A note from zemeunvalsts.lv
It is safe to assume that no Latvian government, either before or after an election, has ever come forward with the initiative "If you don't know how to spend your day, we will work it out and prescribe it for you!" Ironically, though... The moment problems or unexpected situations appear in some industry, circumstance or sphere, work immediately begins on "clarifying the regulatory framework", which in most cases does not mean repealing any legislation or striking out provisions, but rather supplementing it, refining it and so on. This clearly creates a situation in which members of the public argue or converse not about the fact that "the oak avenue along the highway ought to be preserved, because it is highly valuable, beautiful and so on", but about how "the Law on... states, the Regulations... mention, and, as the ministry explained in its commentary...", with the conversation drifting into an analysis of documents rather than of the actual situation. The question that is rarely considered, because it also demands knowledge – is how it is possible to reduce bureaucracy and make life easier while working ceaselessly on supplementing, improving and composing regulatory enactments... If there genuinely were a demand for a simpler, less regulated life and work, and moreover one applied to everyone, including those outside the inner circle, work in the public sector would proceed differently — that is, competence would not be confined to references to documents, without really knowing what the matter is about.
"The regulatory framework laid down by the European Union with regard to forests is excessive and extremely (even absurdly) detailed," says Minister for Climate and the Environment Kai Mykkänen (Kai Mykkänen) in an interview with the communications agency Audiomedia, taking the view that the rules included in the climate and nature initiatives drawn up by the European Commission and binding on the member states are too detailed.
"For example, the Deforestation Regulation contains a point that provides for regulating the construction of production-related buildings on individual holdings. That is of no significance whatsoever given the extent of Finland's forests, but it does illustrate the widespread and prevailing 'regulation pandemic' in the EU," Mykkänen explains, setting out his critical position.
"EU competence should not descend to the level we have experienced with the Nature Restoration and Deforestation Regulations and with biodiversity matters," he adds.
Finland is the most heavily forested country in Europe. Forests cover 75% of its territory. Next come Sweden (74%), Montenegro (70%), Slovenia (63%), Latvia (56%) and Spain (55%). According to 2015 data, Finland's share of the total forest and forest land area in Europe was 11%.
Taxonomy creates bureaucracy
The EU Deforestation Regulation entered into force last summer. It is estimated that it will create — or considerably increase what already exists — an enormous amount of bureaucracy in the forest sector. Forest.fi has already written about the hundreds of thousands of reference numbers that will be needed in order to "trace" the forest holding from which the timber used in a particular product was obtained.
Mykkänen speaks about the taxonomy, which is binding on providers of finance, saying that it affects forest use in a highly and unnecessarily detailed way. As is known, the taxonomy is a classification system for prospective investors that shows which investment objects are ecologically sustainable and more attractive compared with "non-ecological" ones.
"It is important that the next European Parliament and the European Commission it forms should adopt and be guided by a different attitude towards observing the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The EU should have a clear position on the general direction of the policy in question, leaving the finer details to the member states," the Finnish minister is convinced. In moving away from fossil raw materials and adopting a more sustainable course on climate matters in Europe, a better and more comprehensible balance ought to be achieved.
"The European Commission is now clearly indicating that the green deal must be an industrial carbon management deal. This shows that attention is unmistakably being turned in a direction favourable to Finland, with a more balanced and more varied understanding of climate policy instruments than hitherto," Mykkänen notes. (By industrial carbon dioxide management the minister meant nuclear energy, carbon dioxide recovery and biotechnologies.)