Introduction

Forests cover approximately 30% of the global land surface and 33% of Europe’s land area1,2. They are vital to global resilience against climate change, absorbing approximately one-third of anthropogenic carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. Forests also provide critical ecosystem services, including soil protection, water regulation, and biodiversity conservation3.

Within Europe, the study of forest resilience has gained prominence, particularly in the context of climate-induced stressors such as drought. Key factors influencing resilience include improved water relations and interspecific competition in mixed forests, which enhance resistance and recovery following drought events. Such dynamics have been observed in the recovery of post-drought forests in Central and Southern Europe4,5,6. A 2018 study across multiple European sites underscored the susceptibility of conifer species like Norway spruce and Scots pine to heatwaves and drought, highlighting significant challenges to their resilience7.

Between 2018 and 2022, average summer air temperatures in Europe exceeded long-term averages by 0.9 °C to 1.4 °C8. These elevated temperatures have contributed to increased forest mortality in Central Europe9 and amplified forest damage in Southern Fenno-Scandinavia, alongside heightened risks of bark beetle outbreaks due to warming climates.

Forest resilience to various stressors—biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic—is critical to sustaining these ecosystems. Loss of resilience can be driven by factors such as mismanagement or climatic extremes10. In response, forest scientists have explored strategies to enhance resilience. For example, Filotas et al.11 proposed incorporating principles of ecosystem self-organization and uncertainty into forest management, while Dhital et al.12 demonstrated how complex landscape structures arising from ecosystem-based management secure wood provision under climate change in Canadian boreal forests. Diversification of forest management has also been suggested as a means of mitigating risks, with Knoke et al.13 advocating portfolio-theory-based approaches to reduce vulnerability.

In the European Union, forest management is governed by national legislation supplemented by various non-binding guidelines, including private and governmental norms. These regulations have historically focused on sustainable timber production but have evolved to address broader ecosystem services. Legal scholars, such as Fischman14, argue that climate change adaptation is intrinsically linked to resilience. Laws, therefore, should prepare societies for uncertain futures and acknowledge that adaptation may incur costs and trade-offs, including the loss of ecosystem functions. Craig15 proposed five principles for climate adaptation laws: (1) continuous monitoring; (2) reduction of non-climatic stressors and promotion of resilience; (3) long-term, multi-stakeholder planning; (4) flexibility in regulatory goals and resource management; and (5) acceptance of adaptation costs and losses. These principles align with other frameworks for adaptive governance, such as those highlighted by Driessen and van Rijswick16.

The interplay between legal norms and forest resilience continues to be a topic of interest15. Garmestani et al.17 emphasized the role of laws in fostering resilience, while Seidl et al.18 argued for a dynamic interpretation of resilience beyond normative definitions. Cañizares et al.19 highlighted the utility of resilience as a guiding concept for designing ecosystems and setting management goals. Moreover, Newton20 advocated for integrating resilience into large-scale policymaking, while emphasizing the need to assess its broader implications.

This study aims to analyse how current Finnish forest regulations support the adaptation and resilience of forests to climate change, with a specific focus on adaptation rather than mitigation. To our knowledge, this is the first review of Finnish forest policies from an adaptation perspective, addressing a critical gap in the literature. Specifically, we explore two research questions: (1) How are climate risks to Finnish forests addressed in forest legislation? (2) How does Finland’s normative framework compare to theoretical studies on climate adaptation laws?

The Finnish context offers a unique case study due to its substantial forest resources, extensive forest legislation, and the challenges posed by climate change. While Finland’s regulations historically emphasized forest growth and yield, many of these provisions may inadvertently support climate adaptation through sustainable forest management practices. By examining these dynamics, we aim to provide insights into how systemic change and adaptation can be better integrated into forest laws and governance frameworks.

Results

Challenges for resilience and adaptation

Finland’s forest area, which constitutes 86% of its total land area, spans 26.247 million hectares and is primarily located in the Northern and Southern boreal zones21. The boreal forests in Finland experience an average annual temperature range of +5 °C to −2 °C22. However, due to climate change, Finland faces increasing extreme weather events, including heavy snowfall in winter, hot and dry summers, and intense rainfall.

The effects of climate change are particularly pronounced in boreal forests compared to other forest types. Kellomäki et al.23 highlighted the main impacts of climate change on the dynamics of managed boreal forests in northern Europe. According to Venäläinen et al.24, the primary abiotic and biotic risks in boreal forests due to climate change include heavy snow loads, windstorms, heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, pathogens affecting trees, and major insect pests (Table 1).

Table 1 Major threats and damages of the national and regional Finnish forest
Full size table

Mäkinen et al.25 reported growth reductions in spruce stands following summer droughts in the 1990s. Simulations by Ikonen et al.26 predicted escalating risks of wind damage in Southern Finland between 2010 and 2099, due to the region’s higher proportion of Norway spruce. Luoranen et al.27 identified high drought stress risks for newly planted Norway spruce seedlings in Nordic boreal forests, particularly those planted in early or mid-summer. Furthermore, increasing summer droughts heighten the likelihood of large-scale forest fires24.

In Northern Finland, the peak fire alert season begins in early May and lasts 12 weeks. As of 2021, the cumulative burned area in the region was 2793 ha28. The most important year for burned areas in recent history was 2003, with approximately 67 hectares affected, primarily in agricultural zones. Despite these events, the overall threat of forest fires in Finnish boreal forests is considered mild compared to other regions.

Climate change also amplifies the risk of snow damage in Finland. Fluctuations around 0 °C may cause ice accumulation on tree crowns, leading to breakage29,30. A study by the University of Eastern Finland and the Finnish Meteorological Institute found that climate change increases snow damage risks, particularly in eastern and northern Finland, where trees are better adapted to heavy snow loads than those in other parts of the country30. Snow damage often precedes other serious risks, such as damage from insects or fungi.

The National Forest Inventory (2014–18) identified snow damage as the most severe cause of forest damage in regions like North Karelia, North Savo, Kainuu, and Lapland31. For instance, in 2018, forest damages were valued at 170 million EUR, affecting 52,000 hectares, with 70 million in Kainuu and 66 million EUR in North Karelia32.

Predictive analyses revealed that wind damage varies depending on forest management and species regeneration under different climate scenarios26. While southern Finland faces higher wind damage risks, the northern boreal zone experiences lower wind risks but higher snow damage due to forest structure and prolonged frost periods24,33. Forest damages predominantly affect pine-dominated forests in Finland, with 87% of abiotic damage caused by snow, soil nutrient imbalances, and wind21.

Rising CO2 levels and enhanced photosynthesis from increasing temperatures have accelerated forest growth globally, provided water supply is sufficient34. However, during periods of rapid climate change, forest growth responses vary substantially between northern and southern Finland24,35. While northern Finland sees increased forest growth, its unique features may be at risk of decline. Vulnerability to climate change is higher for Norway spruce and birch but lower for Scots pine in northern regions33.

Appropriate tree species selection and reduced forest rotation lengths could increase forest growth in Finland by up to 44%23. Moreover, promoting biodiversity through species selection can reduce pest damage36,37, lower wind damage risks33, and enhance ecosystem service provision38.

As a result of the analysis, we identified six pivotal factors, that were the basis for the normative analysis: i) preventing pathogens, ii) increasing the presence of native tree species in forests, iii) practicing adaptive silviculture, iv) promoting tree species diversity, v) managing fire and water and vi) implementing flexible management systems to addresses challenges in resilience and adaptation.

Normative frameworks and forest laws to increase resilience

Numerous laws in Finland, such as the Forest Act 1093/199639, govern its forests. The aim of this act is 'to promote economically, ecologically and socially sustainable management and utilisation of forests in order that the forests produce a good output in a sustainable way while their biological diversity is being preserved' (ch. 1, § 1 Forest Act 1093/199639). Other acts, including the Financing Act for Sustainable Forestry 34/201540, also aim to promote ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable management and use of forests. These laws focus primarily on felling practices that enhance the growth of remaining tree stands, with artificial regeneration through clear-cutting being the principal approach.

