Environmental minister proposes mandatory buffer zones to protect freshwater pearl mussel habitats in Finland

The environmental impact of forestry activities on the endangered freshwater pearl mussel has sparked renewed discussion regarding the importance of buffer zones in rivers and streams that support these species. Environmental Minister Kai Mykkänen has proposed a legal amendment to establish a mandatory 50-meter buffer zone around mussel habitats. Forestry companies have committed to this 50-meter buffer, which aims to protect the rivers and mussels from sunlight and sediment runoff.

Currently, the recommended buffer zone is 45 meters, but it has not been adhered to in locations such as the Hukkajoki River in Suomussalmi or at worksites managed by Metsähallitus in Puolanka. Compliance with these recommendations means reduced income from forestry operations for landowners.

Using an example, we will calculate the extent of forest land that would remain untapped due to adhering to buffer zone regulations, and what this would cost landowners.

According to the Finnish Forest Center, the median size of private forests owned by individuals in Finland is approximately 9.6 hectares, rounded to 10 hectares for clarity in our example. A 45-meter buffer in this scenario would mean up to 2.85 hectares of forest would go untreated if a river supports mussels.

For private forest owners in Finland, there are notable regional differences in potential income. In Päijät-Häme, private forests generated an average of €315.80 per hectare last year, while in Lapland, the figure was just €47.60 per hectare. Thus, adhering to the proposed buffer in Lapland could result in a revenue loss of €135.47, while the loss in the more productive Kainuu region could reach €245.33, and in Päijät-Häme even €898.77.

The actual economic impact of buffer zones varies by plot and depends on factors such as land shape and size, along with the stream’s location on the parcel.