Assessing the economics of biodiversity in Finland National implications of the Dasgupta Review Publica� ons of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Assessing the economics of biodiversity in Finland National implications of the Dasgupta Review Eija Pouta, Juha Hiedanpää, Antti Iho, Matleena Kniivilä, Sami El Geneidy, Heini Kujala, Simo Kyllönen, Marita Laukkanen, Niina Mykrä, Milla Nyyssölä, Johanna Pakarinen, Hanna Silvola, Nina Tynkkynen, Markus Vinnari Ministry of the Environment Helsinki 2023 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Ministry of the Environment This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited. ISBN pdf: 978-952-361-227-3 ISSN pdf: 2490-1024 Layout: Government Administration Department, Publications Helsinki 2023 Finland Publication sale Online bookstore of the Finnish Government vnjulkaisumyynti.fi Publication distribution Institutional Repository for the Government of Finland Valto julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi https://vnjulkaisumyynti.fi/?lang=en http://vnjulkaisumyynti.fi https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/ http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi Description sheet 9 February 2023 Assessing the economics of biodiversity in Finland National implications of the Dasgupta Review Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Subject Natural resources Publisher Ministry of the Environment Author(s) Eija Pouta, Juha Hiedanpää, Antti Iho, Matleena Kniivilä, Sami El Geneidy, Heini Kujala, Simo Kyllönen, Marita Laukkanen, Niina Mykrä, Milla Nyyssölä, Johanna Pakarinen, Hanna Silvola, Nina Tynkkynen, Markus Vinnari Language English Pages 160 Abstract “The Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity” focuses on economic drivers of biodiversity loss and on potential economic solutions to mitigate the loss. The key message of the Review is that our demand for goods and services exceeds nature’s capacity to supply them in the long term, as nature’s worth to society is not reflected in market prices. This report provides examples of the dependencies of the Finnish economy on natural assets and biodiversity, and links via which the Finnish economy impacts on local and global biodiversity. The options for change (OC) defined by Dasgupta are assessed from the national perspective: 1) Nature’s supply: Conservation and restoration of ecosystems; 2) Our demand: Changing consumption and production patterns; 3) Trade and supply chains; 4) Pricing environmental damage; 5) Future population; 6) Changing our measures of economic progress; 7) Global public goods; 8) The Global financial system; 9) Empowered citizenship; and 10) Education and biodiversity. The key policy implication is that all options for change are applicable in Finland and there are numerous policy alternatives to target biodiversity loss. National actions are needed while at the same time actively participating in international co-operation. All actors in society need to undertake actions. It is important to enhance policy measures, even with imperfect information. Keywords natural capital, natural diversity, economy, ecological sustainability, sustainable consumption, ecosystem services ISBN PDF 978-952-361-227-3 ISSN PDF 2490-1024 URN address https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-227-3 https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-227-3 Kuvailulehti 9.2.2023 Luonnon monimuotoisuuden ja talouden keskinäisten riippuvuuksien arviointi: Mitä Dasguptan raportti tarkoittaa Suomen kannalta? Ympäristöministeriön julkaisuja 2023:4 Teema Luonnonvarat Julkaisija Ympäristöministeriö Tekijä/t Eija Pouta, Juha Hiedanpää, Antti Iho, Matleena Kniivilä, Sami El Geneidy, Heini Kujala, Simo Kyllönen, Marita Laukkanen, Niina Mykrä, Milla Nyyssölä, Johanna Pakarinen, Hanna Silvola, Nina Tynkkynen, Markus Vinnari Kieli englanti Sivumäärä 160 Tiivistelmä Dasguptan raportti (2021) luonnon monimuotoisuuden ja talouden riippuvuuksista käsittelee luontokadon syitä ja yhteiskunnallisia ratkaisuja luontokadon hillitsemiseksi. Luontokatoa edistää se, ettei luonnon todellinen arvo yhteiskunnalle näy markkinahinnoissa, eikä se siten vaikuta tarpeeksi voimakkaasti päätöksentekoomme. Tästä seuraa, että tavaroiden ja palveluiden kysyntä ylittää luonnon kyvyn ylläpitää niiden tuottamiseen välttämättömiä ekosysteemipalveluita. Raportti määrittelee kymmenen muutospolkua luonnon paremmaksi huomioimiseksi päätöksissämme. Tämä arviointiraportti tarjoaa esimerkkejä siitä, miten Suomen talous on riippuvainen luonnonvaroista ja luonnon monimuotoisuudesta sekä siitä, kuinka Suomen talous vaikuttaa monimuotoisuuteen paikallisesti ja globaalisti. Dasguptan määrittämiä muutospolkuja arvioidaan kansallisesta näkökulmasta: 1) Luonnon tarjonta: Ekosysteemien suojelu ja ennallistaminen; 2) Kulutus- ja tuotantotapojen muuttaminen; 3) Tuotantoketjut ja kansainvälinen kauppa; 4) Haitallisten vaikutusten hinnoittelu; 5) Tulevaisuuden väestöt; 6) Luontopääoman mittarit; 7) Globaalit julkishyödykkeet; 8) Globaali rahoitusjärjestelmä; 9) Motivoitunut ja vaikuttava kansalainen; ja 10) Koulutus ja luonnon monimuotoisuus. Keskeisin johtopäätös on, että kaikkia muutospolkuja voidaan toteuttaa Suomessa. Muutospolut tarjoavat lukuisia toisiaan tukevia politiikkatoimia luontokadon torjumiseksi. Kansallisia toimia tarvitaan samalla, kun osallistumme aktiivisesti kansainväliseen yhteistyöhön. Kaikkien yhteiskunnan toimijoiden on astuttava muutospoluille. Politiikkatoimenpiteitä on vahvistettava nykyisen tiedon pohjalta, vaikka tutkimustieto täydentyy koko ajan. Asiasanat luontopääoma, luonnon monimuotoisuus, talous, ekologinen kestävyys, kestävä kulutus, ekosysteemipalvelut ISBN PDF 978-952-361-227-3 ISSN PDF 2490-1024 Julkaisun osoite https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-227-3 http://xx.xx https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-227-3 Presentationsblad 9.2.2023 Bedömning av ömsesidigt beroende mellan ekonomin och den biologiska mångfalden: Vad innebär Dasguptas rapport för Finland? Miljöministeriets publikationer 2023:4 Tema Naturtillgångar Utgivare Miljöministeriet Författare Eija Pouta, Juha Hiedanpää, Antti Iho, Matleena Kniivilä, Sami El Geneidy, Heini Kujala, Simo Kyllönen, Marita Laukkanen, Niina Mykrä, Milla Nyyssölä, Johanna Pakarinen, Hanna Silvola, Nina Tynkkynen, Markus Vinnari Språk engelska Sidantal 160 Referat Dasguptas rapport (2021) av det ömsesidiga beroendet mellan ekonomin och den biologiska mångfalden fokuserar på ekonomiska drivkrafter bakom förlusten av biologisk mångfald och på potentiella ekonomiska lösningar för att minska förlusten av biologisk mångfald. Huvudbudskapet i granskningen är att vår efterfrågan på varor och tjänster överstiger naturens förmåga att tillhandahålla dem på lång sikt, eftersom naturens värde för samhället inte återspeglas i marknadspriserna. I rapporten definieras tio förändringsalternativ för att bättre beakta naturen i vårt beslutsfattande. I denna rapport ges det exempel på den finländska ekonomins beroende av naturtillgångar och biologisk mångfald. Dessutom ges det exempel på kopplingar genom vilka Finlands ekonomi påverkar den lokala och den globala biologiska mångfalden. Ur ett finländskt perspektiv bedöms följande förändringsalternativ som fastställts av Dasgupta: 1) naturens förmåga: bevarande och restaurering av ekosystem, 2) vår efterfrågan: ändring av konsumtions- och produktionsmönster, 3) handels- och leveranskedjor, 4) prissättning av miljöskador, 5) framtida befolkning, 6) mått på naturkapitalet, 7) globala allmänna nyttigheter, 8) det globala finansiella systemet, 9) medborgarskapsinflytande och 10) utbildning och biologisk mångfald. Den viktigaste slutsatsen är att alla förändringsalternativ kan tillämpas i Finland och att det finns många alternativa politiska åtgärder som kan minska förlusten av biologisk mångfald. Nationella åtgärder behövs samtidigt som vi aktivt deltar i internationellt samarbete. Alla aktörer i samhället måste vidta åtgärder. Det är viktigt att stärka de politiska åtgärderna, trots att den information som man utgår från är ofullständig. Nyckelord naturkapital, naturens mångfald, ekonomi, ekologisk hållbarhet, hållbar konsumtion, ekosystemtjänster ISBN PDF 978-952-361-227-3 ISSN PDF 2490-1024 URN-adress https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-227-3 http://xx.xx https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-227-3 Contents Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 Framework and key concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 Biodiversity impacts of the key sectors in the Finnish economy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1 National footprints.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2 Industrial/sectoral impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Food production.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Use of water resources.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.2.3 Forestry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2.4 Sectors with land use impacts: building and traffic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.3 Biodiversity footprints of households.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.4 Biodiversity impacts of the public sector.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4 Biodiversity dependency in the Finnish economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.1 Biodiversity in water ecosystems and fisheries.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.2 Ecosystem services in agriculture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.3 Forest sector.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.4 Recreation and tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.5 Health and well-being.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.6 Existence values.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5 Development in biodiversity and policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6 Options for change: the Finnish perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.1 Nature’s Supply: Conservation and Restoration of Ecosystems (Heini Kujala, University of Helsinki). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.2 Our Demand: Changing Consumption and Production of Food Patterns (Markus Vinnari, University of Helsinki).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 6.3 Trade and Supply Chains (Sami El Geneidy, University of Jyväskylä).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.4 Pricing environmental damage (Marita Laukkanen, VATT Institute for Economic Research).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.5 Future Population and Option for Change for Finland (Milla Nyyssölä, The Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.6 Changing Our Measures of Economic Progress (Johanna Pakarinen, Statistics Finland).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 6.7 Global Public Goods (Nina Tynkkynen, Åbo Akademi University). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 6.8 The Global Financial System (Hanna Silvola, Hanken School of Economics).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 6.9 Empowered Citizenship (Simo Kyllönen, University of Helsinki). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 6.10 Education and biodiversity (Niina Mykrä, University of Jyväskylä).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 6.11 Summarizing and evaluating the options for change.