The Amendments Act of 2014 introduced greater freedom of choice for forest owners in forest management decisions41. Under the Act of 34/2015 (§ 37 & 39)40, the Forest Centre terminated the obligation to manage and maintain areas or forest roads financed by state resources and to monitor conditions for granting, paying, and using subsidies. Moreover, if ownership agreements change, the new owner can terminate the agreement by notifying the Forest Centre (§ 43 & 43a Financing Act for Sustainable Forestry 34/201540). However, after December 2023, the Financing Act for Sustainable Forestry 34/201540 was replaced by the Incentive System for Forestry 71/202342, which emphasizes the maintenance of forestry road networks.

The forest acts stipulate that while forest owners have the freedom to manage their forests, they cannot damage them, and reforestation is mandatory after tree removal (ch. 2, § 5 Forest Act 1093/199639). The Government Decree on Sustainable Forest Management (1308/2013)43 primarily addresses forest damage related to logging activities in Sections 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13 but lacks specific instructions for managing abiotic forest damage. However, the Act (§ 8 and 11 Forest Act 1308/2013)43 includes essential guidance for promoting species diversity, particularly by emphasizing the use of native tree species for natural regeneration and sustainable forest management practices.

According to the Forest Damages Prevention Act44 (1087/2013) § 2, 'Forest damage means diseases and deterioration of tree growth or quality caused by invertebrates, fungi, bacteria, or viruses to trees growing in forest which cause economic damage, and damaged tree means a damaged pine or spruce tree from which insects causing forest damage may spread.' This act emphasizes the removal of damaged conifers to prevent infestation and ensure forest health. It also supports the subsidization and construction of forest roads45.

Forest legislation, directly and indirectly, supports the prevention and control of forest damage. Finnish forests experience fewer forest fires, partly due to natural factors, such as lakes that act as fire breaks and provide resources for fire suppression, and partly due to forest laws. For instance, the extensive forest road network, funded by the state (§ 1, 9, and 16 Financing Act for Sustainable Forestry 34/201540; ch. 3, § 17 Act on the Incentive System for Forestry 71/202342), facilitates forest connectivity, restrains fire spread, and assists firefighting efforts. Additionally, an aerial surveillance system helps prevent fires from becoming large-scale disasters.

The Forest Damages Prevention Act44 mandates that felled timber, such as spruce or pine, must be removed, or substitute actions, such as covering, irrigating, or debarking, should be taken to prevent damage to surrounding forests. In cases of exceptional forest damage, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry requires landowners and Metsäkeskus to take preventive action (§ 9 Forest Damages Prevention Act 1087/2013)44.

The European Council Directive (Council Directive 1999/105/EC, implemented as Finnish law 241/2002) mandates that forest seeds should be adapted to the local climate46. The directive provides rules for transferring forest genetic material across geographical regions. According to the Finnish Food Authority, seed transfers are permissible for certain spruce and pine sources, with specific temperature sum differences or geographic limits suggested for different seed types47,48.

The Act on the Incentive Scheme for Forestry 71/202342 and the FSC guidelines (principle 6) emphasize water protection measures in forests. These measures mitigate erosion, soil degradation, and water pollution while supporting ecosystem health. By regulating hydrological processes and maintaining water cycles, these measures reduce forest damage risks from extreme weather events, such as floods, landslides, and drought stress49. Water protection is crucial for addressing nutrient loss from increased rainfall50. However, while the Incentive Scheme 71/2023 (§ 15, ch. 1)42 highlights sustainable forest management and adaptation, it lacks detailed guidelines on achieving climate change mitigation. Moreover, these measures are voluntary, with forest owners needing to apply for financial support to implement them.

Finally, the Act on the Finnish Forestry Center (418/2011)51 does not specifically address climate adaptation, forest damage, or climate change risks. Instead, it focuses on forest management and sustainable use, defining Metsäkeskus’ roles and responsibilities, administrative functions, and state aid monitoring (Table 2).

Table 2 Finnish Forest Laws’ Climate-Resilient Management Actions
Full size table

Non-binding and technical frameworks and actions for increasing resilience

The Tapio guidelines for good forest management47 are recommendations for the management of private forests. The guidelines consider a set of measures. The premises of the guidelines is that the climate will warm by between 3 and 6 °C before 2100. They estimate that as a result, the growth of spruce will decline ‘to some extent in Southern Finland’ and that there will be an increase in forest damage. The guidelines emphasise the use of genetically adapted material (especially genetically improved material) for forest regeneration. The guide also provides a list of the positive effects of climate change. As adaptation measures, the guide proposes intensifying the management of damages and using appropriate silviculture, without delving into the details.

