At a Congress of forest owner organisations held in Vienna recently, an unacceptable conclusion was reached, one that contradicts the values the European Union at least publicly claims to uphold: “The forestry sector’s view is simply not being taken into account. Communication takes place so that the European Commission can point to documents stating that consultations with stakeholders have occurred, but the substance is not reflected.” Less than a week later, Krišjānis Kariņš described a different situation in Latvia: “Experts advise, but the government decides...”

At the beginning of October, representatives of forest owner organisations from 17 European Union countries gathered at a conference in Vienna to discuss topical issues – the EU Forest Strategy and the correlations with the Green Deal. Was this the only reason for the gathering?

Naturally, one of the reasons was the need to discuss the European Union Forest Strategy presented by the European Commission this year. Speaking with conference participants representing organisations that unite forest owners from 17 European Union member states, the feeling was that the concern is not just about this strategy alone. The situation we are currently living in (Covid, the rise in energy prices, remote working), as well as the methods of decision-making in the European Union, prompted colleagues in Austria to initiate this meeting, and of course, encouraged the leaders of the organisations representing forest owners in European countries to respond to the invitation and participate. The Forest Strategy is a small but important piece of the Green Deal “puzzle”. Many different documents are being drafted in relation to the Green Deal. For example, in one document we encounter general rules, while in another we find technical criteria. Such a situation reminds us again and again – everything must be viewed in context. