@article{Saastamoinen:199311,
      recid = {199311},
      author = {Saastamoinen, Olli},
      title = {A Change in the Paradigm? Ecosystem Goods and Services in  Finnish Forest and Environmental Policies},
      journal = {Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial  Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics},
      address = {2012-05},
      number = {1333-2016-103868},
      pages = {9},
      year = {2012},
      abstract = {The framework of Ecosystem Goods and Services, introduced  by Millenium Ecosystem
Assessment has entered as a key  linkage between ecosystems and human well-being. This  paper
introduces and briefly analyses developments and  state of affairs in Finland’s forest and
environmental  policies and the ways the new emphasis on ecosystem  services is so far
documented in the strategies and  policies related to forests and environment. Some attention  is
given to international and domestic reasons in this  development, including a recent downturn
of pulp and paper  industries. The international changes from the ”narrow ”  biodiversity focus
to broader ecosystem services approach  are already being taken into account in  prospecting
Finland’s environmental policies. Comparing to  the earlier “environmental turn” in forestry,
one may call  this as an ongoing “socio-economic turn” in biodiversity  based environmental
policies in Finland. Ecosystem goods  and services will also play important roles in the  larger
economic, ecological and social frames called as  ‘green economy’, ‘green growth’ and
‘bioeconomy’, outlined  in some strategic reports. All these reasons, backed by the  longer term
or more recent development towards  multiple-use, environmentally benign forestry  and
integrated natural resource management, may facilitate  an active adaptation towards
ecosystem goods and services  framework in Finland’s forestry. Consequently, an  increased
convergence and improved integration of forest  and environmental policies within ecosystem
services and  other supporting frameworks, may result in policy changes  which can be called as
paradigmatic. Yet this preliminary  conclusion requires better evidence and more  detailed
analysis – and the process itself more time to be  consolidated.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/199311},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.199311},
}