The ‘Instructions for Silviculture’52 that are used in state owned forests are more concrete than those proposed by Äijälä et al.47 and make direct suggestions about the establishment of mixed forests, the use of genetically improved seeds, the use of continuous cover silviculture as well as restricting the use of spruce on dry sites. We note that the paper combines measures for climate adaptation and climate mitigation, and we attempted to restrict our analysis to adaptation measures.

In our evaluation of the Forest Management PEFC FI 2022 standard series53 (including documents such as PEFC FI 1006:201954 and PEFC FI 1002:202255), we concentrated on multiple facets associated with PEFC FI. Although these documents cover a broad spectrum of topics, we noted that there is no specific section explicitly addressing forest damage, risk, snow damage or climate adaptation.

Notably, the ‘Sustainable Forest Management—Requirements PEFC FI 1002:2022’55 document emphasises the importance of climate change and adaptability. However, it does not provide specific suggestions or guidelines for combating these situations.

The FSC guidelines are based on the FSC-STD-FIN-02-202356. Amongst the FSC’s 10 principles, Principles 1.1, 6.3, 9 and 10 specifically focus on forest management plans that include preserving decaying wood, conserving habitat and protecting water, which are relevant to mitigating the risk of fire, disease and major insect outbreaks57,58. Additionally, criterion 4.4 highlights the necessity of incorporating measures in the forest management plan to maintain and enhance the resilience of forest ecosystems, including adapting to climate change.

Both the PEFC FI and FSC FI share overarching principles and criteria that emphasise the importance of forest management in the context of climate change adaptation and resilience. However, their suggestions and guidelines do not specifically address effective strategies for adapting to climate change (Table 3).

Table 3 Non-binding Climate-Resilient Management Actions in Finnish Forest
Full size table

Discussion and conclusion

Our analysis demonstrates that normative rules for climate change adaptation are distributed across all legal levels (from the EU to non-binding legal frameworks). Subnational rules for climate change adaptation in Finland are absent because forest legislation in Finland is regulated at the national level.

In Finland, the Forest Act of 1093/199639 delineates the framework for the principles of the Finnish Forest Act and establishes four key principles: multiple use and sustainability (explicitly in §2, 3, 10 a), the protection of biodiversity and natural habitats (explicitly in §10 a, 10 b and 12), forest regeneration and tending (explicitly in § 6, 7, 8 and 14, 20) and forest owners’ right to decide (implicitly in various section, e.g. §11, 15 and 20).

The Finnish Forest Act prioritises ‘sustainability’ to combat climate change and its impacts. The Finnish Forest Act of 1093/199639 also emphasises ‘forest owners’ decision-making rights’. However, there is an ongoing discussion regarding how the burdens of climate change will be shared in Finland. The role of forest harvests in climate change mitigation has received particular attention in political discussions. In the forest planning process within Finnish government-owned forest areas, a consultation procedure engages the public, as highlighted by Metsähallitus59 and Kaukonen et al.60.

Overall, the major principles of the Finnish Act are intended to encourage sustainable forest management and balance the social, economic and ecological aspects of forestry. For example, the principles of biodiversity and natural habitats promote and protect forest ecosystems to contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation, forest regeneration and tend to ensure the long-term productivity of forests and ecosystem services to promote sustainable development.

Thus, most forest operators and management-related personnel emphasise the dominant nature of protection and sustainability due to the long-term horizons used in forestry. For instance, simulations of forest dynamics for Finland (e.g., Kalliokoski et al.61) present scenarios for the upcoming 100 years to ensure sustainability. Forest management plans in Finland usually contain background simulations to ensure sustainability for several decades, although forest management is proposed for ten years. Forest operators and management-related personnel clearly distinguish between long-term strategic planning and short-term tactical planning. The Finnish Forest Strategy 202562 emphasises the positive effects of climate change on the productivity of Finnish forests while also mentioning the dangers of increased damage. The main instructions to increase adaptation are to ‘perform silvicultural treatments in time’. Furthermore, the strategy mentions that treatments against decay of roots should be intensified.

