The ecological
criteria of the FFCS are either too weak, too general and/or worded
intentionally. For example, the sizes of valuable habitats and biotopes
to be preserved are limited to one hectare. Valuable habitats and
biotopes larger than that do not need to be preserved! Thus, it is
not surprising that in the personnel magazine of the manager of most
Finnish old-growth forests, the state enterprise Forest and Park Service,
it was stated in October 1999 that ”forest certification will mostly
cause paperwork in the Forest and Park Service and will hardly affect
actual operations in the forests”.
Governmental
Regional Environment Centres have heavily criticized the Finnish certification
system.
For example,
officials from the Pirkanmaa and North Karelia Environment Centres
stated that in the FFCS criterion 10 concerning the preservation of
key biotopes and valuable habitats ”many of the
definitions related to valuable biotopes and habitats are subject
to differing interpretations and there are no possibilities for non-forestry
parties to assess or verify the classifications made by the forestry
sector.”
”In
addition to the ambiguities of criterion 10 associated with the classification
of key biotopes, the system falls short in the rather simplified assessment
sheet that the forestry sector uses to assess their own performance
retrospectively…The monitoring system is a closed system of the forestry
sector built up under conditions of forestry. Possibilities for subjective
interpretation are so severe that according to our understanding the
system does not meet the requirements of impartial reliability.”
The shortcomings
of the criterion concerning the making of studies on biological values
associated with road construction plans were also commented on: ”Criterion
24 defines a certain minimum level of factors that must be examined
in the studies, but defines no actual environmental standard or requirement
concerning the consideration of biological values in the concrete
implementation of the road construction plans.”
The South
Savo Environment Centre criticized the monitoring of the preservation
of valuable habitats in 2000: ”The Environment
Centre considers it a major defect that the forestry officials do
not sufficiently inform the Centre on the matters monitored in forest
certification…the Forestry Centre does not inform the Environment
Centre on the locations of even those sites that have conservational
value…In relation to species conservation the situation is unsustainable.
For example, the main responsibility for the preservation of flying
squirrel habitats is on the operators of forest machines.”
