Morality and Ethics
Forest ethics is about moral values and norms on the relationships between human beings and forests. Moral values and norms are the essence of morality. Morality and ethics are concepts, which often are used interchangeably. It is useful to start with morality.
Morality is the idea that some forms of human behaviour is right, proper and acceptable and that other forms are bad or wrong. It also points to quality or state of actual behaviour of people (in terms of morality) in particular situation or society. Thirdly it means thesystem of principles and values, forming the base of behaviour, which is accepted by a society or group of people. And as a reminder that questions of morality are not black or white: morality of something (like forestry) also means the degree to which it is right, proper, or acceptable (The Collins Cobuild 1987)
Moral(s) as a nounmeans the same as morality but often refer to actual standards of behaviour: “business morals of logging in the country..” .Moral means an ability to make difference between right and wrong. Moral similarly has many meanings as an adjective: “the forester had a moral courage to defend the jobs of local people, although felt being in moral dilemma with her employer”. Moral and ethical can be used alternatively: “Aristotle’s ethical virtues and Kant’s moral duties are important in forming professional ethics”.
Reflection about ethics has been a vital component of all known traditions of philosophy. China, Greece, India and medieval and modern Europe all asked basic ethical questions such as: What is the good? What makes a life a good life? What are virtues of human being? What duties we have to each other or to ourselves? (Skorupski 1996).
Knowing morality, ethics is almost defined. Ethics is a philosophical study of morality or moral philosophy. The task of ethics is to respond to the basic ethical questions by developing, defending, systematizing and recommending concepts and theories of good and right . “In its widest sense ethics stands to questions about what there is a reason to do, it is the normative theory of conduct” (Skorupski 1996)
The two major fields of ethics are the general study of goodness and the general study of right action. Other fields are applied ethics, metaethics (the grounds of beliefs of ethics), the metaphysics (origin) of moral responsibility and moral psychology (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2006, 284).
Theories of Goodness and Right Action
The general study of goodness means what ends people ought, as fully rational human beings, to choose and pursue. The first way of treating this question assumes that one naturally seeks a good life, and determining its components leads to the theory of human well-being. The two major views of the theory sayseither that feeling good or pleasure (classical hedonism) is the essence of well-being or that the essence is doing well or excelling at things worth doing (perfectionism or virtue ethics )(The Cambridge Dictionary 2006, 285, Bond 1996).
The second way of treating goodness says that whatever is good in itself is worth pursuing and leads to the theory of intrinsic value. The list of different things (values) which are considered good in themselves include life, happiness, pleasure, knowledge, virtue, friendship, beauty and harmony. Other values are instrumental, means to achieve, the intrinsic value(s).
The other major part of ethics, the general study of right action, concerns the principles of right and wrong that govern the choices and pursuits. In modern ethics these principles are understood to constitute a moral code that defines the duties of people. Traditionally, the theory of duty isin the center of the study (The Cambridge Dictionary 2006, 286-287).
The theory of duty contains the exposition of the moral code and its justification. It includes complete formulations of the fundamental principles of right and wrong and how they yield all moral duties. Then it establishes the authority of the principles using various methods and criteria of justification.
A dominant view of the past was that fundamental principles of right and wrong are authoritative in virtue of being self-evident truths. The authority of the moral code may come from religions. Immanuel Kant’s notion that moral principles derive their authority from the sovereignty of reason is continuously important. The modern contractarianism derives that authority from the fairness of procedures the principles are agreed upon.
The entirely different method is the teleological approach, saying that what justifies the principles of right and wrong is that the ends they serve are the right ones and the actions they prescribe are the best ways to promote them. The ends can be very different between ethical egoism and ethical universalism, promoting happiness of humanity.
On these teleological views, the general study of right action is subordinate to the general study of goodness. The other view is to some extent independent of that study. In duty based deontological views, some principles of right and wrong, notably justice and honesty, prescribe actions even though more evil than good would result doing them. The opposition between teleology and deontology in ethics underlies many disputes in the general study of right action (The Cambridge Dictionary 2006, 287).
