Birol and P Koundouri (eds), Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy: A European Perspective (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2008) 178, 181-182, 184-185, 191.
12. See SA Wolf and E Primmer, 'Between Incentives and Action: A Pilot Study of Biodiversity Conservation Competencies for Multifunctional Forest Management in Finland' (2006) 19 Soc Nat Resour 845.
13. Boreal forests, see G Mikusinski and others, 'Conservation Planning in Forest Landscapes of Fennoscandia and an Approach to the Challenge of Countdown 2010' (2007) 21 Conserv Biol 1445, 1445-1447.
14. Extensive non-industrial private forest ownership, see Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7).
15. J Black, M Lodge and M Thatcher (eds), Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2005) 11.
16. Ibid, 15.
17. See, for a distinction between innovation and invention, FS Berry and WD Berry, 'Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research' in PA Sabatier (ed), Theories of the Policy Process (Westview Press, Boulder 1999) 169.
18. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2007 (Metsäntutkimuslaitos, Vantaa 2007) 338, 374.
19. P Rassi and others (eds), Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000 (Ympäristöministeriö and Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki 2001) 341-342
20. Hildén, Auvinen and Primmer (n 4), 49.
21. Hildén, Auvinen and Primmer (n 15).
22. Ibid, 38-50.
23. Finnish Forest Research Institute (n 14), 51-52.
24. Swedish Forest Agency, Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2007 (Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping 2007) 32.
25. French National Forest Inventory, Indicators for the Sustainable Management of French Forests: 2005 Edition (Inventaire Forestier National, Nogent-sur-Vernisson 2006) accessed 22 December 2008, 12-13.
26. On average about two-thirds of forests in metropolitan France are privately owned, 10% are owned by the state and the rest by other public entities, mainly municipalities. French National Forest Inventory, 'A qui appartient la forêt française?' accessed 27 April 2008.
27. More than two-thirds of the private forest owners hold units of less than 1 hectare. French National Forest Inventory (n 20), 92-93.
28. For example, Swedish Forest Agency (n 19), 284-289.
29. See the indicators for forest biodiversity in French National Forest Inventory (n 20), 56-86.
30. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list data bank search on 2007 data accessed 29 April 2008.
31. See N Gunningham and D Sinclair, 'Policy Instrument Choice and Diffuse Source Pollution' (2005) 17 JEL 51, 54.
32. In evaluation research, concepts such as eg intervention theory, policy theory or programme logic have been used to describe the same idea. See P Kautto and J Similä, 'Recently Introduced Policy Instruments and Intervention Theories' (2005) 11 Evaluation 55, 58-59
33. J Similä, Regulating Industrial Pollution: The Case of Finland (Forum Iuris, Helsinki 2007) 28-29.
34. N Hanley, JF Shogren and B White, Introduction to Environmental Economics (OUP, Oxford 2001) 115.
35. See eg Rawls's distinction between pure procedural justice and allocative justice. J Rawls, A Theory of Justice (OUP, Oxford 1973) 88.
36. See eg Gunningham and Sinclair (n 26), 71.
37. See T Määttä, Maanomistusoikeus (Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys, Helsinki 1999) 235-241.
38. Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 56-57, 65.
39. On different behaviour-based typologies of forest owners, see eg M Appelstrand, Miljömålet i skogsbruket: Styrning och frivillighet (Lund Studies in Sociology of Law 26, Lunds universitet, Lund 2007) 266-271 and 281-282.
40. See Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 19. However, in a survey of Finnish citizens (ibid 40), only a few percent considered that no compensation should be paid to forest owners, whereas nearly half of the participants supported compensation of both costs for biodiversity conservation and lost income.
41. See also Gunningham and Sinclair (n 26), 73, who use the criterion 'political acceptability' to define much the same challenges.
42. Gunningham and Sinclair (n 26), 74.
43. Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 52.
44. See also Appelstrand (n 33).
45. See Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 60-64.
46. National Audit Office of Finland, Natura 2000 -verkoston valmistelu (Performance audit report 140/2007, Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto, Helsinki 2007) 140-151
47. Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 60-63.
48. Forest Act 1093/1996 (Finland), s 10.1: 'Forests must be managed and utilised in such a manner that the overall prerequisites for the preservation of habitats characteristic to the biological diversity of the forests are ensured'. Obligations for individual landowners cannot be based on this provision alone. See J Similä, Luonnonsuojelulaki (Kauppakaari, Helsinki 1997) 127.
