Clam Blight | Stora Enso does not answer questions about the mussel destruction – Appeals to an investigation, even though there is no obstacle according to the law

Great At Enso’s logging site in Suomussalmi, forestry machines destroyed raaku, i.e. river pearl mussels, and their habitat by repeatedly driving over the well-known raakujoki. The police are investigating the incident as a gross nature conservation crime.

Stora Enso has said that it knew about the critters living in the river, but by Thursday afternoon the company had very little comment on why this happened despite the knowledge.

HS tried to reach Stora Enso’s forest manager Janne Partanen for a phone interview, but Partanen answered briefly by email.

“Due to the ongoing police investigation, I cannot comment further on the matter at this stage. It is a very serious case and we are very sorry about it,” Partanen wrote in an email response sent by Stora Enso communications.

“Our own personnel are on site at the site, and we focus on supporting the work of Metsähallitus’ experts so that corrective measures can be carried out as quickly and carefully as possible. We cooperate with various authorities.”

Questions about work planning, supervision and, in general, how this happened were left unanswered.

HS also reached the forest owner of the logging area, but he immediately hung up. He didn’t respond to text messages either.

The landowner lives in the neighboring municipality of Suomussalmi. He has more than 2,000 hectares of forest, which makes him one of the largest private forest owners in Finland.

Great Enso justifies its lack of response with the ongoing preliminary investigation. What does the law say about it?

Emeritus Professor of Criminal and Procedural Law Matti Tolvanen The University of Eastern Finland states that the police’s preliminary investigation material is secret until charges are presented or a decision not to press charges is made in the case.

However, according to Tolvanen, Stora Enso can, if it wishes, comment on the matter already during the police investigation, as it is not forbidden to share one’s own point of view.

“Similarly, a private person suspected of a crime can tell himself what he has done or omitted to do. It [salassapito] does not reach that”, Tolvanen points out.

“Everyone gets to tell their own point of view in the position of a suspect. But I understand that they don’t [Stora Enso] don’t want to comment on it, but at this stage they want to give the police peace of mind.”