Forest Ethics and Why it is Needed
Forest ethics is a minor twig of applied ethics. That is the growing branch of ethics, where ideas, theories and philosophical techniques from the general studies of goodness and right action are applied to particular circumstances and problems of some profession or occupation to define, clarify, and organize the related ethical issues (The Cambridge Dictionary 2006, 287).
Forest ethics studies moral values and norms prevailing in the relationships between human beings and forests. In particular it studies what kind of moral values, norms and principles are adopted in forestry and the forest sector (covering forest industries) and by their stakeholders (moral agents). Using concepts, theories and tools of ethics it studies the moral reasoning behind norms and values related to forests. This is descriptive part of forest ethics. When forest ethics recommends improvements of moral norms it goes to be normative. Codes of conduct of professional foresters are examples of that.
As ethics is defined as a normative theory of conduct, it should be taken into account in all fields of human action, also in those related to forests. The more specific reasoning why forest ethics is needed may include the following.
Scientific and educational reasons. Forestry needs to be aware what kind of moral values, principles and norms are prevailing in forestry and other interactions between society and forests. Research is needed for the self-reflection and for seeing what kind of changes are going and how these are argued. Research on forest ethics is also needed to be incorporated into forestry education and training of all levels.
Increasing complexity of forestry and conflicts related to forests. A major reason for the need of forest ethics is the growing complexity of the relationship between forests, people and the society. The number and intensity of conflicting demands for various forest based goods and services is growing and there is an urgent need to understand better the roots of conflicts, often related to moral values, norms and principles. The investigation of the basic philosophies behind forest conflicts may provide new grounds for traditional forest and other sciences to approach the issues. Forest ethics is not the conflict solving apparatus, but when it goes deep in studying values its results may be useful for forest policy making.
Legitimacy of forest based activities and industries. For foresters, the legitimacy of forestry has for long been evident and a non-issue, largely based on the early adoption of sustained yield forestry against forest exploitation and its development towards the modern concept of sustainable forest management. A variety of other reasons existed in different countries and times: the common good doctrine of forest policy, the role of forestry and forest industries in economic growth, the concepts of scientific forestry, forest functions and multiple use, social forestry and environmental forestry.
Certainly, there has always been some discrepancy between the perceptions of the public and foresters as well as between the professional ideals and practice. For a variety of reasons it seems that despite all the development occurred, in present times the legitimacy of forestry, forest industries and other forest based activities in front of the societies needs to be regenerated much more often than in the past. Moral aspects of legitimacy are increasing, and so should do the role of forest ethics.
Deforestation, poverty, technology, globalisation and governance. The attempts to control deforestation are deeply involved with moral issues, related to poverty and population pressures, corrupt governments, vested interests of corporations, and illegal logging and trade. Moral dilemmas may appear in biodiversity conservation in the context of sustenance needs of local or indigenous people. The global environmental issues such as climate change and related risks, the rapid development of technology with genetically modified organisms (GMO), the globalisation of forest industries and the need for new modes of global, national and local governance bring moral challenges also for forest ethics to respond.
Major Topics of Forest Ethics
The above consideration why forest ethics is needed contains already a long list of topical issues for forest related studies in moral philosophy. What follows here is closely related to the above topics, but represents themes, which already are more or less established in forest ethics, framing the present structure of this relatively new area of forest research..
Ethics of sustainability. Whenever in the past local cultures had beliefs or traditions, which regulated relationships between human beings and forests, or states and nations developed rules or norms how forests should be utilized or protected, there already existed a kind of implicit (not written-out) forest ethics. As German foresters in the turn of 18th and 19th developed the sustained-yield doctrine in a systematic way, the fundamental moral principle of forestry – sustainable management of forest resources - became operational for the first time. The modern multidimensional concept of sustainability in forestry (including economic, ecological, social and cultural dimensions) represent the current challenges to forest ethics (Saastamoinen 2005) as it does to more traditional forest sciences.
