“Every time we say forest, Finland says no,” says Greenpeace’s Sini Eräjää of the EU.
EU Commission published its forestry strategy on friday, which had time to cause a stir in finland in finland in june in june.
Representatives of the environmental organization Greenpeace, the Finnish Forest Industries Association and MTK, the Confederation of Agricultural and Forestry Producers, agree that Finland’s advocacy work is reflected in the completed strategy.
Admittedly, organizations disagree on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
The tumultuous record of avoiding clear-cutting has been changed so that the method should now be “approached with caution”. In addition, more emphasis is being placed on the ability of wood-based products to act as so-called carbon stores and as a substitute for fossil products.
Read more: New EU forest strategy announced: Environment Commissioner says member states retain decision-making power over forests
Greenpeace EU expert on agriculture and forestry Blue Eräjää sees the strategy as a step in the right direction, but says it has remained cautious and shy compared to the leaked version.
For example, views on the role of short-lived wood products he sees as a weakening.
Although the entry for clear-cutting also changed, Eräjää sees the strategy as an encouragement from the EU level. In his view, its key message is that the way forests are used must be changed.
“The fact that the wording has been filed doesn’t, in my view, change that fact at all.”
He uploads tougher criticism of the EU climate package presented earlier this week. Carbon sequestration targets remained modest for him, and bioenergy sustainability criteria are “stone in a shoe”.
Lots of ice does its work from Brussels. In his opinion, Brussels currently has almost no climate- and nature-friendly views on Finland. He would like the government to stand up.
“Every time we say forest, Finland says no.”
In one opinion, it is noticeable that Brussels is becoming tired of Finland’s talk about the EU’s competence in forest policy. He would like to see more talk about the measures themselves and the content of the forest strategy instead.
Forest industry ry ‘s forest director Karoliina Niemi welcomes, instead, the fact that the forest sector and the government managed to get their will through.
“Yes, tiny Finland has a chance to make an impact. Finland is bigger here. ”
Niemi emphasizes that advocacy work must continue and Finns must be careful when implementing the strategy’s guidelines.
Changes after Niemi sees contradictions in the strategy. For example, wood-based products are encouraged but “at the same time slowing down forestry”.
He finds it strange that the strategy as a whole takes a stand on and compares forest management methods.
“The most important thing is that the forests are managed sustainably and the right methods come to the right place.”
Same MTK’s forest director thinks Marko Mäki-Hakola.
“The iron wire that was twisted in the direction of Brussels was that the forests are different and, for example, continuous cultivation is not suitable for all forests.”
In MTK’s view, the Commission is no longer interfering in private property as much as in the leaked version. Still, Mäki-Hakolankki believes that the strategy sends a contradictory message to Finnish forest owners.
“It clearly highlights the needs of forest owners and the right to decide on the use of forests. But there is an increasing desire to influence forests through other policy areas, such as environmental policy. ”