The long-term nature of forestry means that specific silviculture measures reduce future management options for decades. For example, tree species selection in plantations may be costly to change. Changes in tree species could reduce the area of vulnerable tree species and thus create more resilient forests for several decades. For example, spruce is considered to be the most vulnerable tree species in Finland23. Conversely, birches are supposed to benefit from climate change23. Another option is to shift the origins of seeds used for regeneration to more southern areas or to introduce new, better-adapted tree species63.

These scientific recommendations have not been reflected in practical guidelines for forestry. The laws on forestry do not address tree species selection, and there are no references to climate change for tree species selection in the ‘Guidelines for Forest Management’47. The selection of seed sources for planting is regulated in the law about the ‘trade in forest reproductive material’ and their interpretations by the Finnish Food Authority, which implements a European law that recommends the transfer of seeds within 100 km north or south. The accompanying text does not mention climate change as a criterion for selecting seed sources, and there are no provisions for a longer-distance transfer of seeds to create climate-adapted future forests.

A second philosophy for adaptation to climate change accepts that climate change causes severe and unforeseeable changes in forests. In response, many forest ecologists64 recommend that forest management be inspired by complex science and embrace the concept that forest management outcomes cannot be predicted during periods of rapid climate transition10. Thus, in a nutshell, challenges arise when attempting to build resilience within the forest ecosystem and incorporate it into environmental law to address social and ecological complexities65. Dhital et al.12 suggested, based on a simulation, that ecosystem-based management approaches lead to more resilient forestry under climate and fire risks. However, this approach is based on emulating the natural disturbance regime. Therefore, it may not be suited for Finland, where forest ownership is fragmented, and most of the forest is held by smallholders.

To overcome these challenges, several authors66,67,68,69,70 argue that resilience in forest ecosystems necessitates a co-management approach, involving stakeholder collaboration, communication and transparency, to address the complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems and foster adaptive management practices. Benson and Garmestani71 emphasise the importance of a policy framework and collaborative approach, along with investments in research, data collection and training for natural resource managers on resilience thinking and practical applications. Messier et al.10 propose holistic approaches to tackle these challenges, which involve adopting diverse and adaptable objectives, tools and forest structures. A study by Triviño et al.72 summarises the principal management approaches that can enhance forest resilience—landscape functional zoning, functional complex networks, natural disturbance emulation and climate-smart forestry.

Craig15 notably examines the same issues from a legal standpoint. He claims that climate change law cannot be ‘preservationist’ and should strive toward maintaining ecosystem functions rather than ecosystems. Craig15 further suggests reducing ecosystem stress and establishing sustainable production goals to withstand climate change. He emphasises the importance of flexibility in future climate change directives. Abrams et al.67 advocate for a proactive approach to forest management employing the planning perspective of the United States National Forest. Forest managers should actively promote resilience rather than reacting to disturbances such as climate change.

The Finnish climate change regulations do not embrace uncertainty and complexity, as proposed by Messier et al.10. Instead, the critical tools for adaptation to climate change appear to intensify silviculture and to make silvicultural treatments in time to avoid future damages (Suomen metsästrategia62, Metsänhoitoohjeet). Additionally, Fischman14 highlights critical aspects of incorporating resilience into forest law, such as focusing on entire ecosystems rather than individual species or habitats and recognising the value of indigenous and local knowledge in ecosystem management. However, together, these perspectives stress the need for complexity-based diverse approaches to building resilience against social, ecological and climate change challenges in forests.

Notably, neither the forest law nor the forest guidance materials reference multiple outcomes. They also do not explicitly try to increase ecosystem-level resilience through admixtures. Nevertheless, the forest guidance47 suggests that maintaining forest mixtures increases forest resistance against damage. Although the Finnish forest law delineates clear guidelines for the conservation of biological diversity by defining a large array of ecosystems to be protected, it does not explicitly promote the adoption of ecosystem-based adaptation approaches. These approaches prioritise the maintenance and restoration of healthy ecosystems as a means to enhance their resilience against climate impacts.