Professional ethics. The development of the professional ethics of foresters has been the first context where ethics explicitly (as declared and widely discussed concept)was present in forestry. This important sprout of forest ethics has longest been developed and debated by the Society of American of Foresters (SAF), which adopted its first Code of Ethics in 1948. However, the seed for SAF’s professional ethics can be traced already back to the first years of last century when “the public good comes first”, the motto of that time U.S. president Theodore. Roosevelt was often cited by the head of U.S. Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot (Cubbage et al. 1993). The last debate in revising SAF Code of Ethics lasted several years and focused much on the way Aldo Leopold’s (1949) “Land ethic “ should be adopted into the code (see the “ethics”-issue of Journal of Forestry, July 2000). Aldo Leopold was a forester and wildlife ecologist, and an early forerunner of environmental ethics. The present code of SAF adopted in 2000 refers directly to inspiration given both “Gifford Pinchot's utilitarianism and Aldo Leopold's ecological conscience” (SAF 2000).
The ethical codes have different formulations in different countries, but usually include the commitments to sustainability or stewardship. For example, “Forester’s ethical principles” adopted by the Society of Finnish Professional Foresters (2000) are the following: (1) I respect the diversity of values and rights relating to the forest; (2) My aim is to work towards sustainable use and protection of forests; (3) I work according to the highest professional standards; (4) My work is based on trust, respect and co-operation; and (5) I endeavour to promote professional continuity. After each principle there is some background and more detailed commitment, the latter such as in principle 2: “ I personally support sustainable development by taking care of the forest as an integral whole, and I appreciate all aspects of sustainability relating to the forest”
On professionalism and ethics, Cubbage et al. (1993) conclude: “In short, the application of ethics is fundamental to the practice of all natural resource professions. One should do what is right. But there are many shades of grey between right and wrong. The hope is that by practising one’s profession ethically, clearly wrong actions will be prevented, and possibly wrong actions will be minimized. Discerning right from wrong and acting correctly are the challenges of any professional career“.
Ethics of forest environment. The role of forests and trees in the environment, as habitat for wildlife and biodiversity and as landscape and wilderness, has been a fertile field for moral deliberations (List 2000). Consequently, the field of environmental ethics has provided a large collection of ethical discussion and inquiry related to forests and forestry within the recent past. Environmental ethics has been defined as “the discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its nonhuman contents (Brennan and Lo 2000).
The moral questions raised by environmental ethics are numerous. For example, from a reader Environmental Ethics and Forestry (List 2000) one can find themes such as biocentric and ecocentric perspectives in ethical thinking vs. to prevailing anthropocentric; intrinsic values of forests vs. the instrumental ones; the good of the trees (Attfield 1981) and forests beyond that of people; ecoforestry compared to traditional or industrial forestry; and multiple value management rather than multiple use management. The ethics of forest environment is an important part of forest ethics and a challenging literature on the topics can be found for moral debate and research.
Business ethics. Research and literature on business ethics has grown widely and already standard business books deal with those topics. Johnson and Scholes (2003, 194) in their textbook on corporate strategy, say that which purposes an organisation should fulfill is influenced by ethical considerations. A key issue is the ethical stance, the extent to which an organization will exceed its minimum obligations to the stakeholders and society at large. This also defines an important moral concept in business - corporate social responsibility. This concept is becoming much more widely discussed and accepted by the public and by companies throughout the world.
Johnson and Scholes (2003) defined the following four categories. At one extreme there are organizations having a narrow view: that the only responsibility of business is the short- term interest of shareholders. They will meet the minimum of legal and regulatory constraints set by government but no more. The second category is tempered with a recognition of the long-term financial benefit to the shareholder of well-managed relationships with other stakeholders. The third category implies that stakeholder interests and expectations (wider than just shareholders) should be more explicitly incorporated in the organisations’s purposes and strategies.
The preceding categories seem to be in line what the stakeholder theory of firm has taught.For example, companies in this category might argue, that they would retain uneconomic units to preserve jobs, at least in the short run while it can be afforded. The final group represents the ideological end of the spectrum. These companies have purposes that are concerned with shaping society and the financial considerations are regarded as secondary.
An analysis of the acceptance of operations of a global pulp and paper corporate in four countries indicated that the global corporate responsibility is not only the sum of local issues but some elements of it were already drawn at global level. Yet locally established criteria were recommended more than global ones for assessing and implementing corporate social responsibility (Mikkilä 2006).
Ethics are Different – Which One to Follow?
As already seen, under the general studies of goodness and right action there are many ethical theories and moral conceptions, which sometimes are competing or even conflicting, but often provide complementary and alternative arguments for moral behaviour.