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 7 Discussion of results and policy implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 8 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 S U M M A RY In 2021, Partha Dasgupta published a monograph entitled “The Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity”. It focuses on economic drivers of biodiversity loss and on potential economic solutions to mitigate the loss. The key message of the Review is that our wealth has increased through accumulating capital goods and human capital, but at the expense of natural capital. Our demand for goods and services exceeds nature’s capacity to supply them in the long term, mainly due to market distortion, as nature’s worth to society is not reflected in market prices. The Review sets out ten concrete options for change (OCs) to correct the faults in the socio-economic system and better incorporate biodiversity in decision making at various levels of society. The Review operates on the global scale. Because biodiversity and socio-ecological conditions vary, the success of biodiversity actions is sensitive to local conditions. The evaluation and implementation of the OCs suggested by the Review calls for a national assessment. In this assessment report, the Review is applied and evaluated from the point of view of one country, Finland. This report aims to find examples of the dependencies of the Finnish economy on natural assets and biodiversity, and links via which the Finnish economy impacts on local and global biodiversity. In particular, the report concretizes what the OCs suggested by the Review mean for Finnish citizens and governmental, regional and commercial actors. The assessment was partly written by researchers reviewing the literature on the current state and partly by a scientific panel of experts that assessed the options for change defined by Dasgupta from the national perspective. Stakeholders participated widely in commenting on the OCs. Finland’s national biodiversity footprint in absolute terms is moderate in international comparisons. In per capita terms, the Finnish footprint is, unfortunately, high. It is partly outsourced to low-income countries. The key drivers of biodiversity loss in Finland, i.e., forestry, agriculture and various land use changes, and their impacts are summarized. The same sectors are also highly dependent on ecosystem services and related biodiversity. However, in many cases, it is not well known and difficult to determine how changes in biodiversity will impact on the function of ecosystems and the formation of ecosystem services and their resilience, especially in the long term. 9 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The ten OCs presented by Dasgupta are introduced one by one, summarizing how the OC is implemented in Finland at present, and research-based ideas and views are provided on how to implement the OC more efficiently and comprehensively. The recommended policy changes are found in all options for change: y Nature’s supply: Conservation and restoration of ecosystems y Our demand: Changing consumption and production patterns y Trade and supply chains y Pricing environmental damage y Future population y Changing our measures of economic progress y Global public goods y The Global financial system y Empowered citizenship y Education and biodiversity The key policy implication of the assessment is that all options for change are applicable in Finland and there are plenty of policy alternatives to target biodiversity loss. National actions are needed and can be taken while at the same time actively participating in international co-operation. All actors in society can and need to participate and undertake actions. Although it is impossible to put price tags on biodiversity in its various levels and locations, its value can be identified and integrated in decision-making. It is necessary to enhance policy measures even with imperfect information and find ways to illustrate and to tolerate uncertainty before more research information is produced. Acknowledgements We thank following experts for useful discussions and comments: Nico Alioravainen (Luke), Jaakko Erkinaro (Luke), Panu Halme (JYU), Terho Hyvönen (Luke), Meri Kallasvuo (Luke), Jenni Kauppila (UN Association of Finland), Marianne Kettunen (IEEP), Matti Koivula (Luke), Elina Korhonen (Väestöliitto), Toni Laaksonen (UTU), Tuija Lankia (Luke), Maiju Peura (JYU), Heidi Pokki (Luke), Anna Rotkirch (Väestöliitto), Jukka Ruuhijärvi (Luke), Roy Siddall, Annika Tienhaara (Luke), Laura Uimonen (UTA), Aaron Vuola (Finnish Forest Industries). We also thank the advisory board (Tanja Suni, Joona Lehtomäki, Pentti Linnamaa) from the Ministry of the Environment for fruitful comments. Several experts participated in the stakeholder workshop. We thank them all for their useful comments. 10 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 1 Introduction Human alteration of the environment has led to the loss of 83% of the wild mammal biomass and half of the world’s plant biomass (Pörtner et al. 2021). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) also estimates that more than a million plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction. Biodiversity loss is taking place at the level of habitats, species and genetic variation in Finland, as well as in other countries. It is estimated that one in nine of Finland’s assessed species is endangered. Almost half (48%) of the approximately 400 habitats have been assessed as endangered throughout the country (2018). The state of habitats has not improved over the last decade and the trend in many habitats is estimated to be continued deterioration. Biodiversity is a characteristic of ecosystems that enables the supply of a wide variety of services. It enables the natural environment to be productive, resilient and adaptable. The extinction of biodiversity has negative effects on human well- being in terms of material goods and services such as food and timber, cultural services from nature such as outdoor recreation, and physical and mental health. However, our economic and social system has not been able to solve the biodiversity extinction crisis. To focus on the possibilities of economic solutions to biodiversity loss, Partha Dasgupta prepared a monograph in 2021 entitled “The Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity” (the Review) (Dasgupta 2021) at the invitation of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK Government. The Review was commissioned in 2019 by HM Treasury and was supported by an Advisory Panel drawn from public policy, science, economics, finance and business. The Review has attracted considerable global interest among the scientific community, businesses, non-governmental organizations and national, as well as international institutions. In less than two years, it has collected over 700 citations in the scientific literature and millions of references in popular publications. The Review is important according to several criteria. It is valid, as it is based on the scientific literature. It is extensive, as it focuses on the global threat to the whole of humankind and Nature. Furthermore, it has high practical usability by providing recommendations that can be implemented at the policy level, as well as in individual actions. 11 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The Review adopts an anthropocentric viewpoint by examining the value of biodiversity in terms of its contributions to human well-being. In this way, it provides the minimum value for nature; if biodiversity is worth preserving and promoting for purely anthropocentric reasons, it would be even more deserving of protection and promotion if it also had ecocentric intrinsic value. The Review describes Nature as “our most precious asset” and finds that humanity has collectively mismanaged its global asset portfolio. The Review perceives us (all) as asset managers. Individuals, businesses, governments and international organizations manage natural assets partly unintendedly through their spending and investment decisions. The accumulation of produced material and human capital has taken place at the expense of natural capital. Economic growth has come at a cost to Nature, endangering the prosperity of current and future generations. The Review demonstrates that our demand for goods and services far exceeds Nature’s capacity to supply them in the long term. Following the argumentation of environmental economics, the Review recognizes that at the heart of the problem of the imbalance of supply and demand is an extensive institutional failure. Nature’s worth to society – the true value of the various goods and services it provides – is not reflected in market prices, because much of it is open to all, at no monetary charge. These pricing distortions have led us to invest relatively more in other assets, such as material capital, and underinvest in our natural assets. Beyond this market failure, many of our institutions have proved unfit to manage the externalities. The Review requires action now; to do so would be significantly less costly than delay. The solution that the Review presents is based on understanding that economic activities are embedded within Nature, not external to it. The Review’s approach is based on knowledge of ecosystem functioning, and how it is affected by economic activity, production and consumption, which damage ecosystems and weaken their ability regenerate and to provide goods and services. Solutions are based on fully accounting for the impact of our interactions with Nature and rebalancing our demand with Nature’s capacity to supply. “The options for change” in the Review present ideas on which those applying the lessons of the Review can build. They encourage ideas and provide possibilities for transformative change. The options for change presented in the Review involve finding ways to: (i) reduce per capita global consumption; (ii) lower the future global population from what it is today; (iii) increase the efficiency with which the biosphere’s supply of goods and services is converted into global output and returned to the biosphere as waste; and (iv) invest in Nature through conservation and restoration to increase our stock of Nature and its regenerative rate. 12 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The Review focuses on universal needs and on the global scale, even though with examples it looks closely at smaller scales and local engagement with Nature. Because biodiversity varies geographically, its state will differ between countries. The success of biodiversity actions is sensitive to national socio-ecological conditions. Societies also differ in their “conception of what enables lives to flourish”. Differences in the way communities can live tell us that people do not experience increasing resource scarcity in the same way. This is why the Review does not attempt to produce a “blueprint of policies appropriate in different locations”. Instead, it seeks to guide the reader through the options that humanity in general has for achieving the necessary change. The evaluation and implementation of the options for change suggested by the Review call for a national assessment that considers the national ecological conditions and the dependencies of nature and socio-cultural aspects. Furthermore, national-level collective deliberation is the democratic way for not only sharing information but also coordinating decisions and enhancing actions. In this assessment report, the Review is applied and evaluated from the point of view of one country, Finland. This report aims to find examples of the dependencies of the Finnish economy on natural assets and biodiversity, and links via which the Finnish economy impacts local and global biodiversity. In particular, the report concretizes what the Options for Change mean for Finnish citizens and governmental, regional and commercial actors. It is thus not a repetition of the Dasgupta Review but an interpretation of the generally applicable needs for changes to economic institutions to acknowledge biodiversity in a roadmap for an individual nation. This assessment strictly focuses on biodiversity. The ecosystem services that nature provides have previously been assessed in the TEEB report for Finland (Jäppinen & Heliölä 2015). The ecological assessment of biodiversity in Finland has been implemented in the Red List of Finnish Species (Hyvärinen et al. 2019) and the Finland’s Red List of Ecosystems (Kontula & Raunio 2019). Finland is currently also preparing a Biodiversity Strategy that follows the EU strategy for biodiversity. This assessment has been written by a scientific panel of experts. The work has been supported by a steering group from the Ministry of the Environment. The suggestions by the scientific panel have been discussed together with a wide group of stakeholders from administration, non-profit organizations, relevant firms and research groups, and finalized based on their feedback. 