49. Forestry Act 1979:429 (Sweden), s 30
50. Swedish Forest Agency, Skogsvårdslagen - Handbok (Skogsstyrelsens förlag, Jönköping 2006) 56-63.
51. Forestry Act 1979:429 (Sweden), s 14a.
52. This is the case with the general obligation in Finland, see Similä (n 40), 127.
53. Such provisions have been referred to as lex imperfecta. K Makkonen, Oikeudellisen ratkaisutoiminnan ongelmia (Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys, Helsinki 1981) 92-95.
54. This has been the tradition eg in Swedish forest policy, see Skogsutredningen 2004, Mervärdesskog Del 3: Slutbetänkande av Skogsutredningen 2004 (Statens offentliga utredningar SOU 2006:81, Stockholm 2006) 49.
55. During the last 10 years, written notice has been given in 4,000-5,000 cases annually, compared to around 50,000 regeneration logging notifications submitted eg in 2006. On average 40% of these cases has concerned failure to take into account natural values and reindeer husbandry. Enforcement can take place without prior notice only in particular situations, eg when necessary to preserve natural or cultural values, but this concerns only a few cases annually. Forestry Act 1979:429 (Sweden), s 35
56. Swedish Forest Agency (n 19), 141
57. Skogsutredningen 2004 (n 44), 53-56.
58. Forestry Act 1979:429 (Sweden), s 35.
59. Since the late 1990s, such prohibitions or obligations have been used in 200-250 cases annually. Skogsutredningen 2004 (n 44), 56-58.
60. Non-compliance with a prohibition or obligation imposed by the Swedish Forest Agency (or failure to duly notify the authorities about logging in the first place) is subject to criminal sanctions. Approximately 80% of the criminal cases have related to failure to notify regeneration logging. It is estimated that two-thirds of all the filed reports have not led to prosecution. Forestry Act 1979:429 (Sweden), s 38
61. Skogsutredningen 2004 (n 44), 58-60.
62. Forestry Act 1979:429 (Sweden), s 14a
63. Forestry Decree 1993:1096 (Sweden), s 34a
64. Swedish Forest Agency (n 41), 35-36.
65. Skogsutredningen 2004 (n 44), 97, 101, 102.
66. Deterrence failure, see OECD, Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure: Challenges for Regulatory Compliance (OECD, 2000) accessed 22 December 2008, 20.
67. On the use of eg information instruments to address the problem of bounded rationality, see N Gunningham, P Grabosky and D Sinclair, Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy (OUP, Oxford 1998) 413-422.
68. Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 54-59.
69. For example, the minimum standard for forest management in Sweden can only involve such measures that do not significantly impede ongoing land use on the relevant part of the property, which is the threshold for compensation for land use restrictions according to Swedish law and the Swedish Constitution. Instrument of Government 1974:152 (Sweden) ch 2, s 18.
70. I Hanski, 'Extinction Debt and Species Credit in Boreal Forests: Modeling the Consequences of Different Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation' (2000) 37 Annales Zoologici Fennici 271, 279.
71. See eg K Eckerberg and M Joas, 'Multilevel Environmental Governance: A Concept under Stress?' (2004) 9 Local Environ 405
72. Appelstrand (n 33), 110-116.
73. D Bourgouin and G Van Peteghem, 'La mise en oeuvre des chartes forestières de territoire: Exemple des Pyrénées-Orientales' [2002] Ingénieries-EAT (No spécial Aménagement forestier) 107, 107-108.
74. Forestry Code (France), s L.12, introduced 2001 by the Forest Outline Act No 2001-602
75. French Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries, Circulaire DERF/SDF/ SDIB/C2001-3004 du 15 février 2001: Charte de territoire forestier, mise en place expérimentale (15 February 2001) accessed 30 June 2008
76. G Junod, Comment les Parcs naturels régionaux peuvent-ils s'investir dans la politique forestière sur leur territoire? (Parcs naturels régionaux de France and ENGREF, Nancy 2005) 24-25.
77. T Riethmuller, S Weiss and C Chauvin, 'Les chartes forestie' res de territoire: Premier bilan' 36 [2003] Ingénieries-EAT 43, 47
78. Fédération nationale des communes forestières de France, 'Etat des lieux des 70 chartes forestières de territoire au 30 juin 2006' accessed 1 May 2008, 3-4.
79. Junod (n 57), 31-33
80. Bourgouin and Van Peteghem (n 56), 108.
81. C Chauvin, J Dehez and P Deuffic, 'Le FEADER, nouvelle étape vers une politique forestière européenne?' [2005] Ingénieries-EAT (No spécial Politiques de développement rural - Enjeux, modalités et strategies) 91, 98.
