A letter from nine Members of the European Parliament elected in Finland regarding the forest strategy currently being prepared by the European Commission. Translated from Finnish.

Helsinki, 12.07.2021.

We, the undersigned (Finnish) Members of the European Parliament, express our concerns in this letter regarding the content of the EU’s annual forest strategy and the coordination of support measures for forestry and biodiversity, and we also highlight the importance of a unified message from the Finnish government and its citizens in influencing upcoming decisions.

We believe it is important for the European Union to make decisions on the timely reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as cost-effectively as possible and in accordance with principles of social justice. We are convinced that it is not the postponement of decisions or the covering of additional costs, but immediate action that is safer, more effective, and, ultimately, cheaper for Finns, for our living environment, and for all of humanity.

The most important task of the legislative package currently being prepared by the EU is to reduce actual carbon dioxide emissions by 55% by 2030. These legislative acts must provide Member States with sufficient freedom of action so that emissions can be reduced in the way most suitable for each country’s physical and cultural circumstances. Finland’s goal is carbon neutrality by 2035, so it is important for Finland that other countries also fulfil their duty to reduce emissions rather than continuing to burn coal while simultaneously forbidding Finns from using the resources of their well-managed forests. It is crucial for Finland to maintain the decision-making power of each Member State over its own forests.

Forest jurisdiction belongs to the Member States; there are no references to a common forest policy in the EU’s general treaties. These fundamentals were clearly set out in last year’s European Parliament report on the forest strategy, as well as in the conclusions of the Council, which represents EU Member States. We do not consider it acceptable (according to leaked information) for the European Commission to take over forest affairs at the European level, where the Commission would increasingly strictly regulate, for example, forest management, planning, and harvesting. Strict rules and even bans on forest management practices at the European level do not reflect the modern situation, where alternatives suitable for different habitats must be left in place to promote biodiversity.

We point out that including an entirely new policy area under the Union’s competence is not appropriate for the EU’s generally accepted principle of subsidiarity. Moreover, such changes to the Union’s competence would require amendments to the core treaties, which in turn would require a unanimous agreement from EU Member States.

The information leaked to the public regarding the EU forest strategy being prepared by the Commission is worrying. The draft strategies do not address the economic, social, and environmental aspects of forests in a balanced way. It seems that the Commission’s approach differs significantly from the priority line recently approved by the European Parliament. The Commission’s proposals will weaken sustainable forest management practices and will slow down the replacement of fossil-based, nature-destroying materials with products based on renewable wood raw materials. At the same time, the Commission forgets about the multifunctionality of forests and threatens to make Finland’s forests one-sided carbon dioxide sinks for the needs of the whole of Europe.

If the guidelines of the Commission’s forest strategy were to be implemented, it would negatively affect both the economy and, ultimately, the climate as well. The Commission’s proposals would promote passive rather than active forestry. Despite good intentions, in the worst-case scenario, this line of action would mean the loss of European competitiveness in forestry and the relocation of production outside Europe to countries with lower climate and environmental standards. The deterioration of operating conditions for forestry in Finland would mean the collapse of the financial foundations of the welfare state. Furthermore, to reach ambitious climate goals, investments and innovations based on the bioeconomy are needed more than ever. This aspect is not identified in the strategy. In Finland, the climate contribution provided by wood products is more than 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, which arises from replacing more emission-intensive products with wood products. This is more than a third of Finland’s current total carbon dioxide emissions.

We are very worried that the Commission is completely ignoring the democratic views previously formulated by both the European Parliament and the Council of Member States regarding the (forest) strategy. Given the serious shortcomings in the Commission’s work, it is especially important that the issue of national interests is jointly supported by both Members of the European Parliament and the Finnish government. We call for the development of a balanced forest strategy that respects the interests and experience of the Member States. Finland’s forests are an important part of the fight against climate change, not a source of the problem.

