today at 11:58
,Great Britain
The recently published FCG study highlights important observations on the development of Finland's timber sales revenues in the coming decades. According to the report, timber sales revenues could increase significantly if logging volumes reach 80 million cubic metres per year. In this case, revenues could reach as high as €4.5 billion per year by 2035. On the other hand, if harvesting is not increased from current levels, the expected revenues would remain at around €3.9 billion.
TheFCG study examined three different scenarios: maintaining logging at current levels, limiting logging and increasing logging. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, particularly in terms of the trade-off between economic benefits and meeting climate objectives. According to the study, if logging were limited to 55 million cubic metres, revenues would fall to an estimated €3.2 billion per year. The study also considers the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, as well as the costs and benefits.
An interesting aspect of the study is the impact of logging on climate objectives. Finland has ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and the ability of our forests to sequester carbon dioxide is key to achieving them. However, the costs of forest-related climate action itself can be significant, especially if logging has to be restricted to meet climate targets.
Reducing logging areas could undoubtedly reduce forest carbon stocks, but it would also mean a significant loss of economic revenue. This highlights an awkward contradiction: economic benefits and environmental protection objectives do not always go hand in hand.
The report concludes that in order to achieve maximum economic benefits, harvesting rates should be kept high. In a scenario where logging remains high between 2026 and 2035, the total revenue from timber sales could reach up to €39 billion. Alternatively, limiting logging would mean that only about €27 billion in revenues would be generated over the same period.
Market logging is at the heart of the study, giving a more accurate picture of the importance of commercial logging for the overall revenue of the forest industry. However, the study does not take into account domestic logging, which may give a somewhat one-sided picture of the overall impact of forestry on the national economy.
Taking all these factors into account, it can be said that setting logging rates through balanced decision making requires a multifaceted reflection. It is important that decisions are based not only on economic interests but also on climate and environmental sustainability.
It should be noted that questions have been raised about the impartiality of the study, which was sponsored by forestry organisations. The FCG study is funded by the Forestry Business Association, the Bioenergy Association and MTK, among others. This may raise concerns about the impartiality of the results.
In the social debate, it is essential to take into account the role of forests not only in supporting the economy, but also in climate policy. In this way we can ensure sustainable development, both economically and environmentally, and remember that long-term decisions are key to achieving both goals.