13 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 In the following, we first present the framework and vocabulary for this assessment. Then, we review some key examples of how economic activities in Finland impact on biodiversity and what are the key dependencies of livelihoods on biodiversity via ecosystem services. The present state of Finnish and EU biodiversity policy is introduced before a national assessment of the Dasgupta-defined options for change. References Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury, London. https://www. gov.uk/government/collections/the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Kemppainen, E., Uddström, A., Liukko, U.-M. (toim.) (2019). Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus – Punainen kirja 2019. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. Helsinki. 704 s. Jäppinen, J-P., Heliölä, J. (toim.) (2015). Towards a sustainable and genuinely green economy. The value and social significance of ecosystem services in Finland (TEEB for Finland). Synthesis and roadmap. The Finnish Environment 1en/2015. The Finnish Ministry of Environment, Helsinki. Kontula, T., Raunio, A. (eds). (2019). Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018. Red List of Habitats – Results and Basis for Assessment. Finnish Environment Institute and Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki. The Finnish Environment 2/2019. 254 p. Pörtner, H.O., Scholes, R.J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W.L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Jacob, U., Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim, M., Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P. A., McElwee, P., Midgley, G., Oberdorff, T., Obura, D., Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., Pires, A. P. F., Popp, A., ReyesGarcía, V., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y. J., Sintayehu, D. W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Strassburg, B., Sukumar, R., Trisos, C., Val, A.L., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C., Pichs- Madruga, R., Roberts, D.C., Rogers, A.D., Díaz, S., Fischer, M., Hashimoto, S., Lavorel, S., Wu, N., Ngo, H.T. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES and IPCC. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4782538. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review 14 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 2 Framework and key concepts The framework for this report focuses on the link between ecosystems and biodiversity and the economy and human well-being (Figure 1). Biodiversity is a multi-faceted feature of ecosystems, including variations among genes, species and habitats. Biodiversity also includes the diversity of the functional characteristics of an ecosystem’s species populations. We perceive biodiversity as a key to the processes governing ecosystems. We assess the link between diverse ecosystems and the economy from two perspectives. First, we are interested in the impacts of the Finnish economy on nature. By the demand for nature, we mean the goods and services we harvest and extract from nature over a period of time and put back as waste. This is known as the ecological footprint, and here, more precisely, the biodiversity footprint. Second, we focus on the nature’s supply of various services for humans, in particular the importance of biodiversity for ecosystem services. Well-functioning ecosystems contribute to human well-being. This is typically expressed in ecosystem services: provisioning services such as fuel and fibre, regulating and maintenance services such as climate, water flow or diseases regulation, and cultural services that offer non-material benefits, including spiritual experiences and an identification with religious values. In this assessment, we focus on those ecosystem services for which changes in biodiversity would be expected to have a visible and known impact on the flow of ecosystem services to the economy and to people’s well-being. We are interested in the economy of Finland but aim to depict how consumption in Finland impacts biodiversity globally. In the contribution of biodiversity to ecosystem services, the focus is more on the national level. In Finland, as well as globally, the impact of economic activities on nature is greater than nature’s capacity to recover. This leads to inequality in the demand for goods and services from nature and nature’s supply of these services and ability to recover. The options for change represent the actions that can be taken to balance the inequality between the demand for nature and nature’s supply of goods and services. The options for change, presented in green boxes Figure 1, follow the Dasgupta Review, but are assessed in the following from a national point of view. 15 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Figure 1.  The conceptual framework. In the following, we aim to use standard language, but we apply some key concepts from the Dasgupta review and some concepts relevant for national assessment. In the following summary of concepts, we use definitions presented by Dasgupta, if available. If the definition is from another source, a reference is provided. y Accounting price: The contribution that an additional unit of a good, service or asset makes to intergenerational well-being, all else being equal. In simple terms, accounting prices reflect the true value to society of any good, service or asset. Also known as the ‘shadow price’. y Asset: A durable object that produces a flow of goods and/or services over time. y Biodiversity: The variety of life in all its forms, and at all levels, including genes, species and ecosystems. The CBD defines biodiversity as ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’ (Convention on Biological Diversity 2022). Economy and well-being Impacts Biodiversity Global National 8 Global �nancial system 7 Global public goods 9 Citizenship 10 Education 3 Supply chains and traide 2 Demand and production 1 Nature’s supply 6 Measures 5 Future population 4 Pricing Ecosystem services 16 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 y Biodiversity footprint: The impact of a commodity, company, person or community on global biodiversity, measured in terms of biodiversity change as a result of the production and consumption of particular goods and services. (IEEP 2021) y Biosphere: The living world; the total area of the Earth that is able to support life. y Connectedness with Nature: The extent to which individuals include nature as part of their identity. Three components form the nature connectedness construct: The cognitive component is the core of nature connectedness and refers to how integrated one feels with nature. The affective component is an individual’s sense of care for nature. The behavioural component is an individual’s commitment to protect the natural environment (Schultz 2002). y Cultural services: All the non-material, and normally non-rival and non- consumptive, outputs of ecosystems (biotic and abiotic) that affect the physical and mental states of people (CICES 2018). y Ecological footprint: The Review defines the global ecological footprint as humanity’s demands on the biosphere per unit of time (also referred to as ‘impact’ and ‘demand’ in the Review). The ecological footprint is affected by the size and composition of our individual demands, the size of the human population, and the efficiency with which we both convert Nature’s services to meet our demands and return our waste to Nature (Review definition). The Global Footprint Network defines the ecological footprint as a measure of how much biologically productive land and water an individual, population or activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates, using prevailing technology and resource management practices (Global Footprint Network 2020). y Ecosystem accounting: The integrated and comprehensive statistical framework for organizing data about habitats and landscapes, measuring ecosystem services, tracking changes in ecosystem assets, and linking this information to economic and other human activity. (UN 2022) y Ecosystem: A natural unit consisting of all the plants, animals and microorganisms (biotic factors) in a given area, interacting with all of the non- living physical and chemical (abiotic) factors of this environment. y Effective institutions: A concept covering rules, laws and government entities, as well as the informal rules of social interactions. Effective institutions enable people to work together effectively and peacefully. Fair institutions ensure that all people have equal rights and an opportunity to improve their lives, and access to justice when they are wronged. (OECD 2014) y Environmental subsidy: Payment by a government to assist or improve performance regarding ecological maintenance or the protection, defence or shelter of natural resources. (EIONET 2021) 17 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 y Environmental tax: A tax whose tax base is a physical unit (or a proxy of it) that has a proven specific negative impact on the environment. Four subsets of environmental taxes are distinguished: energy taxes, transport taxes, pollution taxes and resources taxes. (Eurostat 2013) y Environmental valuation: refers to a variety of techniques to assign monetary values to environmental impacts, especially non-market impacts. y Externality: A positive or negative consequence (benefits or costs) of an action that affects someone other than the agent undertaking that action and for which the agent is neither directly compensated nor penalised. y Human capital: This refers to the productive wealth embodied in labour, skills and knowledge. y Insurance value: The value ecosystems provide by reducing the economic impact of destructive natural events such as floods or droughts. y Market price: The price at which a good, service or asset is exchanged in a market. y Natural capital: The stock of renewable and non-renewable natural assets (e.g., ecosystems) that yield a flow of benefits to people (i.e., ecosystem services). The term ‘natural capital’ is used to emphasise that it is a capital asset, like produced capital (roads and buildings) and human capital (knowledge and skills). y Nature’s supply: The biodiversity and ecosystem services that nature provides. Enhancing nature’s supply includes the conservation and restoration of nature. y Nature-based solutions: Solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions. (EC 2022) y Open access: Open to use by all free of charge, for example fisheries in waters beyond national jurisdiction. y Option value: The value of preserving natural resources for future use even without knowing how and how likely it is that they will eventually be utilized. y Payment for ecosystem services: A variety of arrangements through which the beneficiaries of environmental services reward those whose lands provide these services with subsidies or market payments. (WWF 2020) y Portfolio: A grouping of assets. Assets in an efficient portfolio yield the same rate of return, as estimated by the manager, corrected for risk. y Public goods: Goods or services that are neither rivalrous (access to a public good by any one group of people has no effect on the quantity available to others) nor excludable (no one can be excluded from access to the good). 