Altogether, we think the present Finnish forest norm is essentially based on a perception of ‘low climate risk’ (Suomen metsästrategia 2025)62 and the idea that an improved business-as-usual management approach can address the problems arising from climate change. Furthermore, Driessen and van Rijswick16 added that climate change adaptation policies should not only focus on reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to future impacts but should also consider normative values and principles such as justice, equity and responsibility. Fischman14 and Fiack68 argue that resilience and adaptation should be a guiding principle for environmental governance and that legal frameworks should be designed to enhance the resilience of ecosystems and communities.

The legislation we reviewed concerns changes in tactical forest management, specifically short-term adjustments to forestry as a reaction to disturbances. This is especially true of the desire to limit forest damage caused by bark beetles (Forest Damages Prevention Act (1087/2013)44). Bark beetles usually breed in recently killed dead wood with intact bark and attack older living conifers. The law clearly defines the obligations of forest owners to store harvested wood or to remove wood from natural damage. This includes guidelines for litigation and provisions for force-majeure situations in the case of widespread forest damage. In addition, government agencies have an obligation to monitor forest damage under the law. Day and Perez73 analysed management strategies in response to the mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia. They stress the importance of precautionary management (i.e. harvesting stands at risk before they become infected).

The Forest Damages Prevention Act44 includes provisions for several diseases, in which measures are prescribed to prevent diseases. Measures linked to the storage of harvested wood are precautionary but most of the measures are reactive and associated with forest management. Other forest acts include measures for loss and damage as well as options. In essence, the Finnish forest legislation provides tools to react to forest damage a posteriori and several tools to protect stands from damage. Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the law’s effective enforcement and implementation.

Another set of important documents is the standards of FSC FI and PEFC FI which are developed based on the broader framework of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and include practices that promote long-term health and vitality of forests. These practices involve preventing, monitoring and mitigating forest damage caused by pests, diseases and extreme weather events. However, it is essential to note that neither FSC FI nor PEFC FI has specific guidelines exclusively dedicated to addressing adaptation, forest damage and resilience.

However, the current legislation assumes that Finnish forests are optimally managed under climate change using a business-as-usual approach. Consequently, Finnish normative documents do not provide tools for a systemic transformation of forestry through a more extensive spread of silvicultural options or by more carefully matching site-specific risks with silviculture. As a result, the law must adequately address the impacts of climate change on forests and prioritise climate resilience and adaptation in forest management practices. Furthermore, it should require monitoring and reporting of adaptation measures to assess their effectiveness and to inform ongoing adaptation efforts. Additionally, specific incentives or support should be provided for forest owners or managers who adopt climate-friendly forestry practices or implement adaptation measures.

The conservative approach to adaptation, as devised by Finnish forest policymakers, may be efficient if the effects of climate change turn out to be mild. However, legislation encouraging more transformative changes in forest management may be more adequate if climate change causes sustained damage. The recent events in Central Europe inspire fear of severe climate change effects. For example, Germany experienced a loss of 9% of its coniferous forest cover due to heat in drought from 2018 to 202074. If large-scale losses of forests are shifting north, the present legislation will fail to push forest owners toward the creation of more resilient forests. In other words, the present regulations do not provide incentives to transform forests to be more resilient. The high-temperature increases and the occurrence of many extreme climate events during the past three years suggest that it might be worthwhile to prepare more actively for transformative changes in forest management. The present normative framework is not ready for these transformations.

Methods

Definition of key concepts

This analysis begins by examining climate change-related risks affecting Finnish forests. According to the IPCC75, risks are defined as the 'potential for adverse consequences for human or natural systems,' which depend on forests’ exposure to a hazard and their vulnerability to it. We identified major risks based on forest statistics and scientific literature, focusing on climate change-induced hazards such as wind damage and bark beetle outbreaks. Less emphasis was placed on non-climate-related risks, such as root rot, as our primary focus is on climate-driven challenges. Vulnerability, as described by the IPCC76, reflects a system’s lack of functioning, while the broader term 'threat' encompasses both immediate and long-term dangers arising from the interplay of risks and vulnerabilities.