Two forms of ethics (egoistic and community) are first outlined as representing less and more advanced stages of moral development. Then major ethical theories (utilitarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics and discourse ethics) are reviewed and some of their connections to forests indicated.
Egoistic ethics is the most elementary of ethical principles: whatever is good for the individual is right. Although it sounds like a lack of ethics, it also reflects the fact that one has a duty for himself/herself. Some degree of egoism is part of human nature and necessary for self-protection. This is a bit different from what egoism as ethical principle means: that human beings are always motivated by self-interest (Bunnin and Tsui-James 1996, 747). Egoistic ethics are only really defensible, if one respects other people rights to also pursue their own objectives (Goertzel 2008). Egoism is the ethics underlying the market economy and one making the bones and muscles of “an inivisible hand”- but causing also its misses. It is the “bottomline” business ethics of many forest owners and companies in their market actions, while in other activities there may be more room for less-selfish behavior.
Community ethics expands a lot the sphere of moral responsibility to take into account communities, nation, or ultimately a whole mankind. Community ethics or communitarianism and communalism (not collectivism) represent a group of theories that all underlines the nature of man as a social animal (Bond 1996).
The premise of community ethics is that common or public good exists and that its contents can be reasonably defined. The common good is the good of the community as a whole, a good which is shared by all its members. Aiming at common good justifies ethical decisions and key question in this approach is which alternative actions best support the achievement of that (Bond 1966). The common good is not the sum of the goods of the individuals, as in utilitarianism (presented further on), but a separate conception, which also can conflict with the individual goods.
The difficult theoretical problem exists how the common good can be found, but in practice seeking of it is an essential part of decision processes of developed democracies. The search for common good always plays an important role in national forest policies. Community ethics support such forestry activities as public participation, participatory planning and community forestry.
If the sphere of moral responsibility will be enlarged beyond human beings as Aldo Leopold first suggested, it will depend on the status and priorities given to non-human beings, which cross the border from anthropocentric (human focused) community ethics to biocentric fields of environmental ethics.
The following ethical theories and orientations are not strictly bound to any of the above stages of moral development, but provide alternative ways to consider what is good and right. Some connections to the above stages and forest ethics are briefly noted.
Utilitarianism is one of the major moral theories, which says that an action is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much good (utility, happiness) for all people affected by the action as any alternative action. The criteriaof the goodness of an action is the utility it brings to people concerned. Utility (happiness, pleasure) is the single source of value. Its best known proponents in philosophy are Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill (Harrison 1996, The Cambridge Dictionary 2006).
In regard to moral development, utilitarianism seems to be interpreted flexibly. Sometimes it is regarded that even egoistic ethics represent, albeit very narrow utilitarianism, sometimes utilitarianism has been characterised as the ethics of majority while utilitarianism based on the ideal of rational benevolence is promoting happiness of the whole humanity. However, it has been claimed that all utilitarianism includes an individualistic component as happiness is the aggregate of individual goods. No common good exists (Bond 1996).
Utilitarianism fits into democracy as long as the rights of minorities (an issue in forestry of many countries) are appropriately taken into account. Another problem in utilitarianism, as in all consequential or teleological ethics (focusing on the consequences of action) can be, that the ends may sacrifice the means.
Utilitarianism has been the major reference in American federal forestry since 1905, when the famous call “greatest good for the greatest number in the long run” was formulated by Gifford Pinchot (Forbes and Lindquist 2000). Utilitarianism has most often been the basis of forest acts of many countries and similarly is influential in forest policy making. Narrow utilitarianism works in all markets, including forest related ones.
Rule ethics, duty ethics or deontological ethics emphasize the motives and purposes of actions rather than their consequences. “Deontological” means the study of duty. Rules and principles, duties and obligations are in the focus of deontological ethics. For deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm, not the consequences. Most well-known moral norms can be found in religions. However, the philosophical ideas of deontology were developed by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. He did believe that using human reason, the ethical duties can be determined.
In forestry the principle of sustainability became a leading moral principle a long time ago. Foresters have regarded as their duty to make choices and decisions in forest management that are in accordance with sustainability. Duty ethics is also an important moral philosophy for forest professionals working in particular in state forest or other public organisations.
