It’s a bit more complicated.
Tuike tried to argue that the project wouldn’t need that assessment as it wasn’t being done as part of commercially selling trees from a natural forest as a “natural resource” as the law was worded, and they tried to ask for a “case by case” exemption that would allow them to start the clearing without having to wait for the whole lengthy assessment process to go through the systems. That exception got rejected because “Forest nature does not only mean forests in their natural state, but also forests used for forestry” (the Finnish words being “luonnonvara”, “metsäluonto” and “luonnontilainen metsä”.)
They might have been technically fine had they not sold any of the trees. But, I mean, what else can you do with 300 hectares of trees?
It’s a bit more complicated. Tuike tried to argue that the project wouldn’t need that assessment as it wasn’t being done as part of commercially selling trees from a natural forest as a “natural resource” as the law was worded, and they tried to ask for a “case by case” exemption that would allow them to start the clearing without having to wait for the whole lengthy assessment process to go through the systems. That exception got rejected because “Forest nature does not only mean forests in their natural state, but also forests used for forestry” (the Finnish words being “luonnonvara”, “metsäluonto” and “luonnontilainen metsä”.)
They might have been technically fine had they not sold any of the trees. But, I mean, what else can you do with 300 hectares of trees?
Finnish source from HS.fi.
shocking no one, laws are worded in complicated ways that lawyers will take full advantage of.