Naujienos

*Greenpeace activities threaten future of forest economy in whole of Upper Lapland

Ylä-Lapin Metsänhoitoyhdistys [Upper Lapland Forest Management Association] is concerned about the effects of Greenpeace activity on forest economy in Upper Lapland.

The disputes give an erroneous idea of felling remaining ancient forests, although the work affects areas where more than half the forests are already protected. Coordination of the area’s forestry and other economic activities has been under development for decades and the developmental work is ongoing.

The ultimate reason for the conflicts is competition between different systems of certifica-tion and the outstanding dispute over land ownership in Upper Lapland, as well as eco-nomic hardship suffered by reindeer herders due to the low market price of reindeer meat. A necessary precondition of sustaining the population and services in Upper Lapland is that all economic activities are developed in concert. Additional protection provides no solution to these problems, nor can they be removed by placing restrictions on forest economy. Debate over certification of forests and cultural self-governance of Sami people must not be confused with each other. The Upper Lapland land ownership issue should be resolved in accordance with Finnish legislation, without disregarding the rights of local people.

Consequences of the disputes are not limited only to state-owned forests. This is proven by the “important grazing forest” signs placed by Greenpeace that have also appeared on pri-vate land, although Greenpeace has given assurances that the dispute does not concern private land.

The threat also impacts private forest economy, although the major part of the criticism is directed at fellings by Metsähallitus [State Forests Enterprise].

The felling potential of privately owned forests is not sufficient to sustain the Upper Lapland sawmill industry and the Kemijärvi Pulp Mill. By jeopardising their future, development and existence of industrial plants essential for timber demand from privately owned forests are also threatened.

In the future, participation of local landowners in efforts to resolve the dispute must be se-cured; representatives of statutory local landowners’ associations, as representatives of rights owners, must be invited to take part.

Greenpeace is not the appropriate party to solve the problems in Upper Lapland, but has rather inflamed discord among local population and businesses through its actions. The overwhelming majority of local people want Greenpeace to leave the area. A harmonious solution must be found by local parties, and outsiders must acquiesce with the solution.