82. Fédération nationale des communes forestières de France, 'Liste des CFT avec leurs objectifs et états d'avancement' accessed 30 April 2008. The prevalence of productive functions is also referred to in Chauvin, Dehez and Deuffic (n 60), 98.
83. Indeed, all charters do not fulfil the aim of multifunctionality, see Junod (n 57), 32-33.
84. Riethmuller, Weiss and Chauvin (n 58), 46
85. Junod (n 57), 32.
86. Cooperation networks resemble a Swedish pilot initiative, the landscape ecological core areas, which promoted cooperation between different actors (administration, landowners and environmental NGOs) in managing forest ecosystems and implementing nature conservation instruments in certain ecologically especially valuable areas. This instrument was not based on statutory law and could be characterised merely as a method for administrative practice. See Swedish Forest Agency, Landskapsekologiska kärnområden - LEKO: Redovisning av ett projekt 1999-2003 (Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping 2004).
87. The programme is based on a decision in principle of the Finnish Government. Finnish Government, 'Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös toimintaohjelmasta Etelä-Suomen, Oulun läänin länsiosan ja Lapin läänin lounaisosan metsien monimuotoisuuden turvaamiseksi' (23 October 2002) 6-7.
88. In March 2008, the continuation of the programme until 2016 was approved: Finnish Government, 'Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös Etelä-Suomen metsien monimuotoisuuden toimintaohjelmasta 2008-2016' (27 March 2008).
89. Finnish Government 2002 (n 64)
90. K Syrjänen and others (eds) METSOn seuranta ja arviointi. Etelä-Suomen metsien monimuotoisuusohjelman seurannan ja arvioinnin loppuraportti (Maa- jametsätalousministeriö, Ympäristö ministeriö, Metsäntutkimuslaitos ja Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki 2006) 119-120.
91. Finnish Government 2002 (n 64).
92. Syrjänen and others (n 65), 121.
93. E Primmer and E Keinonen, Yhteistoimintaverkostot: Etelä-Suomen metsien monimuotoisuusohjelman kokeiluhanke (Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki 2006) 55-58.
94. Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry 1094/1996 (Finland), s 20.
95. Chauvin, Dehez and Deuffic (n 60), 98.
96. Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry 1094/1996 (Finland), s 19a.
97. SA Wolf and S Hufnagl-Eichner, 'External Resources and Development of Forest Landowner Collaboratives' (2007) 20 Soc Nat Resour 675, 685.
98. Nature Conservation Act 1096/1996 (Finland), s 25
99. Similä (n 40), 101.
100. Pilot projects carried out in 2003-2007. See Syrjänen and others (n 65), 87-88.
101. Syrjänen and others (n 74)
102. Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry 1094/1996 (Finland), s 19a
103. Nature Conservation Act 1096/1996 (Finland), s 25.
104. H Kumela and T Koskela, 'Metsänomistajien nak̈emyksiä luonnonarvokaupan ja sen sopimusehtojen hyväksyttävyydestä' [2006] Metsä tieteen aikakauskirja 257, 262.
105. Land Code 1970:994 (Sweden), ch 7, ss 3 and 5
106. Skogsutredningen 2004, Mervärdesskog Del 2: Slutbetänkande av Skogsutredningen 2004 (Statens offentliga utredningar SOU 2006:81, Stockholm 2006) 240.
107. Around SEK 7,000/ha (approx. EUR 750), compared to SEK 36,000/ha for nature reserves and SEK 48,000/ha for smaller biotope protection areas. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish Forest Agency, Nationell strategi för formellt skydd av skog (Naturvårdsverket and Skogsstyrelsen, Stockholm and Jönköping 2005) 106; Skogsutredningen 2004 (n 77), 240.
108. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish Forest Agency (n 78), 64, 87-88.
109. According to the guidelines of the Swedish Forest Agency the landowner or forest user must notify the Forest Agency before carrying out a forest management or other land use measure in a so-called key biotope. If, according to the Forest Agency, the planned activity threatens the key biotope, it attempts to persuade the land user not to carry it out. The Forest Agency may also suggest a nature conservation contract or establish a biotope protection area. See Swedish Forest Agency, Cirkulär SKS 2003:A3 2003-09-08: Skogsvårdsorganisationens (SVO) arbete med nyckelbiotoper (8 September 2003) accessed 28 April 2008.
110. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish Forest Agency (n 78), 37-38, 87.