18 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 y Uncertainty: Any situation in which the current state of knowledge is such that the order or nature of things is unknown, the consequences, extent or magnitude of circumstances, conditions or events is unpredictable, and credible probabilities for possible outcomes cannot be assigned. Uncertainty can result from a lack of information or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable. References CICES (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1. https://cices.eu/ content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf EC (2022). Nature based solutions. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/ nature-based-solutions_en EIONET (2021). GEMET. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/en/concept/2928 Eurostat (2013). Environmental taxes. A statistical guide. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ documents/3859598/5936129/KS-GQ-13-005-EN.PDF IEEP (2021). Biodiversity footprints in policy- and decision making: Briefing on the state of play, needs and opportunities and future directions. Policy report, Institute for European Environmental Policy. Global Footprint Network (2020). Ecological footprint. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ ecological-footprint/ OECD (2014). Building more effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions for all. https://www.oecd.org/ dac/_POST-2015%20effective%20and%20accountable%20institutions.pdf Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. W. Schmuck, W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development. (pp. 62–78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. UN (2022). System of environmental economic accounting. https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting The Convention on Biological Diversity (2022). https://www.cbd.int/convention/ WWF. (2020). Payment for Ecosystem Services. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/ where_we_work/black_sea_basin/danube_carpathian/our_solutions/green_economy/pes/ https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions_en https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions_en https://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/en/concept/2928 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5936129/KS-GQ-13-005-EN.PDF https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5936129/KS-GQ-13-005-EN.PDF https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ https://www.oecd.org/dac/_POST-2015%20effective%20and%20accountable%20institutions.pdf https://www.oecd.org/dac/_POST-2015%20effective%20and%20accountable%20institutions.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kluwer_Academic https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting https://www.cbd.int/convention/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/black_sea_basin/danube_carpathian/our_solutions/green_economy/pes/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/black_sea_basin/danube_carpathian/our_solutions/green_economy/pes/ 19 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 3 Biodiversity impacts of the key sectors in the Finnish economy The Dasgupta Review (p. 115) states that “we harvest Nature’s goods and use Nature’s services for consumption and production. Fish, timber and fresh water constitute goods; whereas pollination, water purification, flood protection, and carbon sequestration and storage constitute services... We use the biosphere as a sink for our waste products.” The impact of the economic activities on biodiversity is measured with the biodiversity footprint. The biodiversity footprint is defined as “The impact of a commodity, company, person or community on global biodiversity, measured in terms of biodiversity change, as a result of production and consumption of particular goods and services”. (IEEP 2021). There is no general agreement on how to measure the biodiversity footprint for various levels of economic activity. However, it can be summarized that the biodiversity footprints measure impacts based on consumption, trade or production. In the following, the national footprint of Finland is discussed based on consumption- based analysis. Production-based thinking is applied in the chapters on the biodiversity impacts of various sectors of the economy (3.2). In the chapters on household (3.3) and public sector impacts (3.4), the discussion starts with consumption-based figures but shifts to the opportunities of these agents to support biodiversity in their actions. References IEEP (2021). Biodiversity footprints in policy and decision-making: Briefing on the state of play, needs and opportunities and future directions. Policy report, Institute for European Environmental Policy. 20 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 3.1 National footprints A group of studies have analysed national biodiversity footprints by also considering international trade (Bjelle et al. 2021, Marquardt et al. 2019, Wilting et al. 2017, 2021). These studies focus on consumption-based footprints, i.e., the impact of consumed commodities on biodiversity, regardless of the location of the impact. This means that via the production chains and trade, part of the impact occurs in other countries, but is accounted to that country where final consumption takes place. These studies make it possible to compare footprints between countries and regions. Some of them have separated the footprint into the national share and international share or into various commodity classes. They have also analysed the development of footprint temporally and explained the footprint and its changes with various social and economic factors. Multi-regional input–output (MRIO) analysis has been suggested as an appropriate tool to estimate national biodiversity footprints based on the consumption of goods and services (for a review, see Bjelle et al. 2021; Crenna et al. 2020). The approach takes into account the consumption of goods and services produced in different regions of the world and the import of products as both intermediate and final goods. MRIO databases have been connected to various measures of biodiversity loss (the IUCN Red List of threatened species, the potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF), bird species lost or mean species abundance (MSA), relative abundance (RA), relative within-sample species richness (RWSR), vulnerability-weighted global relative species richness (VGRS)) in order to provide insights into the effects of trade and consumption. The results for Finland, which can be found from the supplementary material of the studies, in many cases indicate a relatively high footprint. However, the biodiversity footprint of Finland is highly dependent on the biodiversity indicator. This complicates the ranking of countries and the comparison of indicators between countries. In particular, per capita measures indicate a high footprint for Finland. Bjelle et al. (2021) applied the potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF) and presented country- specific biodiversity footprints per capita for 2015. Based on these, Finland is ranked in the middle range of the 214 countries or regions included in the comparison. The MSA (mean abundance of original species in a disturbed situation relative to their undisturbed abundance) per capita reported by Wilting et al. (2017) for 45 countries and world regions and (2021) for 27 EU-countries revealed the highest or almost the highest biodiversity footprint for Finland. High per-capita footprints were also found for other high-income countries, including Canada and the US. The MSA indicators emphasize biodiversity footprints from providing infrastructure for countries with an ample natural area and without other drivers of biodiversity loss, such as Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries. 21 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The studies demonstrate how the biodiversity footprint of consumption is distributed between one’s own country and other countries around the world. Wilting et al. (2017) reported an imported share of the biodiversity footprint of 30% for Finland. Marquardt et al. (2019) demonstrated with MSA, RA and RWSR indicators that for Finnish consumption, the share of the imported footprint is around 45%. The share of the imported footprint (MSA) also varies between regions of Finland, from 32% in northern Finland to 83% in Åland (Wilting 2021). Some studies have determined the footprint according to consumption categories. Figure 2 presents the footprint by consumption category in Finland according to Marquardt et al. (2019). Figure 2.  National biodiversity footprint of consumption in Finland in different consumption categories according to Marquardt et al. (2019) based on relative abundance (RA) indicator. In the study of Wilting et al. (2021), Finland was among the countries with the largest intra- country variability in regional footprints. Eastern Finland was the region with the lowest per capita biodiversity footprint in Finland (1.5 MSA loss/ha), but it was higher than the per capita biodiversity footprints in all regions in the other countries of the EU-level study. For northern Finland, imported share was below 25% (hence the domestic share above 75%), partly because of a high rate of self-sufficiency in wood consumption. 21 % 28 % 31 % 3 % 17 % Food products Goods Utilities, other housing services Transport, communication Services 22 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Bjelle et al. (2021) reported a difference in the biodiversity footprint between various levels of income. Their findings suggest that in high-income regions from 2005 to 2015, there was strong outsourcing of biodiversity loss to low-income countries. In high-income countries such as Finland, if consumer income increases by one per cent, the biodiversity footprint increases by more than one per cent. The increased footprint particularly focuses on manufactured products, clothing and footwear, as well as housing, giving indications for areas of mitigation strategies targeted at consumers in high-income countries. Wilting et al. (2021) found no evidence that the total per capita land-based biodiversity footprint is related to per capita GDP or income equality. However, they observed that an increase in income coincides with a decrease in the domestic biodiversity footprint, but an increase in the biodiversity footprint exerted abroad. Similarly, a high population density in a region associated with high biodiversity loss outside the region. Wilting et al. (2021) reported that Finnish households are responsible for over 80% of the national consumption-based biodiversity footprint. References Bjelle, E.L., Kuipers, K., Verones, F., Wood, R. (2021). Trends in national biodiversity footprints of land use. Ecological Economics 185, 107059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107059. Crenna, E., Marques, A., la Notte, A., Sala, S. (2020). Biodiversity Assessment of Value Chains: State of the Art and Emerging Challenges. Environmental Science and Technology 54, 9715–9728. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05153 Marquardt, S. G., Guindon, M., Wilting, H. C., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Sim, S., Kulak, M., Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2019). Consumption-based biodiversity footprints – Do different indicators yield different results? Ecological Indicators 103, 461– 470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.022 Wilting, H. C., Schipper, A. M., Bakkenes, M., Meijer, J. R., Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2017). Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consumption: A global-scale footprint analysis. Environmental Science & Technology 51(6), 3298– 3306. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05296 Wilting, HC, Schipper, AM, Ivanova, O, Ivanova, D, Huijbregts, MAJ. (2021). Subnational greenhouse gas and land-based biodiversity footprints in the European Union. J Ind Ecol. 25, 79– 94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13042 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107059 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.022 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05296 https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13042 23 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 3.2 Industrial/sectoral impacts 3.2.1 Food production Food production is comprised of terrestrial agriculture, aquaculture and capture fisheries. Most regions in Europe have had some forms of agricultural practices for nearly 7 000 years (Diamond 2002). In Finland, the earliest signs of agriculture date back 6 000 years (Alenius et al. 2012). The introduction of domesticated animals and cultivated plants and their interactions with native species have permanently changed our landscapes and habitats. Agriculture is an integral part of our terrestrial environment and the biodiversity it hosts. However, the pressure imposed by the present-day population and its consumption patterns is unprecedented. Agriculture thus both supports and threatens biodiversity. Supply chains connect Finland with regions across the globe, as we import animal feed and food products. We should consider the impact of agriculture on biodiversity in Finland and globally. Today, about half of Earth’s habitable land is allocated to agriculture (Ritchie & Roser 2013). In Finland, agriculture uses about 2.3 million hectares (about 0.4 ha per individual), which is approximately 7.5% of the land surface (OSF 2022a). Globally, 70% of grassland, 50% of savanna, 45% of temperate deciduous forest and 27% of tropical forest have been turned into agricultural land (Foley et al. 2011). This underlines the differences between the biodiversity impacts of agriculture in Finland and abroad. The effects of agriculture on biodiversity are driven by land use and production practices. Land allocated to agriculture has replaced the natural habitats in these locations. Production practices such as the use of pesticides and fertilizers affect the polluting outputs, which have negative effects on biodiversity. Then again, agricultural landscapes provide important habitats: many of the critical terrestrial habitats in Finland depend on traditional agricultural practices, mainly on foraging livestock (Kontula & Raunio 2018). Europe as a whole exemplifies the effect of increasing income on local versus distant effects on biodiversity, as pointed out by Wilting et al. (2021). From 2000 to 2020, the amount of land allocated to agriculture in the EU 27 countries decreased by over 10% to about 164 million hectares (FAO 2022a). The trend is expected to continue. Most of the land will turn into unutilized, i.e., abandoned land. Only about 13% is expected to be turned into forests or natural areas and about 0.4% into constructed areas (Castillo et al 2018). In the tropics, on the other hand, agricultural land has increased substantially, and about 80% of new croplands have replaced forests (Foley et al. 2011). At the same time, the import of, for instance, feed and fodder to the EU27 has increased by 35% (FAO 2022b). 24 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The total acreage of agricultural land in Finland has remained relatively stable from 2000 to 2020. At the same time, our import of feed and fodder has approximately doubled from a little over 350 million kg to around 650 million kg (to help perceive and compare the quantities, this would be an increase from 65 kg to 120 kg per person) (OSF 2022b). Nevertheless, the vast majority of feed is produced domestically. In terms of weight, grass and silage are the dominant forms of feed: their harvest is equivalent to over 3 100 kg for each Finn. We need more animal feed (388 kg per person, excluding grass) for domestic meat production than we consume directly as non-meat products (352 kg). Barley is the most important grain used for feed. Altogether, in 2021, domestic grain feed production totalled 307 kg per person (OSF 2022c). Although the precise value varies and is difficult to estimate exactly, more than half of our agricultural land is allocated to feed production: 37% of the grain harvest (47% of land is allocated to grain) is used directly as feed and practically all grass (35% of land allocated to grass) (OSF 2022d and OSF 2022e). The most important imported feed products are turnip rape and rape (import 14 kg per capita), fish (11.4 kg) and soybean (5.1 kg). We import more sugar and rape than we produce, and practically all our fruit is imported. The scope of feed production highlights the high potential impact of changes in our food consumption on global biodiversity (see section 6.2). Finland thus outsources a part of the biodiversity effects of agriculture to other countries. The effects are due to both land use and less stringent and weakly enforced regulation on the use of pesticides in many of the developing, exporting countries (Handford et al. 2015). Sandström et al. (2017) estimated that as much as 93% of the biodiversity effects of agriculture are outsourced to other countries. It should be noted that their result hinges on the LCA –methodology, which emphasizes the risk of extinction of endemic mammal, bird, amphibian and reptile species. In Finland, such a risk is non-existent, since there are no endemic species, which automatically increases the relative biodiversity impact outside our borders to dramatic levels. However, the indirect biodiversity effects of agriculture are also notable. Agriculture is the most important anthropogenic source of nutrient loading to surface waters in Finland (Sonesten et al. 2018). Excessive loading of nutrients causes eutrophication in surface waters. This destroys the more scare, oligotrophic habitats and their characteristic species, as has happened in the Baltic Sea (Ojaveer et al. 2010). Temporarily, eutrophication of an oligotrophic system may lead to increased levels of biodiversity (Heino et al. 2009). Segregation of crop and animal farming regions has contributed to local biodiversity losses. Protecting and promoting biodiversity is more difficult in intensive, specialized farming regions than in regions with mixed farming and different land use types (Tiainen et al. 2020). Grazing is a crucial component in many of our endangered habitats (Lehtomaa et al. 2018). 25 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The key policies to protect and promote agricultural and agriculture-impacted biodiversity are embedded in the Finnish Agri-Environmental scheme of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The scheme comprises cross-compliance conditions common to all member states. Specific to Finland and Finnish biodiversity are the environmental agreements on establishing and maintaining wetlands, maintaining traditional rural habitats and set-aside fields for geese and other birds, and maintaining the genetic pools of native domestic animal breeds and crop varieties. Mitigating nutrient loading is one of the key targets of the scheme. As eutrophication is one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss in surface waters, almost all measures in the scheme influence biodiversity at least indirectly. It is important to note that an influential component of the CAP is the basic income subsidy, including the LFA payment and various nationally defined and paid subsidies. Of the EU countries, Finnish agriculture is economically the most dependent on subsidies (Niemi & Väre 2019). Therefore, CAP support as such is important in maintaining the scope of agriculture, i.e., the number of animals and the total area. These are drivers of the biodiversity effects, of which the indirect ones are central for domestic agriculture. CAP thus both aggravates and mitigates the biodiversity effects of agriculture. The package of incentives influencing agricultural producers’ choices should be systematically analysed and revised from the perspective of biodiversity (see Viitala (2022) for an analysis from the climate change mitigation point of view). This is particularly true in Finland, where the agricultural land area has slightly increased while it has decreased elsewhere in the EU. This would not have happened without area payments under the first pillar of the CAP. Annual aquaculture production is approximately 15 million kg, and fisheries landings total about 164 million kg (OSF 2020). Aquaculture has direct and indirect biodiversity effects. Indirectly, it may help reduce pressure on wild, potentially overharvested fish populations and thereby support biodiversity. Its most direct effect comes from nutrient loading, which contributes to eutrophication, with the aforementioned effects on biodiversity (Diana 2009). Aquaculture’s total contribution to anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Baltic Sea is 1% and 2%, respectively. Locally, however, the impact may be stronger. In the Archipelago Sea, for instance, aquaculture contributes 8% of phosphorus loading (SYKE). Aquaculture generates point-source pollution. Along with other point sources, it has been able to reduce its nutrient loading so that the loading is currently less than half of the levels in the 1990s, despite production having remained on a relatively stable level (OSF 2022f ). Farmed fish may also spread diseases, weakening wild fish populations, and escaped individuals may breed with wild populations, causing genetic alterations (Diana 2009). This problem has been of particular concern in Norway (Olaussen 2018). This is important for our biodiversity footprint. In 2021, we imported 90.5 million kg of fish and fish products while we exported 72 million kg (OSF 2022g). However, our domestic production, from 26 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 which the local biodiversity effects come, was only 14.4 million kg. Most of our imports are based on fish from abroad, with salmon grown in Norway comprising half of our imported fish quantity (OSF 2022h) In 2021, we consumed about 24 million kg of imported wild fish and about 11 million kg of imported wild and farmed shrimps and other sea food. The consumption of canned tuna, for instance, was nearly 8 million kg (OSF 2022i). The biodiversity effects from these are felt outside Finland. There are approximately 4 700 different fisheries globally, out of which 32% are in good ecological condition. However, more than half are overfished (Costello et al. 2016). Unintended bycatch weakens the populations of other fish species, marine mammals and seabirds. Certain porpoise and dolphin species are facing an imminent threat of extinction because of unintended effects of fishing (Burgess et al. 2018). Bottom trawling is widespread and detrimental to seabed habitats. Depending on the gear and exact technology, it might take up to six years before the affected habitats recover after trawling (Hiddink et al. 2017). An emerging biodiversity concern related to fisheries is the abundance of so-called ghost nets, i.e., intentionally or unintentionally abandoned fishing gear. Modern gear can last up to 600 years in the marine environment (Macfadyen et al. 2009). Globally, about 640 000 tons of fishing gear is estimated to have been lost, creating a massive and long-lasting contribution to the marine litter problem (Stelfox et al. 2016). The recent EU directive on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ship (2019/883) aims to mitigate this problem. In Finland, Natural Resources Institute has initiated the follow-up and reporting of the passively fished waste connected to the directive in 2021. In Finland, commercial fisheries are mostly focused on vendace and pikeperch in inland waters, and herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (OSF 2021a, OSF 2022j). The Finnish quota for herring has come down significantly in recent years. There has been an approximately 40% decrease in the herring quota from 2017 to 2022, indicating changes in biological productivity and/or fish mortality. Domestic fisheries are regulated by the EU and national regulations. Marine protected areas would be an effective means of safeguarding biodiversity and would also promote the economic profitability of fisheries by supporting fish populations (Sala et al. 2021). The EU Nature Restoration Law will mandate covering at least 20% of marine areas with nature restoration measures. 