Finnish forest associations rarely offer alternatives to clear-cutting

An analysis by Finnish public broadcaster Yle found that continuous-cover forestry accounted for just 1.7 per cent of logging carried out by forest management associations between 2020 and 2025.

Continuous-cover forestry allows trees to be harvested without clear-cutting the entire forest. Across all operators, it accounted for 3.2 per cent of logging during the period.

The figures varied substantially between associations. Forest management associations in Pirkanmaa, Uusimaa and Upper Lapland used continuous-cover forestry in nearly or more than 4 per cent of their logging operations. Many others used it in less than 0.5 per cent of their logging.

None of the three associations with the highest shares still exists as an independent organisation in 2026. They have merged with other associations in recent years.

Markku Remes, a senior specialist in forest management at the Finnish Forest Centre, said he had noticed differences between associations even before Yle’s analysis. He said he did not know what caused them, but suggested that different operating methods, organisational cultures and levels of expertise among employees could partly explain the variation.

Forest management associations manage and arrange logging in forests owned by ordinary private landowners. About three quarters of private forest owners belong to an association, and many follow its recommendations completely or have delegated forest management to it under a power of attorney.

As a result, the associations’ practices have a significant influence on how forests are managed in Finland.

One forest owner in Sotkamo did not want a clear-cut on their property. After asking their forest management association about alternatives, the owner agreed to logging in which only the largest trees were removed.

The aim is to manage the forest through continuous-cover forestry in the future, with logging continuing but no further clear-cuts.

Different approaches have different benefits and drawbacks

Periodic-cover forestry, which usually ends with a clear-cut, was for decades the only permitted way to grow forests in Finland. It is well established, familiar to forestry operators and generally supported by readily available machinery. It is also usually profitable for the forest owner.

After a clear-cut, however, the owner must pay for forest management work such as planting. A clear-cut can also only be carried out at long intervals, such as once every 80 years.

From an environmental perspective, clear-cutting radically changes an area for decades. In some types of forest, it can also cause emissions into waterways and the atmosphere.

Continuous-cover forestry is less common and may involve less practical experience. It requires fewer paid management measures, such as planting, and the harvested timber is more valuable sawlog timber. Because logging can be carried out relatively often, it can also provide a steadier income.

However, expertise in continuous-cover forestry may be harder to find. The method may not be suitable for forests that do not regenerate naturally or that face risks from plant diseases. Income may also be lower than under other methods, although opinions on this differ.

Continuous-cover forestry is generally considered better for nature than clear-cutting, although it may not be better for carbon sequestration, at least during the growth phase. It is not the same as protection: logging under continuous-cover forestry also changes the natural environment.

Continuous-cover forestry only became permitted in Finland in 2014 and has since become more common, but its growth has been slow.