by Mervi Heinonen, Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services
Carrying out the assessment of Finland's national parks © Nigel Dudley
A comprehensive international management effectiveness evaluation of the Finnish protected area system was commissioned by the Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services (NHS) and organized in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment and stakeholders in 2004. The evaluation report was published in 2005.70
The evaluation was carried out in accordance with the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) approved in Malaysia in 2004. It has been Finland's aim to support the ambitious realization of the CBD in halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. Protected areas and good protected area management play a key role in attaining this goal.
The evaluation results indicate that substantial progress has taken place since the first evaluation was carried out on Finnish protected areas by Harold Eidsvik of Canada and Hans Bibelriether of Germany in 1994. The report provides insight into the management of Finland's most valuable natural sites and how effectively the financial and other means granted to the NHS are used. It also shows how successful the result-oriented guidance and creation of operating conditions for protected areas have been.
Simultaneously with this evaluation, the Ministry of the Environment financed an assessment of how Finland has reached its general biodiversity targets through measures of various fields of administration.71 Together with the detailed international review on protected areas, it offers a good foundation for understanding conservation in Finland.
Finland has a well developed network of protected areas covering about 10 percent of its total area. Protected areas are spread around the country but most of the area protected is in the far north. There are generally no permanent settlements in protected areas and no logging, although reindeer herding and subsistence hunting is allowed in the three northern regions.
The protected areas on state land are mostly administrated and managed by the Natural Heritage Services (NHS). The agency is part of Metsähallitus, which is also responsible for management of state forest land. Most funding for the NHS comes from the state.
The backbone of the Finnish protected area system is a network of national parks, strict nature reserves and wilderness areas on state land (Table 12). Most of the areas consisting of representative forest, mire and fell habitats are situated in Northern Finland, but there are also several national parks in the southern part of the country. There are currently 35 national parks managed by the NHS, registering over 1.2 million visitors in 2004 (Finland has 5.2 million inhabitants). One national park and a few other protected areas are managed by the Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Figure 12. Management effectiveness assessment process in Finland
Table 12. Protected areas in Finland (January 2005)
Another main element in the Finnish protected area system is a series of sites belonging to national conservation programmes for particular ecosystems and their species assemblages. Specific national conservation programmes have been established for mires, herb-rich forests, waterfowl wetlands, shores (both inland and coastal waters) and old-growth forests. Many areas, especially those for mires or old-growth forests, are large, but most sites particularly in the south are small. The conservation programmes include areas both on state and privately-owned land.
Since Finland joined the European Union (EU) in 1995, a national Natura 2000 network has been created, mostly of areas already protected. This network of sites has the overall goal of protecting biodiversity within the EU. It is composed of two main types of site: Special Protected Areas designated under the EU Birds Directive (1979/409/EEC) and Special Areas of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive (1992/43/EEC). Finland's Natura 2000 network was approved by the European Commission on January 13, 2005. The Finnish network covers a total of 59,930km2 of which Metsähallitus has 42,840km2, equalling 71 per cent.
The management effectiveness evaluation of the Finnish protected areas was conducted using the IUCN-WCPA Framework72 adapted to the conditions of Finland. In accordance to the Framework, the elements of the management cycle considered were context, planning, resources, process, outputs and outcomes.
An international steering group was identified to help to develop and comment on the assessment. The aim was to represent key institutions with an interest in Finland's environment and, by including two representatives from IUCN, help drive the international effort to increase protected area management effectiveness.
A four person evaluation team was identified and appointed, including someone with specific experience in running a comparable protected area programme, someone with expertise in Natura 2000, a representative from a conservation NGO and a local expert.
The management effectiveness evaluation assessment process is shown in Figure 12. The evaluation team first reviewed a large amount of literature. Park managers in Finland also completed a self-assessment questionnaire, modified from the WWF RAPPAM system (see Case Study II).73
The assessment included 70 of the nearly 500 statutory protected areas, including the national parks, strict nature reserves, wilderness reserves and national hiking areas. Drawing on these, the team developed a series of specific questions based on the WCPA Framework. To assist in focusing the evaluation work a set of assessment criteria were drafted for each question. The questions were answered by the NHS staff and they formed the core of the assessment and the subsequent report. The management effectiveness evaluation was finalized by a field assessment, which included visits to representative protected area sites (Figure 13) as well as meetings with NHS staff and representatives of directing and financing ministries, local stakeholder groups and NGOs.
Figure 13. Management effectiveness evaluation sites in Finland.
The protected areas were selected to represent a range of different habitats in different parts of the country, with parks of high and low visitation.
