Forest owner accused
Jake | February 21, 2010Here in Finland a landmark legal case is brewing about forest treatment. Single forest owner is being accused of mismanaging his forest.
According to the government dictated forestry regulations, one can only cut as much as sustainable development requires. What do you think that means in practise?
It means that if the owner wants to leave the forest into natural state, owner is allowed to do that. However, if the owner wants to cut trees, owner must follow the law about forest treatment. The law states very clearly, how many trees there must be left standing and how big they should be. After this comes whole slate of different treatment measures. This bureaucratic system leads into forest cultivation, is that sustainable development?
In this case, the enforcing forestry official says that the area, which was cut, should have been cut almost to the bare bones, then treat the soil and plant pine trees instead of firs that used to be dominant tree on the location.
Government now demands 10 000 euro from the forest owner, because he cut only the biggest trees and left everything else on natural state. Owner now wonders the rigid practise, because he has been managing his forests in the same traditional manner for over fifty years and they all grow just fine.
Any cumbersome laws limiting forest management on your area?
