How can we use history to prepare for the future in the forests?

What is it about?

This article looks for guidelines on how regions depending on natural resources could meet future challenges. We do this by seeking past regularities through a survey of the long-run development of the use and discussion of timber and other forest-related natural resources in Finland, from slash-and-burn cultivation in the eighteenth century to present day bioeconomy. The uses and rank orders of the forests have changed several times over the centuries, often quite rapidly, especially compared to the rotation period of forests. To anticipate this uncertainty, we need to keep as many eggs and baskets as possible. Regarding forests, that could mean using many tree species and protecting biodiversity in general. The bioeconomy concept seems to encompass all the conflicting goals set for the utilisation of Finnish natural resources over the last two and a half centuries. In contrast to the single perspectives of earlier periods, however, it tries to take them all in simultaneously.

Featured Image

Photo by kazuend on Unsplash

Photo by kazuend on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Although our case study has been focused on Finland, we believe there are some general lessons to learn from it. The uses and rank orders of the forests have changed several times, often quite rapidly, especially compared to the rotation period of forests. When deciding on the methods and species used for the regeneration of forests, we should be able to anticipate future needs in time-periods up to and over a hundred years. It is, however, difficult to anticipate future needs, even with a much shorter time span. Still, in the mid-nineteenth century, only two decades before the unprecedented growth years of the sawmill industry, the future of the forests was considered to be as a raw material for the mining industry. The World Wars again showed the dangers of relying on imports of food and fuels, while the postponed transition away from wood on the railways proved fortunate. Closer to our time, we can observe sharp U-turns in Finland’s firewood policy and the attitude toward birch. Do we have any reason to believe that we have any better knowledge of the future as close as the next two decades, not to mention over a time-period compatible with the rotation period of the forests?

Perspectives