Carrying out the assessment of Finland's national parks © Nigel Dudley
The evaluation gave the general rating that Finland's protected areas are well managed, and with some exceptions, they appeared to be achieving their aims of conserving biodiversity. However, the evaluators gave a number of recommendations for improvements, summed up into ten areas of suggested action. Some of these relate to the Finnish context specifically, while all reflect the goals and targets of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas.
An ecosystem approach in planning was recommended to integrate protected areas with the land and water mosaics surrounding them to form effective ecological networks. Regional landscape plans for conservation were suggested to involve innovative partnerships with private landowners, local communities and other state land managers.
System planning was recommended to be supported by national strategies addressing invasive species and climate change. In addition a gap analysis of threatened species was suggested to see whether current conservation actions are adequate.
Site planning for management was observed to be falling behind schedule; strategic targets and milestones were recommended to finish and update this process. Periodical risk assessment was suggested to help to focus planning on sites in greatest need of action.
Conservation outcomes in view of the evaluation should be emphasised in the management of protected areas. Certain declining habitats deserve greater attention. More areas where hunting and fishing is prohibited are needed, as are efforts to reduce impacts of overgrazing by reindeer in the far north.
Community outcomes: specific efforts should be made to poll opinions and build arguments for protection with rural local communities to reduce the continuing antipathy for protected areas.
Visitor outcomes: visitor impacts should be assessed and impact reduction looked into by raising public awareness of service costs and environmental effects.
The financing provided by the Finnish government was in general seen to be adequate in international comparison. Exploration of options for other kinds of support was recommended. Annual audits should be checked against delivery on objectives, especially on those related to conservation.
The global role of Finland's protected areas and the significance of conservation work appeared not to be fully comprehended by all NHS staff. Better understanding of the Convention of Biological Diversity and Natura 2000 targets was suggested as a potentially motivating factor for staff.
Assessment of cultural values was seen to require a strategy. Terrestrial and underwater habitat inventories are to continue. A Natura 2000 master plan for monitoring is needed. Assessment and monitoring systems should be worked into a coherent framework and resources concentrated on a suite of key indicators to represent biodiversity and cultural outcomes in protected areas.
State of the Parks reporting was recommended on a regular basis to analyse and communicate management effectiveness and support a culture of adaptive management. Reporting should involve external review.
Many of the recommendations made by the evaluators were directed to the Natural Heritage Services of Metsähallitus. The recommendations range from minor ones which are relatively easy to put in practice, to complex strategic challenges which will take considerable time to implement. Several recommendations were related to the environmental administration in general, e.g. legislation, political strategies and cooperation between different sectors and stakeholders. Immediate action has been taken by both Metsähallitus and the Ministry of the Environment. The whole set of recommendations was discussed by the Board of Directors of Metsähallitus, Scientific Advisory Panel and several internal teams of the NHS.
A broader ecosystem approach in management planning is seen as important by the entire Finnish environmental and forestry administration. Regional natural resource plans of Metsähallitus have already utilized the ecosystem approach successfully in the north, where most of the land is state-owned. Measures are especially needed in southern Finland, where the scattered network of small protected areas is surrounded by other land use pressures. If the connectivity of protected areas cannot be improved, the expected effects of climate change will be particularly detrimental to Finnish parks.
The national METSO programme includes several pilot projects aiming at the conservation of biodiversity values in southern forests, on a voluntary basis and emphasising cooperation between different stakeholders. The situation is still more challenging as regards other habitats, including traditional agricultural lands. Efforts are however being made to encourage private landowners to participate in management schemes.
The ecosystem approach is also a challenge to ecological research, since the baseline ecological information is often missing in areas surrounding protected areas. Although Metsähallitus carries out a lot of inventories on state-owned lands and waters, private lands are usually poorly studied. The NHS has already made arrangements to enable inventory data of privately-owned protected areas to be incorporated into GIS systems of Metsähallitus, which makes integrated land-use and management planning easier in practice.
The evaluation emphasised the necessity for a strategic national plan for the Natura 2000 network. Regional Environment Centres and Metsähallitus are jointly drawing up regional master plans for Natura 2000 areas which could be used in national level planning.
The Ministry of the Environment has already paid attention to the issues of climate change and invasive alien species, but their relation to protected areas needs to be studied further. The Ministry has also established several working groups to tackle national issues, such as hunting. Another group is working to amalgamate the recreational use of nature with the aims of biodiversity conservation in state hiking areas and municipal recreational forests. It seeks to look at how these areas can support protected areas and enhance the ecological functioning of the protected area network.