Our view: The Commission’s current guidelines on forests are focused only on forest protection, not on sustainable use. This is a short-sighted perspective! Turning forests into a museum reduces carbon dioxide sequestration in the long term and makes forests more susceptible to various damages. At the same time, it is forgotten that forests require active management to be able to adapt to climate change. To maintain forest health, they must be actively cared for, adhering to the principles of sustainable forest management. In Finland, national forest inventories have been conducted for a hundred years, and with their help, valuable information has been gathered, for example, on the sustainability of forestry. Furthermore, since the 1990s in Finland, forest biodiversity has been promoted within the framework of sustainable forestry both through legislation and through voluntary methods. We must continue and strengthen this line of action at the national level, acknowledging the need to nurture biodiversity.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Commission’s forest strategy does not recognise nature conservation as a part of sustainable forest management, but rather increases the administrative and financial burden on forest owners. This causes harm to actual work in the climate field because it reduces the pressure on other emission sectors to reduce emissions and decrease the use of fossil energy sources. As a result of such actions, the ground is lost from under the feet of the bioeconomy, even though the development of the bioeconomy is of crucial importance if we are serious about transitioning to a carbon-neutral circular economy.

The definition of sustainable forest management is internationally agreed upon as part of the common European Forest Europe process, which should be identified in the strategy. We call on the Commission to adopt a comprehensive approach to sustainability, taking into account the entire value-creation chain of forests as well as the economic, social, and ecological perspectives equally. At the same time, the EU forest strategy should ensure the continuity of the multifaceted roles of forests on the path to achieving green growth and environmental goals.

It seems that the Commission’s position in the field of forest strategy intends to dictate which products should be produced from forests in the future and which should not, as well as to question the use of short-lived wood products. Such regulation must not be implemented at the EU level, as this would ignore the EU principle of subsidiarity, consumer needs, and the multifunctionality of forests, as well as hinder the introduction of innovations. Forests can produce both short-term and long-lasting products, and both can equally replace fossil raw materials. In the worst-case scenario, the Commission’s proposal would artificially reduce the production of everyday goods, such as paper and recyclable packaging materials.

We believe that the goals related to the preservation of biodiversity must be taken seriously in Finland. Even in the forestry sector, there is room for improvements and solutions that would better protect biodiversity. Instead of centralised European administration, local experience and decision-making in the Member States should be emphasised. Currently, EU forests are very different, and they have different types of ownership, forest area, structure, biodiversity, adaptability, and problems. Thus, it is clear that forest issues cannot be solved with a one-size-fits-all template, but the key to successful policy is local conditions, forest owners, and knowledge at the Member State level. We cannot accept that the forest strategy ignores the principle of subsidiarity, which is one of the cornerstones of EU legislation.

The Commission should define a general way to use all parts of trees for different products. This is a truly resource-efficient method of creating added value, while simultaneously respecting the goals of the Green Deal and promoting a climate-friendly bioeconomy. On the path of Finland and other EU Member States to a society with low carbon dioxide emission levels, it is essential to strengthen the circular economy with the help of a vibrant forest sector. Therefore, we wish to call on the Commission to invest more in innovation, research, and development rather than in bans.

The leaked information worryingly indicates the Commission’s attitude towards the official position of the legislators, the Parliament, and the Council. The Parliament expressed its position in October 2020, and the Council its conclusions in November of the same year. This challenging ignorance of these democratically formed positions in the Commission’s preparatory work cannot be pretended to be unnoticed through silence.

We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament, emphasise Finland’s active and timely influence on the EU forest strategy and other forest-related policy measures in accordance with the position outlined by the government and the Parliament. This position is based on forest policy being the responsibility of Member States. Prerequisites for forestry activities will also be significantly affected by updates to the Renewable Energy Directive and the LULUCF legislation, regardless of the forest strategy. Different EU policies affecting forests are interconnected. It is very important that Finland effectively influences both the new climate legislation as a whole and the new forest strategy, protecting small, trade-dependent, and innovative national interests that acknowledge their responsibility in the environmental field. For this to succeed, it is important that the Finnish Prime Minister and the competent ministers receive full support and assistance from others. It is very important that the government sends a unified message for EU decision-making, supported by a national parliamentary position that is as united as possible.

We, the Members of the European Parliament, are ready for every form of cooperation to achieve these goals.
Eero Heinäluoma
Elsi Katainen
Petri Sarvamaa
Teuvo Hakkarainen
Henna Virkkunen
Laura Huhtasaari
Mauri Pekkarinen
Miapetra Kumpula-Natri
Nils Torvalds