>Finland will vote against the EU’s climate delegated act later this year because some aspects of the classification system for sustainable activities, known as **taxonomy, concerning forest management are “difficult to understand and open to interpretation”,** the government said in a press statement on Wednesday. (17 November).
Finland is concerned that “the ambiguity of the criteria” could lead to a situation where **forestry is excluded from the taxonomy**. This, in turn, could jeopardise forestry investments.
Finland also “regrets” that the technical screening criteria treat **hydropower and bioenergy differently from other low-emission forms of energy**.
I understand the forestry concerns, but this
> Finland also “regrets” that the technical screening criteria treat hydropower and bioenergy differently from other low-emission forms of energy.
is some BS. And I am pretty sure I know which party to blame for that.
I once had an interview with a finnish energy advisor of FI’s permanent representation in the EU. On the topic of bioenergy he said:
“The rest of Europe just doesn’t get forestry.”
Stayed in my mind. One of the few issues FI has within the progressive camp of member states when it comes to energy & climate policy.
Excuse me, but what the fuck is bioenergy? Firewood?
What in particular is bugging Finland (and Sweden) in the draft delegated act:
1. Each forest owner must leave 20% of his/her forests in natural state
2. A buffer zone of 30-60m of untouched nature around lakes and rivers
The first one doesn’t take in account that we already have huge natural park forests. The latter means in the land of 100.000+ lakes that a good deal of forest owners would find all of their forests (that they planted decades ago) suddenly untouchable.
I’d say votes in forest management should be weighed by the amount of forests in each country. After all, that kinda is the track record of their management.
Forest owners are fearing they just lost 20% of their forest wealth (for someone that’s all they own) because the act might ban them from chopping it, but that’s not clear.
Or, if that 20% must be protected could EU please compensate for it. For Finland that would mean roughly €100 billion euros for the wood on that area, thanks.
To me this sounds like something which might be against most countries constitution. You can’t just take control of property just like that, at least without reimbursement. Or how would you feel about EU taking controlf of your bedroom?
And no, big companies do not own a lot of forests. They’re owned by regular folks. About 12% of Finns own at least 1ha of forest.
6 comments
>Finland will vote against the EU’s climate delegated act later this year because some aspects of the classification system for sustainable activities, known as **taxonomy, concerning forest management are “difficult to understand and open to interpretation”,** the government said in a press statement on Wednesday. (17 November).
Finland is concerned that “the ambiguity of the criteria” could lead to a situation where **forestry is excluded from the taxonomy**. This, in turn, could jeopardise forestry investments.
Finland also “regrets” that the technical screening criteria treat **hydropower and bioenergy differently from other low-emission forms of energy**.
I understand the forestry concerns, but this
> Finland also “regrets” that the technical screening criteria treat hydropower and bioenergy differently from other low-emission forms of energy.
is some BS. And I am pretty sure I know which party to blame for that.
I once had an interview with a finnish energy advisor of FI’s permanent representation in the EU. On the topic of bioenergy he said:
“The rest of Europe just doesn’t get forestry.”
Stayed in my mind. One of the few issues FI has within the progressive camp of member states when it comes to energy & climate policy.
Excuse me, but what the fuck is bioenergy? Firewood?
What in particular is bugging Finland (and Sweden) in the draft delegated act:
1. Each forest owner must leave 20% of his/her forests in natural state
2. A buffer zone of 30-60m of untouched nature around lakes and rivers
The first one doesn’t take in account that we already have huge natural park forests. The latter means in the land of 100.000+ lakes that a good deal of forest owners would find all of their forests (that they planted decades ago) suddenly untouchable.
I’d say votes in forest management should be weighed by the amount of forests in each country. After all, that kinda is the track record of their management.
Forest owners are fearing they just lost 20% of their forest wealth (for someone that’s all they own) because the act might ban them from chopping it, but that’s not clear.
Or, if that 20% must be protected could EU please compensate for it. For Finland that would mean roughly €100 billion euros for the wood on that area, thanks.
To me this sounds like something which might be against most countries constitution. You can’t just take control of property just like that, at least without reimbursement. Or how would you feel about EU taking controlf of your bedroom?
And no, big companies do not own a lot of forests. They’re owned by regular folks. About 12% of Finns own at least 1ha of forest.