27 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 The biodiversity effects of imported fish can be managed by consumption choices (see Chapter 6.2) and supply chain management (see Chapter 6.3). There are various guides (e.g., WWF Kalaopas) and certificates (e.g., MSC) to assist in purchasing sustainable seafood. Irrigation and water use are important drivers of the biodiversity effects of food production. In Finland, precipitation exceeds evaporation, and irrigation is limited to certain specific crops. These are discussed jointly with other uses of water and their biodiversity impacts in the following subsection. References Alenius, T., Mökkönen, T., Lahelma, A. (2013). Early farming in the northern boreal zone: reassessing the history of land use in southeastern Finland through high–resolution pollen analysis. Geoarchaeology 28(1), 1–24. Burgess, M.G., McDermott, G.R., Owashi, B., Peavey Reeves, L.E., Clavelle, T., Ovando, D., Wallace, B.P., Lewison, R.L., Gaines, S.D., Costello, C. (2018). Protecting marine mammals, turtles, and birds by rebuilding global fisheries. Science, 359(6381), 1255–1258. Castillo, P. C., Kavalov B., Diogo V., Jacobs-Crisioni C., Batista e Silva F., Lavalle C. (2018). JRC Policy higlights 113718, European Commission 2018. [https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-12/ jrc113718.pdf] Costello, C., Ovando, D., Clavelle, T., Strauss, C.K., Hilborn, R., Melnychuk, M.C., Branch, T.A., Gaines, S.D., Szuwalski, C.S., Cabral, R.B., Rader, D.N. (2016). Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 113(18), 5125–5129. Diana, J.S. (2009). Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 59(1), 27–38. Diamond, J. (2002). Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature, 418(6898), 700–707. FAO 2022a. FAOSTAT, Land Use. [referred: 12.1.2023]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL FAO 2022b. FAOSTAT, Crops and Livestock Products. [referred 12.1.2023]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/ en/#data/TCL Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342. Handford, C.E., Elliott, C.T., Campbell, K. (2015). A review of the global pesticide legislation and the scale of challenge in reaching the global harmonization of food safety standards. Integrated environmental assessment and management 11(4), 525–536. Heino, J., Virkkala, R., Toivonen, H. (2009). Climate change and freshwater biodiversity: detected patterns, future trends and adaptations in northern regions. Biological Reviews 84(1), 39–54. Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Sciberras, M., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S. (2017). Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(31), 8301–8306. Kontula, T., Raunio, A. (eds.) (2018). Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus 2018 OSA 1. Suomen ympäristö 5/2018. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161233 Lehtomaa, L., Ahonen, I., Hakamäki, H., Häggblom, M., Jantunen, J., Jutila, H., Järvinen, C., Kemppainen, R., Kondelin, H., Laitinen, T., Lipponen, M., Mussaari, M., Pessa, J., Raatikainen, K.J., Raatikainen, K., Tuominen, S., Vainio, M., Vieno, M., Vuomajoki, M. (2018). Perinnebiotoopit 8. Suomen ympäristö 5/2018 Osa 2. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. Niemi, j., Väre. M. (eds.). (2019). Suomen maa- ja elintarviketalous 2019. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 36/2019. Luke. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2020). Kokonaiskalantuotanto 2019. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 15.12.2022]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kokonaiskalantuotanto/kokonaiskalantuotanto-2019 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2021a). Kaupallinen kalastus sisävesillä 2020. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 23.1.2023]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kaupallinen-kalastus-sisavesilla/ kaupallinen-kalastus-sisavesilla-2020 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2021b). Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022a). Utilised Agricultural Area 2022 (provisional). Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 15.12.2022]. https://www.luke.fi/en/statistics/utilised-agricultural-area/ utilised-agricultural-area-2022-provisional https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-12/jrc113718.pdf https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-12/jrc113718.pdf https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161233 https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kokonaiskalantuotanto/kokonaiskalantuotanto-2019 https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kaupallinen-kalastus-sisavesilla/kaupallinen-kalastus-sisavesilla-2020 https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kaupallinen-kalastus-sisavesilla/kaupallinen-kalastus-sisavesilla-2020 https://www.luke.fi/en/statistics/utilised-agricultural-area/utilised-agricultural-area-2022-provisional https://www.luke.fi/en/statistics/utilised-agricultural-area/utilised-agricultural-area-2022-provisional 28 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022b). Maataloustuotteiden ja elintarvikkeiden ulkomaankauppa vuosittain. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 10.12.2022]. https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/ fi/LUKE/LUKE__02%20Maatalous__06%20Talous/ Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022c). Viljatase 2021–22 ennakko ja 2020–21 lopullinen. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 10.12.2022]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/viljatase/ viljatase-202122-ennakko-ja-202021-lopullinen Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022d). Maatilojen sadonkäyttö 2021–22 ennakko ja 2020–21 lopullinen. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 10.12.2022]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/ maatilojen-sadonkaytto/maatilojen-sadonkaytto-202122-ennakko-ja-202021-lopullinen Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022e). Käytössä oleva maatalousmaa ELY-keskuksittain. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 10.12.2022]. https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__02%20 Maatalous__04%20Tuotanto/ Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022f ). Aquaculture 2021 [e-publication]. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 15.12.2022]. https://www.luke.fi/en/statistics/aquaculture. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022g). Kalan ulkomaankauppa 2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 23.1.2023]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kalan-ulkomaankauppa/kalan-ulkomaankauppa-2021 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022h). Vesiviljely 2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 23.1.2023]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/vesiviljely/vesiviljely-2021 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022i). Kalan ja kalatuotteiden tuonti ja vienti vuosittain. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 23.1.2023]. https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20 ja%20riista__04%20Talous/ Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2022j). Kaupallinen kalastus merellä 2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland. [referred: 23.1.2023]. https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kaupallinen-kalastus-merella/ kaupallinen-kalastus-merella-2021 Ojaveer, H., Jaanus, A., MacKenzie, B.R., Martin, G., Olenin, S., Radziejewska, T., Telesh, I., Zettler, M.L., Zaiko, A. (2010). Status of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. PLoS one 5(9), 12467. Ritchie, H., Roser, M. (2013). Land use. Our World in Data. Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R.B., Atwood, T.B., Auber, A., Cheung, W., Costello, C., Ferretti, F., Friedlander, A.M., Gaines, S.D. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592(7854), 397–402. Sandström, V., Kauppi, P.E., Scherer, L., Kastner, T. (2017). Linking country level food supply to global land and water use and biodiversity impacts: The case of Finland. Science of the Total Environment 575, 33–40. Sonesten, L., Svendsen, L.M., Tornbjerg, H., Gustafsson, B., Frank-Kamenetsky, D., Haapaniemi, J. (2018). Sources and pathways of nutrients to the Baltic Sea: HELCOM PLC-6. Stelfox, M., Hudgins, J., Sweet, M. (2016). A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs. Marine pollution bulletin 111(1–2), 6–17. Tiainen, J., Hyvönen, T., Hagner, M., Huusela-Veistola, E., Louhi, P., Miettinen, A., Nieminen, T., Palojärvi, A., Seimola, T., Taimisto, P., Virkajärvi, P. (2020). Biodiversity in intensive and extensive grasslands in Finland: the impacts of spatial and temporal changes of agricultural land use. Viitala, E.J., Assmuth, A., Koikkalainen, K., Miettinen, A., Mutanen, A., Wall, A., Wejberg, H., Lehtonen, H. (2022). Maa-ja metsätalouden kannustinjärjestelmien ilmastovaikutukset. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 21/2022, Luke. https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__02%20Maatalous__06%20Talous/ https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__02%20Maatalous__06%20Talous/ https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/viljatase/viljatase-202122-ennakko-ja-202021-lopullinen https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/viljatase/viljatase-202122-ennakko-ja-202021-lopullinen https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/maatilojen-sadonkaytto/maatilojen-sadonkaytto-202122-ennakko-ja-202021-lopullinen https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/maatilojen-sadonkaytto/maatilojen-sadonkaytto-202122-ennakko-ja-202021-lopullinen https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__02%20Maatalous__04%20Tuotanto/ https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__02%20Maatalous__04%20Tuotanto/ https://www.luke.fi/en/statistics/aquaculture https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kalan-ulkomaankauppa/kalan-ulkomaankauppa-2021 https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/vesiviljely/vesiviljely-2021 https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__04%20Talous/ https://statdb.luke.