It’s time to wake up in Finland – Forest policy is already in the hands of the EU

From the reader. Forest policy is being made more and more strongly in the EU. In Finland, in the EU and forest debate, there is still a persistent insistence that the European Union should not have decision-making power regarding Finnish forests. The idea is understandable in itself, but it does not change the facts.

Decision-making power in many key forest matters has practically been transferred to the administration buildings in Brussels. The most central issue in EU forest affairs is no longer where the boundaries of jurisdiction exactly lie between Brussels and the member states. The most essential question is: do EU decisions limit logging in one way or another?

Prime minister Petteri Orpon there is an entry in the government program, according to which Finland does not accept EU-level decisions that weaken the availability of wood. This alignment is very good. When a member country has a clear position, EU policy can also be made in a way where the Commission has to take the special features of forested lands seriously.

Good goals, heavy regulation

From Finland’s point of view, the basic problem of the European Union and especially the Commission is that the people preparing the regulations often do not understand the practical effects of their decisions. This has been seen, for example, in deforestation and restoration settings.

Good-sounding goals easily turn into burdensome regulation. Commission officials from countries where the importance of forests is of a completely different order than in Finland are preparing regulations that directly affect forest owners, the wood processing industry and the competitiveness of the entire forest sector.

Another problem is that in Brussels the competitiveness of the forest sector is too often seen as an internal issue of the Union. At the same time, the decisions of large players such as the United States, China and Russia are monitored too weakly.

The EU machinery looks at its own regulations, directives and reporting obligations, but not enough at what is really happening in the global market economy.

Politicians change, the bureaucracy does not

The third and perhaps biggest problem is structural. The Parliament, the Council and the Commissioners will change, but the Commission’s bureaucracy will remain. The post of the Commission has considerable influence but only limited political responsibility. They do not have to bear the consequences in the same way as democratically elected decision-makers.

This can also be seen in the forestry sector. The current commission has done little to strengthen the industry’s competitiveness, even though the theme was prominently displayed at the political level.

In the midst of all the problems, what is decisive for Finland’s EU policy is what will eventually be included in the next government program. The line should be clear. EU-level decisions must not weaken the availability of wood in Finland.

Finland must promote the operating conditions of its forest sector in a determined way — not by explaining afterwards, but by having a constructive influence in advance.

Tino Aalto

CEO, Sahateollisuus ry