Virtue ethics or agent-based ethics has the focus on the moral characteristics of individual persons (a moral agent) and says that a good person makes good decision. This consists of conceptions and theories of morality, in which virtues (moral excellence and courage, goodness) play a central and independent role. It is also suggested that more general “virtues”, such as good sense or moral competence should be put in the forefront (Coope 2006).
Virtue ethics owe much to Aristotle, who regarded the good life is life lived in accordance of virtue, excellences of character, which enable people to move towards their goal and are a part of the attainment of that goal (Horton and Mendus 1994). Proponents of virtue ethics argue that it is properly concrete as it grounds morality in facts about human nature or about the concrete development of particular cultural traditions.
Proponents also claim that virtue ethics is truer for human psychology in concentrating the less conscious aspects of motivation – on relatively stable dispositions, habits and long term goals, for example – where modern ethics focuses on decision making directed by principles and rules (The Cambridge Dictionary 2006, 960-61) Sometimes virtue ethics is seen as a third alternative, a “rival”, to deontological and utilitarian theories (Coope 2006). Its concreteness brings it moral strength.
If a forester’s association defines what are the exemplary characteristics of the professional forester (being honest, just, knowledgeable, respects people and nature, is committed to sustainability) it exercises virtue ethics. Also in training of forest owners certain desirable characteristics (being responsible, active silviculturist) of good owners are emphasized. In forest education the goal could be to develop moral competence of future foresters.
Discourse ethics is a normative moral theory developed by Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas and an example of ethics developed in current times. It postulates a number of strict procedural conditions for rational consensus formation with regard to both normative and factual issues. The criterion of moral rightness is the following: every valid norm must satisfy the condition that all persons or parties affected can accept the consequences and side-effects that its general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone’s interests (Kettner 1993).
The action-guiding principle of discourse ethics is: Whenever interests conflict, attempt to resort to practical discourse for resolving the issue. Discourse is a dialogical procedure (organised, orderly and profound discussion and debate), where outcome does not reflect the unequal powers or status of the participants but the force of better argument only. Ideally, the outcome of discourse will be a rational consensus (Kettner 1993).
Thus discourse ethics as such does not fix which ethical theories and moral judgements should be applied in discourse, but rather suggest to make an account of the appropriate application of moral rules in concrete circumstances, test alternative normative interpretations of the particular situation before the above dialogical procedure of affected parties can be done.
Discourse ethics may provide a relevant framework, if it can be used in non-ideal conditions, to analyse the complexity typical to many forest conflicts. In the more broad terms it is supportive to ethical dialogues needed in forestry and in our conflict loaded world in general.
Which ethics to follow? The forests, even distant ones, are usually often full of paths and trails, if not roads, done and developed during the centuries by caribous, reindeer, local people, goldminers, hunters, loggers, hikers and terrain vehicles. The wanderer who knows the cardinal direction has many routes to go. So it also seems to be in ethics.
Conclusion: Forests and Ethics
Forests are one of the most precious renewable natural resources, the dynamic alliance of several biotic and non-biotic resources, providing under sustainable management of a huge variety of goods and services for the benefit of people. Primary forest products (goods and services, forestry in widest sense) are basis for several industrial value chains (forest industries in widest sense, including e.g. tourism), the scale of which varies from local to global, producing value added goods and services for housing, living, learning and recreation.
From a bit different angle forests are the richest composition of terrestrial ecosystems, supporting diversity of life and extending the impacts of their ecosystem functions and biochemical circles of matter and energy almost everywhere in the biosphere. Yet the cultural diversity of beliefs, meanings, values, traditions and everyday sentiments and aesthetics related to forests may have as large a magnitude and variety. One can consider all the above being joint human goods connecting economic, ecological, social and cultural values.
Ethics provides the moral basis for the essential questions of human and social life. Like forests are used directly by people, ethics can and should be used directly by individuals and larger social entities in their moral life. Yet, similarly to further processing of forest products, moral philosophy contributes to the societies also and perhaps more through other sciences - from political and social to forest sciences - which further process the fruits of ethics to be used in politics, society, economy, culture and nature for the advancement of good and right of mankind.
