Sign beside a forest in Belgium amazed Pekka Pesonen – far cry from ’exceptional rights’ in Finland

Pekka Pesonen, long-time Secretary General of Copa Cogeca, returned from Brussels to Finland after 26 years.

Pekka Pesonen, the long-serving Secretary General of Copa Cogeca, which represents European farmers and agri-cooperatives, wants to focus attention on the characteristics of Finnish forestry which distinguish it from the other parts of the European Union.

Over 75 percent of Finland’s land area is covered by forests.

’No other country has this extensive forests and the same spectrum of biotopes. Sweden and the Baltic republics are arguably fairly close to Finland, but the constellation is different on the Alps, for example,’ explains Pesonen, who started as Permanent Secretary at the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry last spring.

Still, the fact that Finland is the most widely forested country in Europe does not increase its potential to affect the EU’s forest policy.

’Even if we combined Finland, Sweden, the Baltic republics and Austria, we’d not gain a decisive say in EU policy. That’s a bit of a problem. In environmental policy, for example, our votes are not enough to bring fundamental changes to initiatives or to stop them,’ Pesonen says.

Moreover, the Nordic countries have diverging opinions on forest management, with the general result that Brussels is used as a court of appeal in the same way as Moscow used to be. Appealing to the Union level is used to gain more leverage. That sort of activity can be seen quite clearly.

’Moreover, the Nordic countries have diverging opinions on forest management, with the general result that Brussels is used as a court of appeal in the same way as Moscow used to be. Appealing to the Union level is used to gain more leverage. That sort of activity can be seen quite clearly,’ Pesonen says.

’You can’t just walk into a forest in Belgium’

Speaking of the unique position of forests in Finland, Pesonen cites the concept of everyone’s rights as something exceptional in the EU.

’You can’t just walk into a forest in Belgium. forests are private property and trespassing is not allowed. When we moved to Belgium over twenty years ago, we came across a sign near a forest, stating that it would be open that day at such and such a time,’ says Pesonen, who recently returned to Finland after 26 years in Brussels.

’In Finland we recently saw a campaign by some organisation or other, with the slogan that Finnish forests are open daily,’ he chuckles.

Everyone’s rights in Finland mean that everyone is entitled to enjoy nature regardless of who owns an area. No permission from the landowner is needed to enjoy and use nature within the limits allowed by the rights, nor does it cost anything.

In Finland, spending time in forests is a popular pastime, with people picking berries and mushrooms, hiking, skiing, orienteering… It’s something absolutely exceptional. We should have made much more noise about it way back when, about what forests mean for Finns, and it wouldn’t necessarily have meant actual lobbying.

’In Finland, spending time in forests is a popular pastime, with people picking berries and mushrooms, hiking, skiing, orienteering… It’s something absolutely exceptional. We should have made much more noise about it way back when, about what forests mean for Finns, and it wouldn’t necessarily have meant actual lobbying. The visions and work of the Finnish Forest Association should have been puffed in Europe 15 or 20 years ago,’, says Pesonen, who was recently invited to join the advisory board of the Forest Academy for Decision-Makers.

The Forest Academy for Decision-Makers is a course and discussion forum targeted to decision-makers and other opinion leaders. Under its auspices, courses have also been arranged for persons influential in EU matters.

Finns committed a collective mistake

Pesonen thinks that Finns committed a collective mistake in the 1990s in not speaking about forest matters in the EU, and that the effects are still visible. Finland joined the European Union in 1995 after a referendum.

’At the time we had – how should I put it – the restrictive view that we didn’t want to speak about forest issues on the EU level. We ought to have reconsidered that, but of course that’s obvious to everyone after the fact. At the time, it seemed like the best way of taking things forward. But the secondary effects are now becoming pretty clear.’

By the secondary effects relating to forests, Pesonen refers to EU legislation on climate, the environment and biodiversity.

’In concrete terms, the deforestation regulation, which is still under preparation, the monitoring [of forests], the nature restoration regulation, LULUCF, carbon sequestering… These matters don’t always necessarily deal with forests directly, yet forests are affected by them, whether positively or negatively,’ Pesonen says.

