Editorial | Crushing the rascals was an outrageous act by any measure

Jthreat The Sipilä (central) government made the Criminal Code in 2015 of change. A “penalty provision for gross nature conservation crime” was added to the law.

According to the proposal, a nature conservation crime could be assessed as gross if “it causes serious danger or damage to the preservation of a biological species, natural area or other natural object, it aims for considerable financial gain, or the crime is committed in a particularly planned manner”. Strong punishments are included in the presentation. The crime would be punishable by a minimum of four months and a maximum of four years in prison.

At Stora Enso’s logging site in Suomussalmi, we drove over the extremely endangered pearl oyster deposit at its densest point. The 2015 law leaves little room for interpretation as to whether the act was outrageous.

As if by chance, an example has been written into the law: “The insignia could thus be fulfilled by, for example, the killing of a single Saimaa roe deer, provided, however, that the crime as a whole is gross as well.” Deliberate destruction of even one place of occurrence of the highly endangered river pearl mussel, for example by dredging or construction, could also fulfill the label.”

The interpretation of the seriousness of the act is also influenced by whether the consequences of the act are temporary or permanent. In slowly regenerating natural areas – such as Kainuu, for example – the damage is more likely to be permanent than in more lush natural conditions. Mussel stock is ancient.

It also affects whether the scam is aimed at financial gain. “Economic benefit could also manifest itself in a nature conservation crime as a savings or a competitive advantage,” the legal text says. In Kainuu, the forest was felled in the spirit of making money, and the agreed protection measures were perhaps considered useless as obstacles slowing down making money.

Teo’s outrageousness in the eyes of the layman is emphasized by the fact that Stora Enso had received precise instructions in advance about the location of river pearl mussels and how to protect them. And so that there would be no ambiguity about the outrageousness, the workers in the logging area were told personally on the spot that they are not allowed to drive over the river mussels. Still, we shaved.

The editorials are HS’s positions on a current topic. The articles are prepared by HS’s editorial department, and they reflect the journal principle line.