Nursing a tree of morality and caring the tree of sustainability should be done in the one and same forest. With the commitments of professions, sciences and institutions engaged in and around forests, in dialogue with the rest of society, we can further the contribution of forests for the good life in this lonely planet.
References
Attfield, R. 2000 (1981). The Good of Trees. In: List, P.C. (Ed.). 2000. Environmental ethics and forestry. A Reader, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Pp. 98-113.
Bond, E.J. 1996. Ethics and human well-being: An introduction to moral philosophy. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge. 270 p.
Brennan, Andrew and Yeuk-Sze Lo, "Environmental Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2008 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2008/entries/ethics-environmental/>.
Bunnin, N. & Tsui-James, E.P.(Eds). 1996. The Blackwell companion to philosophy. Blackwell Reference, Oxford. 786 p.
Coope, C.M. 2006. Modern Virtue Ethics. In: Chappel, T. (ed.). 2006. Values and Virtues. Aristotelianism in Contemporary Ethics. Pp. 20-52.
Cubbage, F.W., O'Laughlin, J. and Bullock, C.S. III. 1993. Forest Resource Policy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 562 p.
Erkkilä, A., Heinonen, R. E., Oesten, G., Pelkonen, P. & Saastamoinen, O. (Eds.) 2005. European forests and beyond, an ethical discourse. Silva Carelica 49: 1-333.
Flyvbjerg, B. 1993. Aristotle, Foucault and Progressive Phronesis: Outline of an Applied Ethics for Sustainable Development. In:Winkler, E.R. and Coombs, J.R. (Eds.) 1993. Applied Ethics: A Reader. Blackwell. Pp.11-27.
Forbes, W. & Lindquist, C. 2000. Philosophical, professional, and environmental ethics: An overview to foresters. Journal of Forestry 98 (7): 4-10.
Goertzel, T. 2008. An Introduction to Ethical Analysis. Accessed at: http://crab.rutger.edu/~goertzel/ethicalanalysis.html. April.
Harrison, R. 1996. bentham, Mill and Sidgwick. In: In: Bunnin, N. & Tsui-James, E.P.. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Blackwell Reference, Oxford. pp.627-642).
Horton, J. and Mendus, S. 1994) Alasdair MacIntyre: After Virtue and After. In: Horton, J. and Mendus, S. (Eds.) 1994 . After MacIntyre. Critical Perspectives on the Work of Alasdair MacIntyre. Cambridge. Polity Press. Pp. 1-15.
Irland, L.C. (Ed.). 1994. Ethics in Forestry. Singapore. Timber Press. 458 p.
Kettner, M. 1993. Scientific Knowledge. Discourse Ethics, and Consensus Formation in the Public Domain. In:Winkler, E.R. and Coombs, J.R. Applied Ethics: A Reader. Blackwell. Pp. 28-44.
Leopold, A. 1949 (2005). A Sand Country almanac: And sketches here and there. [Internet webpages] Available from: <http://www.luminary.us/leopold/almanac.html> [Cited 16 December 2005].
List, P.C. (Ed.). 2000. Environmental ethics and forestry. A Reader, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. 364 p.
Mikkilä, M. 2006. The many faces of responsibility: Acceptability of the global pulp and paper industry in various societies.
Dissertationes Forestales 25. http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df25.htm.
Saastamoinen, O. 2005. Multiple ethics for multidimensional sustainability in forestry?. In:Erkkilä, Antti, Heinonen, Reijo E., Oesten, Gerhard, Pelkonen, Paavo & Saastamoinen, OlliEuropean forests and beyond, an ethical discourse. Silva Carelica 49: 37-53.
Skorupski, J. 1996. Ethics. In: Bunnin, N. & Tsui-James, E.P.. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Blackwell Reference, Oxford. pp. 198-228.
The Collins Cobuild Dictionary of English Language. 1987. London. Collins.
The Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2000. SAF Code of Ethics. (http://www.safnet.org/who/codeofethics.cfm. Visited 20.5.2008)
The Society of Finnish Professional Foresters (2000). Forester’s ethical principles. http://www.metsanhoitajat.fi. Visited 20.5.2008.
__________
Olli Saastamoinen is Professor, Forest Economics and Policy. Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Joensuu, Finland
Updated 1 July 2008
| 