Site planning of Finnish protected areas is falling behind the tight schedule set by the EU for Natura 2000 sites. In many cases the plans are also required by national legislation. The preparation of several hundred detailed management plans within a few years is almost an impossible mission. However, regional Natura 2000 master plans will aid this process, as will threat analyses, if done in connection with State of the Parks work, as is planned.
The recommendation dealing with State of the Parks reporting was a major strategic proposal, but relatively easy to take on board. An internal project was established to gather the data needed in 2005 and the first State of the Finnish Parks will be published in 2006.
In Finland, the proposed park-level reporting is a novel approach. In certain respects the NHS has even intentionally tried to suppress such individual park-centred ideas of protected area management in favour of cost-efficient process-based management which is coordinated at the regional (unit) level. The park-level reporting, particularly in the proposed format of State of the Parks Reports, provides a comprehensive framework to gather and present existing data in an interesting way.
The NHS plans to publish similar reports every five years. These will provide a useful tool for monitoring how the agency and country is reaching the 2010 target to significantly reduce the loss of biological diversity. It will allow the agency to develop its own work, to understand changes and to assess threats. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity to inform decision makers and the public at large on natural and cultural values and the challenges faced in maintaining these values. It may also help the NHS personnel to understand the links between the national, European and global values and targets.
The Finnish management effectiveness evaluation is one of the largest protected area assessments undertaken to date within the context of the IUCN-WCPA Framework and one of the first national-level assessments initiated by a protected area agency in a developed country. Because the evaluation team thought it likely that this process would be studied by other countries interested in developing similar assessments of their own, the evaluation report concluded with several comments on the structure and process of the Finnish evaluation.
The IUCN-WCPA Framework provided a useful context: the six main fields of the Framework provided the necessary context, ensuring that the team considered all relevant aspects of management including the most difficult, but most important area, of outcomes. The specific questions were a useful way of focusing attention and drawing out information.
The RAPPAM and background research to provide data were both essential: in the relatively short timescale available, having a lot of information already available for assimilation before and during the field visits made it possible to complete the project. The RAPPAM methodology was useful in getting perspectives from protected area managers.
Field visits played a key role in gaining understanding: the field trip was critical in building up a picture of the state of the parks that could not be gained from written comments or conversations remote from the site. The team strongly advises against assessments that do not involve substantial elements of ground-truthing.
A wide expertise within the team was useful: the team members all came from very different backgrounds. Having someone with experience in managing a similar protected area network was extremely useful and perspectives from intergovernmental and NGOs were also necessary in building a complete picture. A local but independent expert is indispensable in understanding local issues and checking the accuracy of statements.
And what would the team have done differently? Firstly, more meaningful responses may have been provided to the specific questions posed if the set of questions could have been provided to the NHS a full six months before the field evaluation (in this case they were provided two months in advance). Stakeholder involvement in the evaluation might have been enhanced if both the questions and the NHS draft response could have been made available to stakeholders before the field evaluation. Armed with both the agency responses and review comments by stakeholders, the work of the Evaluation Team could have been more precisely targeted. The team would probably have also given themselves more time in the country, both to meet with some stakeholders informally without NHS staff and perhaps to see a wider range of protected areas. It might also have been worth having more meetings with some of the groups most affected by protected areas, such as small forest owners, state forest enterprises and hunting groups to find out their perspectives. Such an approach would necessarily extend both the lead and field time in the overall evaluation process, but might also speed up the report finalization phase.
Secondly, the team emphasised that the precise format used in a management effectiveness evaluation is probably less important than assembling a good team and allowing time to read, listening to people and asking probing questions: their overall advice would be not to be too doctrinaire in approaching the issue.
The first lesson learned by the Natural Heritage Services was the need for easily accessible collated information on the protected areas and their management. Very little was readily available, especially in English, when the evaluation was begun, and a lot of work was needed to present plentiful information in a digestible format. The publication of a State of the Parks report at five year intervals will much improve the situation in the future.
The actual recommendations are food for thought for the protected area managers and the whole personnel. There is a need for more protected-area-specific aims and activities, defined on the basis of specially conducted assessments and risk analyses. The RAPPAM analysis as used in this evaluation was useful in introducing managers and other staff members to the WCPA Framework and the issues involved. New tools for self-evaluation of management effectiveness need to be developed.
It is important that field workers in protected areas are fully aware of the importance of their work from an international perspective. The whole administration must help conservation workers to become fully committed to international conservation goals, and to meet their colleagues from other countries.
As valuable as many of the recommendations are likely to be, it is still more important that the idea of adaptive management is so strongly supported. It has been one of the cornerstones of the NHS strategies and will be continued and further developed with this encouragement. Follow-up of the measures taken will show how well the NHS will succeed in the future.