111. Land Code 1970:994 (Sweden), ch 7, s 3
112. Nature Conservation Act 1096/1996 (Finland), s 25.3.
113. Pilot projects carried out in 2004-2005. See Syrjänen and others (n 65), 101-102.
114. Ibid, 101-113.
115. State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment, BushTender: Rethinking Investment for Native Vegetation Outcomes: The Application of Auctions for Securing Private Land Management Agreements (the State of Victoria, Melbourne 2008) accessed 7 October 2008.
116. See for the procedure ibid, 6.
117. Ibid, 14-16.
118. Skogsutredningen 2004 (n 77), 289. Subsidies for up to 70% of the management costs can be granted. Decree on public aid to forestry 1993:555 (Sweden), s 2.
119. General Tax Code (France), s 1395 E.
120. Environmental Code (France), s L.414-3. Reimbursable measures are defined nationally and specified at the regional level. They relate eg to certain forms of regeneration, development or restoration of natural habitats, limitation of chemical or mechanical work, non-productive cutting and trimming, promoting or counteracting specific species and preservation of senescent trees.
121. S Anthon, S Garcia and A Stenger, 'Incentive Contracts for Natura 2000 Implementation: A Mixed Model of Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard' (Document de travail du LEF no 2006-06, ENGREF/INRA, Nancy 2006) accessed 1 May 2008, 9.
122. See also French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development and French Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries, Circulaire DNP/SDEN No 2004-3 du 24 décembre 2004 relative à la gestion contractuelle des sites Natura 2000 en application des articles R.214-23 à R.214-33 du code rural (24 December 2004) and accessed 30 June 2008, ch 11 and app 5.
123. Anthon, Garcia and Stenger (n 90), 9
124. French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development and French Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries (n 90), 39-40.
125. French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development and French Ministry forAgriculture and Fisheries (n 90), 38-39.
126. Anthon, Garcia and Stenger (n 90), 28.
127. Although forest owner involvement is emphasised compared to the participation of other stakeholder groups, this can be seen as another example of the development 'from government to governance'. See Eckerberg and Joas (n 55), 405
128. and Appelstrand (n 55).
129. This conclusion is confirmed by surveys conducted among Finnish forest owners, eg Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 60-65.
130. See also National Audit Office of Finland (n 39), 140-151.
131. State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (n 85), 35, 38. Ninety percent of participants and 69% of non-participants in the BushTender regard the programme to be a good or very good idea. See State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment, BushTender - the Landholder Perspective: A Report on Landholder Responses to the BushTender Trial (the State of Victoria, Melbourne 2006) 22 accessed 7 October 2008.
132. According to a survey of forest owners in Finland, many landowners also do not want to commit on behalf of future owners. See Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 58.
133. Anthon, Garcia and Stenger (n 90), 25-29.
134. M Kurttila and others, 'Etelä-Suomen metsien monimuotoisuuden keinoyhdistelmien tarkastelu' in Syrjänen and others (n 65), 307, 317.
135. State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (n 85), 39.
136. HT Anker, 'The Polluter Pays Principle: Problems and Issues Related to Biodiversity' in HT Anker and EM Basse (eds), Land Use and Nature Protection: Emerging Legal Aspects (DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen 2000) 69, 70.
137. See for wetland mitigation banking eg JB Ruhl and RJ Gregg, 'Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands Mitigation Banking' (2001) 20 Stanford Environ L J 365.
138. See also the BushBroker initiative in Victoria, Australia. The State of Victoria: Department of Sustainability and Environment, BushBroker: Native Vegetation Credit Registration and Trading: Information Paper (The State of Victoria 2006) accessed 8 May 2008
139. and P Curnow and L Fitz-Gerald, 'Biobanking in New South Wales: Legal Issues in the Design and Implementation of a Biodiversity Offsets and Banking Scheme' (2006) 23 Environ Plan L J 298, 302.
140. There were in 2005 in total 450 accredited conservation banks in the USA and another 198 were to be approved. See Curnow and Fitz-Gerald (n 102), 301.
141. Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Act 2006.
142. Department of the Environment and Climate Change, Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme: Scheme Overview (DECC, Sydney 2007) accessed 14 February 2008.
143. Curnow and Fitz-Gerald (n 102), 299
144. R Lyster and T Stephens, 'The Rise and Rise of Environmental Markets in Australia - Biodiversity Banking in New South Wales' (2007) 10 Asia Pacific J Environ L 1, 3.
145. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Draft BioBanking Assessment Methodology Under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (Sydney 2007) accessed 11 March 2008.