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__04%20Talous/ https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kaupallinen-kalastus-merella/kaupallinen-kalastus-merella-2021 https://www.luke.fi/fi/tilastot/kaupallinen-kalastus-merella/kaupallinen-kalastus-merella-2021 29 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 3.2.2 Use of water resources About 69% of global freshwater use is devoted to agriculture, mainly for irrigation, generating negative externalities (FAO 2020). Irrigation affects the timing and quantity of water flow in rivers, typically reducing it during heat periods when the natural flow is already at its lowest. It may also lead to salinization of soils, impeding the ecosystem services that soils provide in the long term. It also lowers groundwater tables, increasing the scarcity of water and causing saltwater intrusion in coastal areas (Mateo-Sagasta et al. 2018). On the other hand, irrigated agriculture is roughly twice as productive as non-irrigated, hence reducing the need to extend agricultural land (World Bank 2022). In Finland, the effects of irrigation are mainly felt outside our borders, inflicted by our consumption choices. However, there have been some local conflicts between inexpensive irrigation water for golf courses and river biodiversity (see, e.g.: https://www. hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000004726066.html) Globally, many irrigation externalities are coupled to the damming of rivers. As Finnish agricultural crops are typically rain fed, our dams have mostly been constructed for other purposes. Initially, typical structures were small mill dams that did not necessarily block the rivers entirely (Hilden & Rapport 1993). From the 18th to the end of the 19th century, the government mandated and promoted extensive projects to clear rapids and lower the water tables of lakes, and even completely dry them up for flood control and to obtain fertile land for cultivation (Säisänen 1992). Extensive draining of peatlands and wetlands for agriculture and forestry was promoted by the government during the 20th century (Ojanen et al. 2020). This disrupted water flows and deteriorated water quality, both of which have negatively affected river biodiversity. Additionally, in the 20th century, larger hydropower dams and flood control structures were built, making most of our rivers completely inaccessible for migratory fish. Our river ecosystems and thereby lake, coastal and marine ecosystems have thus been extensively modified and even destroyed for a long time through the utilization and control of water for economic purposes. Freshwater lakes, reservoirs and rivers cover about 2% of Earth’s surface. Nevertheless, they host about 10% of known animal species (Reid et al. 2019). As habitats, freshwater ecosystems are among the most threatened ones (Higgins et al. 2021). River biodiversity is particularly heavily affected among freshwater systems (Vörösmarty et al. 2010, Tockner et al. 2011). This is a global phenomenon and unfortunately also applies well to Finland. The biodiversity effects gaining most attention have been the population collapses of migratory fish: salmon, eel, lamprey and trout. These are valuable for citizens as such (Artell et al 2022). The viability of species such as brown trout is also correlated with overall river habitat quality (Törnblom et al. 2017). Their presence can thus be viewed as an indicator of the overall health of river biodiversity. https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000004726066.html https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000004726066.html 30 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 In Finland, there are approximately 220 professionally operating hydropower plants, some 500 facilities that mainly produce electricity for households, and around 4 500 smaller dams built for other purposes than hydropower (VESTY 2022). In addition, there are tens of thousands of culverts that generate obstacles of some kind for river ecosystems, but there is no detailed information on these. The permits for some structures require mitigation of their harmful effects on biodiversity. However, even medium-sized hydropower facilities might not have any environmental requirements, and many of the required mitigation measures have not actually been enforced (Iho et al. 2022; Belinskij and Soininen 2017). The key programmes to promote river biodiversity in Finland are the HELMI programme, focusing on headwaters and small barriers, and the Nousu programme, focusing on large barrier removals and by-passes. The EU Nature Restoration Law requires the removal of river barriers to restore at least 25 000 km of free-flowing rivers by 2030. References Allan, J.D., Castillo, M.M. (2007). Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5583-6 Batalla, R.J., Gibbins, C.N., Alcázar, A., Brasington, J., Buendia, C., Garcia, C., … Wheaton, J.M. (2021). Hydropeaked rivers need attention. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2), p.021001. Belinskij, A., Soininen, N. (2017). Vaelluskalakantojen oikeudellinen elvyttäminen ja vesivoima. Ympäristöpolitiikan ja -oikeuden vuosikirja 10, 89–149. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2020). FAOSTAT Statistical Database Gibeau, P., Connors, B.M., Palen, W.J. (2017). Run-of-River hydropower and salmonids: potential effects and perspective on future research. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 74(7), 1135–1149. Glenn, E.P., Lee, C., Felger, R., Zengel, S. (1996). Effects of water management on the wetlands of the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Conservation Biology 10(4), 1175–1186. Hildén, M., Rapport, D. (1993). Four centuries of cumulative impacts on a Finnish river and its estuary: an ecosystem health-approach. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 2(4), 261–275. Mateo-Sagasta, J., S.M. Zadeh., H. Turral, eds. (2018). More people, more food, worse water? A global review of water pollution from agriculture. Rome/Colombo: FAO/International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). Ojanen, P., Aapala, K., Hotanen, J.P., Hökkä, H., Kokko, A., Minkkinen, K., Myllys, M., Punttila, P., Päivänen, J., Rehell, S., Turunen, J. (2020). Soiden käyttö Suomessa. Suo. Reid, A.J., Carlson, A.K., Creed, I.F., Eliason, E.J., Gell, P.A., Johnson, P.T., … Smol, J.P. (2019). Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biological Reviews 94(3), 849–873. Säisänen, R. (1992). Vesihallituksen syntyhistoria. Maa- ja vesitekniikan tuki ry. Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Gessner, J., Wolter, C. (2011). Domesticated ecosystems and novel communities: challenges for the management of large rivers. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 11(3–4), 167–174. Törnblom, J., Angelstam, P., Degerman, E., Tamario, C. (2017). Prioritizing dam removal and stream restoration using critical habitat patch threshold for brown trout (Salmo trutta L.): a catchment case study from Sweden. Ecoscience 24(3–4), 157–166. VESTY 2022. Vesistötyöt VESTY – Vesistöhankkeet – Vesistötyöt VESTY – Vesistöhankkeet – Aineistot – SYKEn metatietopalvelu. https://ckan.ymparisto.fi/dataset/vesistotyot-vesty-vesistohankkeet World Bank 2022. Water in Agriculture. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., … Davies, P.M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467(7315), 555–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5583-6 https://ckan.ymparisto.fi/dataset/vesistotyot-vesty-vesistohankkeet https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture 31 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 3.2.3 Forestry The forest industry is one of the main manufacturing sectors in Finland. In 2021, the share of forest industry products in Finland’s export of goods was approximately 20%, and the total value was 13.1 billion euros. The Finnish forest industry mostly uses domestic wood, and the direct biodiversity effects of the sector thus mostly occur in Finland. In 2021, domestic wood accounted for 86% of wood used, and as imports from Russia have further declined in 2022, domestic wood has supplied an increasing share of all wood used. The import of forest industry products to Finland is minor compared to export. Globally, the demand for forest industry products is mostly increasing, an exception being the demand for printing and writing paper. Among the main drivers of global demand are population growth, a rise in income levels and demographic changes. As income levels have risen, for instance, in emerging economies, the demand for forest industry products, such as hygiene products and packaging solutions, has also increased. Forest industry products produced in Finland are to a large extent exported (e.g., paper and paperboard ca. 95%, sawnwood ca. 75%). Thus, the driving force for harvesting in Finnish forests and for the use of Finnish wood is consumption outside the country and the end-users’ needs and preferences there. The main export destinations are other EU countries (especially Germany) and the UK (paper, paperboard, pulp, sawnwood), China (pulp) and North African countries (sawnwood). As the fibre characteristics of boreal conifers differ from those of their southern counterparts and even more from eucalypts and other broadleaved trees, the use of boreal wood is, at least at the moment, only partly replaceable with production elsewhere. Investments in forest growth in Finland have been significant since the 1950s. The stock volume of Finnish forests increased from 1 500 mill. m3 in the 1950s to 2 500 mill. m3 in the 2020s (Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2021). At the same time, harvesting levels have also significantly increased. Despite the increase, the harvesting level has still at national level been below the maximum sustainable harvesting level when the sustainability of wood production is considered. However, when other sustainability aspects are considered, or some heavily harvested regions instead of national level, the overall view is not as positive. The ditching of mires has been extensive and has led to significant changes in peatland ecosystems. There have also been changes in tree species composition, as Scots pine and Norway spruce have earlier been favoured over deciduous trees, and changes in age structure, which have also had a negative impact on forest biodiversity, as the share of old growth forests (141+ years) has particularly declined (Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2021). According to the 2019 Red List of Finnish Species (Hyvärinen et al. 2019), approximately one third of Finland’s endangered species live in forests. Forestry (loss of deadwood and old growth forests, forest management) is the main reason behind the biodiversity loss in forests. As forestry land (also including 32 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 poorly productive land) covers 86% of the Finnish land area, changes in forest biodiversity have significant impacts on the general state of biodiversity in Finland. Ditching has also contributed to the loading of nutrients and organic matter to surface waters (Nieminen et al. 2021). This has similar indirect biodiversity effects in freshwater ecosystems as agricultural nutrient loading. Forest conservation in Finland has been advanced using both EU and national instruments. Despite positive changes in some components of forest structure, the general state of forest biodiversity (Red List Index value) has not improved (Hyvärinen et al. 2019). The quality of nature-oriented management in commercial forests has declined during recent years (Siitonen et al. 2020). Nature-oriented management is a general term for measures that aim at objectives parallel to wood production in forest management, and it includes e.g., operations aiming at the protection of key biotopes and securing small water beds and the water table, a preference for mixed forests, and the retention of living trees and deadwood (Koivula et al. 2022). Since the 1990s, biodiversity has been better included in Finnish forest policy. Silvicultural practices and guidelines have been modified accordingly, and forest legislation has been renewed several times to better account for biodiversity. Nevertheless, for example, the latest renewal of the Finnish Forest Act (2014) has had conflicting impacts on biodiversity conservation. Kniivilä et al. (2020) demonstrated that this law has actually had negative impacts on biodiversity in certain ecosystems, e.g., on stream ecosystems, due to changes in forest management in these areas. The law renewal enabled the use of continuous-cover forestry, which