Note from zemeunvalsts.lv
Publications and discussions in the Finnish media demonstrate that the Finns are debating EU regulations and directives affecting their national prosperity with sufficient seriousness and caution, involving industry scientists, knowledgeable experts, and politicians who have a good grasp of the situation.
Interest and deeper engagement, not only from industry scientists and professionals, is also urgently needed in Latvia (and should have happened “a week ago”, not “yesterday” or “tomorrow”), so that solutions do not remain at the level of seemingly popular but misguided slogans and appealing TV talking heads. It is not ideal to talk about this, but it would be appropriate to remind everyone that the events of the last three years outside Latvia have revealed far too much that has been left undone in our country, which now requires a triple effort to set things right. Paraphrasing a politician from the 90s, “neither was independence given to us just like that, nor will anyone defend Latvia’s interests tomorrow at breakfast time just like that”.
Finnish experts in the field of EU forest policy point out that a planned uniform forest policy will not work the same way in all 27 member states.
Finnish MEP Elsi Katainen has described the discussions on the EU Nature Restoration Law as complex.
“The European Parliament's rapporteur on the Nature Restoration Law, César Luena, Vice-Chair of the Committee on Environment, prefers stricter restoration targets, while others want to soften them. The negotiations have become polarised,” E. Katainen informed during a meeting organised by the European Parliament Information Office in Finland. The polarisation of views and opinions is also illustrated by the fact that the European Parliament’s centre-right EPP group (Group of the European People's Party) wants to halt the progress of the Nature Restoration Law.
E. Katainen is not entirely satisfied with the regulation, yet she does not support its cancellation, believing that the problems of biodiversity loss will be discussed in any case during the next parliamentary period, which begins in two years.
According to the European Commission's proposal, 30% of the area of various degraded ecosystems should be restored by 2030. The European Parliament is expected to vote on this proposal in July, after which it will be forwarded to the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the member states.
Issues related to EU forest policy are particularly important for Finland, as it is the most forested country in Europe. Forests cover more than 75% of Finland's land area.
Peatland re-wetting is not precisely defined (re-wetting)
Discussions in the European Parliament are hampered by a lack of background information on research. Elsi Katainen cites the example of peatland re-wetting, which is not defined at the European level. Re-wetting of peatlands is proposed, but they are of various types, and their hydrological conditions and vegetation are very different.
“How do we define re-wetting? What is being decided? If, for example, forests are over-wetted, will that cause methane emissions? It is extremely difficult to agree on something that lacks a scientific basis; that is the moment when you arrive at ideology. Clarity is needed in definitions,” E. Katainen is convinced.
The re-wetting of peatland forests means raising the groundwater level in peatland forests, for example by blocking drainage. The purpose of re-wetting is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by peat decomposition.
“Closing gaps in environmental directives”
Maija Rantameki, Head of International and EU Forest Affairs at the Finnish Forest Industries Federation, noted that forests are Finland's most important natural resource. They play a major role in the Finnish economy, and once the EU Nature Restoration Law begins to be implemented, these processes could affect the systemic operation of the forest industry. Forest industry products account for 17.5% of Finland's exports, and the sector's tax revenue amounts to 2.7 billion euros.
M. Rantameki believes that the EU Nature Restoration Law will close gaps in existing environmental directives, but at the same time, she criticised the European Commission for being overly detailed (nitpicking). As an example, M. Rantameki mentioned an annex to the regulation which states that preference should be given to continuous-cover forestry and various logging restrictions.
“Forest restoration methods cannot be determined at the EU level. For example, a continuous-cover forest stand in the boreal zone is something completely different from one in Mediterranean countries,” M. Rantameki explains the situation.
Research shows that although continuous-cover forestry is common in the EU, in Finland it is best suited for nutrient-rich peatlands, but not suitable at all in other cases. For example, areas with well-managed, even-aged forest stands are difficult to convert into areas for continuous-cover forestry.
The regulation's objectives create restrictions for forestry
In M. Rantameki’s opinion, setting specific targets for each ecosystem, as done in the proposed regulation, will guide and restrict forest management, but these processes should be left to the responsible authorities of the member states.
“The regulation sets indicators for forest and agricultural ecosystems that must be reported to the European Commission. For example, the amount of deadwood, soil carbon storage, bird species habitats, and uneven forest age structure. Some of these indicators have developed quite favourably in Finland, but setting such requirements will increase the control over forestry,” M. Rantameki emphasised, clearly expressing that the European Union should not dictate in minute detail how to implement the Nature Restoration Law.
“For example, people in Central and Southern Europe hardly understand what prescribed burning is (a way to create suitable habitats for species that require burnt vegetation and intense heat). Prescribed burning is not mentioned among the recommended methods in the annex to the Nature Restoration Law, which actually shows the need for much greater local and national-level expertise,” M. Rantameki explains.
“A strict environmental regulatory framework is needed”
Senior Researcher and Programme Director at the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Meri Kallasvuo, emphasised that applying the same forest policy in all 27 member states is not appropriate for the intended goal.
“Sufficient ‘national freedom’ must be left for each country to decide for itself on the methods used; for example, Finland's environmental and climatic conditions are very different from those of the Mediterranean coast,” M. Kallasvuo explained the obvious.
In her opinion, it is important to improve the efficiency of renewable resource use while protecting forest ecosystem services. M. Kallasvuo called for the introduction of new methods and regulations to curb biodiversity loss, emphasising that even a “range of strategies” has not been enough to stop biodiversity loss in Finland.
“Various types of forest policies based on voluntary participation have not yielded the desired results so far. A strict environmental regulation is necessary, which will force us to change our current thinking,” concludes Meri Kallasvuo.