Pesonen would like to see an analysis of the overall impact of EU initiatives.

’At the outset, we didn’t realize that the EU legislation would affect Finnish forests and forestry. There is no overall coordination between different policy initiatives. We ought to have an understanding of how different initiatives are positioned with regard to the main objectives related to forests,’ Pesonen says.

Pesonen mentions that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has spoken about being in contact with nature and about sustainability, though from the perspective of Central Europe.

’When Finns talk about forest management, it’s pretty far removed from what’s meant by it in Central Europe. Over there it’s more like manicuring: at worst, the forests look more like parks.’

Role of forest bioeconomy not internalized

Pesonen considers that the role of forestry in bioeconomy has not been internalized in the EU or even in Finland, despite the fact that forests form the core of bioeconomy. Using renewable natural resources in better and more efficient ways can replace fossil raw materials.

’This will not succeed without forests,’ Pesonen says.

’Forestry suffers from the problem that the role of traditional forestry, such as the sawmill industry, in bioeconomy has not been internalized even in Finland. The sawmill industry represents a basic flow in society, and it’s considered as self-evident as the staple foods that you can pick up in any grocery shop. In this country, there’s always been a sawmill in every village; it’s just a fact of life. No one comes to think that the sawmill next door is an element of bioeconomy.’

Pesonen points out that many towns in Finland live from forestry, and if forestry declines, the town, too, will dwindle away.

’The Commission’s view on this is different from ours. If we consider the total value of forests locally, for rural areas, the sawmill industry has a crucial role. When the aim in silviculture is stout, high-quality logwood, that wood will end up in buildings, structures, furniture and, in the best case, for decades – if not for centuries – and the carbon bound in it is kept out of the atmosphere. I am absolutely convinced that this fact is not in focus in the EU,’ Pesonen says.

According to Pekka Pesonen, another thing distinguishing Finland from the rest of Europe and even the rest of the world are wildfires.

’To take an example, my Canadian colleagues told me last autumn that 16 million hectares of forest had simply gone up in smoke. The total area of Finnish commercial forests is about 20 million hectares. If that area was to burn in one go, you’d have to be binding carbon for quite a while before those losses were recouped,’ Pesonen says.

According to Pesonen, elsewhere in Europe wildfires are a factor steering forest policy. Fires destroy the financial base dependent on forests and the living environments of species.

So far, there are few areas susceptible to wildfires in Finland, in contrast to other parts of Europe, where forest undergrowth sometimes consists of dry shrubs. The number of wildfires in Finland has actually been decreasing in recent years.

’In Finland, we have reached the situation where we need to resort to controlled burning to safeguard biodiversity, in order to save the populations of certain insects and beetles. Now this may make someone in Portugal or Greece wonder whether those guys are actually in their senses, burning their forests on purpose. As we look after our interests in the EU, we must plan very carefully how to present this, so that no one sees it as provocation,’ Pesonen says.

Forests bring stability to Finnish society

Pesonen talks about forests as an important promoter of stability in Finnish society. There are over 600,000 private forest owners in the country, and forests are inherently bound with the identity of Finns, in a way that other Europeans do not always capture.

Pesonen points out that Finnish forests provide overall security not just for Finland, but actually for all of Europe. Thanks to forestry, Eastern and Northern Finland continue to be inhabited.

’It is not unimportant to be able to maintain the functions of society and to have people living in all parts of the country,’ Pesonen says.

Forests provide financial security and renewable energy. Now a full member of NATO, Finland – and with it, the EU – has a border of over 1,300 kilometres against Russia.

’Forestry is the core of Finland’s industry, an essential element. The commercial forests sector is part of our preparedness, and that in turn is important for our overall security,’ Pesonen says.

’During WW2, forests played a crucial role, ensuring that [Stalin’s Soviet Union] failed to take the country by storm. The chequered nature of the landscape, the numerous waterways and forests see to it that intruders can’t just cross the lines in their off-roaders any way they please,’ Pesonen says.