has since also been advanced in several EU regulations on biodiversity and climate grounds. However, this management system is not yet widely used and its long-term impacts on biodiversity are ambiguous because of the lack of monitoring over multiple logging entries or longer time period (30–80 years) (e.g., Siitonen and Koivula 2022). Similarly, there is no unambiguous answer to the question of whether even-aged forestry or continuous-cover forestry is better from the perspective of carbon sequestration and carbon storage (Repo et al. 2022). However, on drained eutrophic peatlands, continuous-cover forestry appears to be a promising management system, as by implementing this, it is possible to slow down the reduction in peat storage over the long term. Possible ways to improve the biodiversity of forests include increasing the number of deadwood and old trees in commercial forest stands. Favouring mixed forests would have positive effects on biodiversity, as would also wider buffer zones in the vicinity of water bodies. By habitat restoration, which will in the coming years increasingly take place as the EU Biodiversity Strategy is implemented, it is possible to return conditions that are favourable for rare and red-listed species. At the regional and national levels, it would be important to increase the proportion of old-growth forests, especially in southern 33 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Finland. While the resilience seems to be determined by the diversity of tree species in the forests, it could additionally depend on complex biological interactions and the diversity of other species groups, based on many positive relationships between their richness and ecosystem services, although currently these pieces of evidence are often correlative (see below). Many of the measures mentioned above result in increasing costs from the point of view of forestry. The most obvious increase in costs occurs when forest areas are strictly protected (no forestry operations allowed) or if harvesting amounts per hectare are significantly reduced, e.g., due to changing forest management practices. At the level of the national economy, the decreasing availability of wood may in the longer term decrease the industrial production, at least if the production structure remains similar to the current one. Despite the likely increasing costs, improving the state of biodiversity is also important for the forest industry and forestry in order to maintain the general acceptability of the sector and in order to be more resilient in possible future changes in environments, conditions and societies. As 60% of forest land in Finland is owned by private persons, the goals of this group for their forest ownership have a significant impact on Finnish forests. According to Karppinen et al. (2020), the goals and preferences of forest owners are heterogeneous, and many forest owners are multi-objective, i.e., economic, recreational and ecological values are all important to them. To support the provision of biodiversity and carbon benefits of private forests, new incentive schemes would be needed. Juutinen et al. (2021) found that many forest owners would be willing to participate in a specific scheme supporting biodiversity and non-market ecosystem services. In a choice experiment ran by these authors, non- profitability factors, including biodiversity, carbon stock and probability of climate change-induced damage, were found to be important for forest owners. On average, forest owners asked for a reasonably high fee for this type of contract-based forest management. However, as preferences of forest owners are heterogeneous, a segment of them are likely to be willing to make contracts at lower compensation levels (Juutinen et al. 2021). Currently, private forest owners may receive financial support from the state for forest management and for development and nature-oriented management in commercial forests. Public funding is based on the Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry (KEMERA). The general objectives are to increase the growth of forests, maintain road networks for forestry purposes, secure the biodiversity of forests and promote the adaptation of forests to climate change. Nature-oriented management in commercial forests is advanced through environmental support and nature-management projects. According to Viitala et al. (2022), more than 80% of funds in the above-mentioned scheme are allocated to supporting wood production, and the share of environmental subsidies 34 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 in the scheme is small. However, other schemes also support forest and nature protection, notably the METSO and HELMI conservation programmes, but in the METSO programme, for example, funding has been considerably lower than the landowners’ willingness to participate in the programme. A new incentive scheme for private forestry is currently under preparation and will come into force in 2024. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, the aim of the incentive scheme is to promote economically, ecologically and socially sustainable management practices in private forests. The incentive scheme will include economic support e.g., for the tending of seedlings and young stands, remedial fertilisation, peatland forest management planning and water protection, and maintaining the forest road network. Forest nature management and prescribed burning can also be subsidized. Nature management in commercial forests is advanced through environmental support and forest nature management projects, but the focus in the new incentive scheme is still clearly on wood production. According to Laturi et al. (2021), who evaluated the new incentive scheme, funding of the system should be more clearly directed to the types of work that support the ecological sustainability of forestry. Even though the support for environmental work will increase in absolute terms in the new scheme as compared to the current funding scheme, the share of environmental support in the total scheme will decrease. In the future, the incentive scheme should be further developed so that forest owners have real incentives to produce biodiversity and climate benefits (see, e.g., Lehtonen et al. 2022). Payments should be based on actual performance. References Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2021). Natural Resources Institute Finland. http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-952-380-325-1 Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Kemppainen, E., Uddström, A., Liukko, U.-M. (eds.) (2019). The 2019 Red List of Finnish Species. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. Helsinki. 704 p. http://hdl.handle. net/10138/299501 Juutinen, A., Kurttila, M., Pohjanmies, T., Tolvanen, A., Kuhlmey, K., Skudnik, M., Triplat, M., Westin, K., Mäkipää, R. (2021). Forest owners’ preferences for contract-based management to enhance environmental values versus timber production. Forest Policy and Economics 132, 102587. Karppinen, H, Hänninen, H., Horne, P. (2020). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2020. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 30/2020. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 73 s. Kniivilä, M., Hantula, J., Hotanen, J-P., Hynynen, J., Hänninen, H., Korhonen, K.T., Leppänen, J., Melin, M., Mutanen, A., Määttä, K., Siitonen, J., Viiri, H., Viitala, E-J., Viitanen, J. (2020). Metsälain ja metsätuholain muutosten arviointi. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 3/2020. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 124 s. Koivula, M., Louhi, P., Miettinen, J., Nieminen, M., Piirainen, S., Punttila, P., Siitonen, J. (2022). Talousmetsien luonnonhoidon ekologisten vaikutusten synteesi. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 60/2022. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 83 s. Laturi, J., Maidell, M., Haltia, E., Horne, P., Määttä, K., Uusivuori, J. (2021). Metsätalouden kan- nustinjärjestelmän evaluointi. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 15/2021. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 80 s. Lehtonen, H., Assmuth, A., Koikkalainen, K., Miettinen, A., Mutanen, A., Mäkipää, R., Nieminen, M., Rämö, J., Wall, A., Wejberg, H., Viitala, E.-J. (2022). Tehokkaat ohjauskeinot maa- ja metsätalouden ilmastovaikutusten edistämiseksi. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 76/2022. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 83 s. URN: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-380-506-4 Nieminen, M., Sarkkola, S., Hasselquist, E.M., Sallantaus, T. (2021). Long-Term Nitrogen and Phosphorus Dynamics in Waters Discharging from Forestry-Drained and Undrained Boreal Peatlands. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 232(9), 1–9. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-380-325-1 http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-380-325-1 http://hdl.handle.net/10138/299501 http://hdl.handle.net/10138/299501 http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-380-506-4 35 Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:4 Repo, A., Lehtonen, A., Sarkkola, S. (2022). Metsien hiilen kierto. In: Routa, J., Huuskonen, S. (eds.). 2022. Jatkuvapeitteinen metsänkasvatus: Synteesiraportti. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 40/2022. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. s. 90–96. Siitonen, J., Koivula, M. 2022. Monimuotoisuus. In: Routa, J., Huuskonen, S. (eds.). (2022). Jatkuvapeitteinen metsänkasvatus: Synteesiraportti. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 40/2022. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. s. 75–83. Siitonen, J., Punttila, P., Korhonen, K. T., Heikkinen, J., Laitinen, J., Partanen, J., Pasanen, H., Saaristo, L. (2020). Talousmetsien luonnonhoidon kehitys vuosina 1995–2018 luonnonhoidon laadun arvioinnin sekä valtakunnan metsien inventoinnin tulosten perusteella. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 69/2020. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 71 s. Viitala, E.-J., Assmuth, A., Koikkalainen, K., Miettinen, A., Mutanen, A., Wall, A., Wejberg, H., Lehtonen, H. 2022. Maa- ja metsätalouden kannustinjärjestelmien ilmastovaikutukset. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 21/2022. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 97 s. 3.2.4 Sectors with land use impacts: building and traffic Globally, the change in land use presents the greatest immediate threat to biodiversity and could lead to changes in the way ecosystems function, as well as to considerable species extinctions (UNEP 2023). In developed countries, urbanization is typically the dominant land use change. In Finland, the number of inhabitants in urban areas has grown significantly faster than that of the country as a whole, and housing and other infrastructure have been built for the use of those who have moved to urban areas. The greatest pressures of land use change on Finland’s nature arise from the expansion of the built-up structure for settlement and industry, the construction and maintenance of traffic networks and the infrastructure for energy production. The transition to renewable energy sources will require a significant increase in land area, for example, for wind power generation and the use of energy transmission infrastructure. In addition to the direct land-use effects of construction, the acquisition of raw materials and energy sources from, for example, forests, mines, soil extraction sites or from oil drilling requires the exploitation of land and marine areas (Viertiö et al. 2022). In the 2010s, about 14,000 ha of the forest area was deforested annually in Finland (Assmuth et al. 2022). Half of this deforestation is construction-related and about a third is agriculture-related. In recent years, net deforestation, that