Adaptation to climate change is defined by the IPCC75 as 'human interventions' in natural systems that 'facilitate adjustment to future climate change and its effects.' In this study, adaptation actions are operationalized as measures that reduce exposure to hazards or decrease vulnerability. These actions are categorized as preventive (e.g., measures taken to avoid damage before it occurs) or corrective (e.g., measures aimed at reducing the impact of damage). Additionally, actions that mitigate the socio-economic burden after damage, such as cleanup efforts or compensation schemes, are also discussed.

We also distinguish between two forms of adaptation: transformational adaptation and incremental adaptation. The IPCC defines transformational adaptation as 'adaptation that changes the fundamental attributes of a social-ecological system in anticipation of climate change and its impacts'75. Examples include the introduction of new tree species, altered forest compositions, innovative genotypes, or novel silvicultural systems to respond to climate change. Incremental adaptation, in contrast, involves implementing existing guidelines more stringently without fundamentally altering management practices.

Forest resilience, as defined by Reyer et al.77 and Scheffer78, refers to a forest’s ability to absorb disturbances and restructure itself while maintaining functionality. From an ecological perspective, resilience reflects an ecosystem’s capacity to persist, recover, and reorganize after natural or anthropogenic disturbances79,80,81. These mechanisms (persistence, recovery, and reorganization) form the foundation of resilience, which is the ultimate goal of adaptation measures.

Review methodology

This study comprises two interconnected components: a review of threats to Finnish forests and an analysis of regulatory frameworks. In the first component, we examined forest statistics and scientific literature to identify the primary challenges facing forests in adapting to and building resilience against climate change. This literature-based review highlighted key threats such as climate-induced hazards, including wind damage and bark beetle outbreaks, and their implications for forest ecosystems. The second component involved a detailed review of relevant legislation and significant non-binding (soft) regulations addressing climate change adaptation in forestry.

Our analysis focused on Finnish laws and regulations that explicitly reference forests or climate change. Each paragraph within these laws was examined to determine its contribution to the resilience of Finnish forests or its role in supporting adaptation and acclimation to climate change. In cases where explicit references to climate adaptation were absent, we interpreted provisions addressing forest damage prevention and the environmental impacts of forestry as indirect contributions to resilience.

This legal review was supplemented by an analysis of non-binding normative texts that hold significant practical importance in Finnish forestry. These included the National Forest Strategy of Finland, Tapio’s Guidelines for Good Silviculture47, and the Instructions for Silviculture for both private and government-owned forests. The certification systems PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) were also examined, as they encompass nearly all managed forests in Finland.

Tapio, a state-owned company offering forestry advisory services, provides guidelines widely used by forest advisors working with private forest owners. Similarly, state-owned forest silvicultural practices are governed by the Instructions for Silviculture52. The certification systems provide an additional layer of guidance. FSC Finland, an independent, non-profit organization, promotes environmentally friendly, socially beneficial, and economically viable forest management. We analysed the most recent version of the FSC standard (FSC-STD-FIN-02-2023)56, which incorporates updated provisions addressing forest risks, damages, adaptation, and climate change. Notably, revisions in the latest version have replaced older terms like 'damage' with concepts such as 'conservation values' to better reflect modern forestry priorities.

Similarly, the PEFC Finland Certification Council governs PEFC certification, which sets standards for sustainable forest management through a collaborative, transparent process. Endorsed by the international PEFC since 2000, the Finnish PEFC system is detailed in documents such as PEFC FI 1006:201953 and PEFC FI 1002:202255. These internationally recognized standards, created collaboratively by diverse stakeholders, outline guidelines for sustainable forestry practices that address adaptation and resilience challenges. It is worth noting that we contacted Tapio Oy, FSC FI and PEFC FI to inform them about the study; however, we did not receive any response

To further support this analysis, we conducted an expert-driven literature review, where keywords such as adaptation, adaptive silviculture, forest damages, climate change, and threats to forests were used to identify relevant studies and regulations. Only literature and regulatory texts that aligned with the thematic scope of this study were included. By integrating binding legal provisions with non-binding standards and guidelines, this analysis evaluates how these frameworks support forest owners in adapting to climate change risks and, furthermore, we offer recommendations for enhancing existing policy measures (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Conceptualization of the methodological steps followed.
figure 1

FSC—Forest Stewardship Council, PEFC—Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification.

Full size image