146. Condition consists of native plant richness, over, mid- and ground-storey cover, exotic plant cover, hollow trees, fallen logs and proportion of over storey species in regeneration.
147. The vegetation benchmarks are defined for each vegetation type as the quality with relatively little evidence of human modification since European settlement.
148. Department of Environment and Climate Change (n 107), 11.
149. Ibid, 33.
150. Lyster and Stephens (n 106), 7.
151. The development of the assessment methodology for BioBanking took 3 years. The outcome was regarded as sound by the peer review panel. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Peer Review of the May 2007 Draft of the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (Sydney 2007) accessed 11 March 2008, 1.
152. See eg National Market Based Instrument Working Group, National Market-based Instruments Pilot Program: Round One: An Interim Report (Australian Government 2005) accessed 28 April 2008, 40.
153. Threatened species survey and assessment can cost around $80,000 for sites with moderately complex threatened species issues, while the biobanking survey and assessment costs will be around $30,000. The process including survey, negotiation and approval time generally takes 2 years or longer depending on complexity, while biobanking is expected to take 6 months on average once the scheme is established and there is a good supply of biobank sites. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposed Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2007 (Sydney 2007) accessed 11 March 2008, 8.
154. Habitats of special importance in terms of forest diversity are eg the immediate surroundings of springs and brooks, certain swamps, gorges and ravines. Forest Act 1093/1996 (Finland), s 10.2.
155. Nature Conservation Act 1096/1996 (Finland), s 49.
156. Such an inventory has been made in connection to the habitats protected in the Finnish Forest Act. It was required by the Parliament of Finland as a prerequisite for adopting the Forest Act. See also K Yrjönen, Metsälain erityisen tärkeät elinympäristöt: Kartoitus yksityismetsissä 1998-2004 - loppuraportti (Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki 2004) 9-10.
157. This is illustrated eg by the implementation of the rules on habitats protection under the EC Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.
158. In Finland, the acceptability of small-scale conservation on private land turned out to be high: In a survey of landowners subject to habitat conservation, over 80% of the owners of sites featuring protected habitat, or habitats of specifically protected species, accepted the principle of top-down conservation where the land ownership remained and significant economic losses were to be compensated financially to the landowner. L Suvantola, AM Pasanen and L Pesonen, Luonnonsuojelun korvausjärjestelmä (Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki 2006) 89. Findings of other surveys indicate that eg targeted, predictable land use restrictions contribute to acceptability among landowners.
159. See eg Horne, Koskela and Ovaskainen (n 7), 60-63
160. National Audit Office of Finland (n 39), 140-151.
161. Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry 1094/1996 (Finland), s 19
162. Nature Conservation Act 1096/1996 (Finland), s 53.
163. The above examined forest management standards of Swedish forestry law could also be regarded as feature protection instruments, as non-compliance may ultimately lead to criminal sanctions. In practice, however, softer means of implementation are used. Unlike the instruments described in this section, the management standards are also not directly enforceable and do not involve compensation for land use restrictions.
164. G Bates, Environmental Law in Australia (6th edn LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia 2006) 470.
165. Four key challenges of boreal forest biodiversity conservation were identified on the basis of the evaluation of Finland's National Biodiversity Programme (Hildén, Auvinen and Primmer (n 4),38-50): conservation and creation of landscape level forest patterns linking populations; leaving outside forestry the most significant forestland for biodiversity; increasing the mix of tree age and species, including the amount of decayed wood; and protecting threatened or decreasing species and natural habitat types.
166. See eg N Gunningham and MD Young, 'Toward Optimal Environmental Policy: The Case of Biodiversity Conservation' (1997) 24 Ecol L Q 243, 285.
167. OECD 2000 (n 50), 14
168. Gunningham, Grabosky and Sinclair (n 51), 437-447.
169. See I Ayres and J Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (OUP, Oxford 1992) 19-53
170. Gunningham, Grabosky and Sinclair (n 51), 391-408.
171. Gunningham and Young (n 125), 297
172. Gunningham, Grabosky and Sinclair (n 51), 15-19, 387-391, 422-448
173. see also Ayres and Braithwaite (n 127), 38-40.
174. See E Vedung, Public Policy and Program Evaluation (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London 2000) 15-21.
175. See M Hildén and others, Evaluation of Environmental Policy Instruments: A Case Study of the Finnish Pulp & Paper and Chemical Industries (Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research 21, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki 2002) 39-42, which studied a reform of Finnish pollution control regulation.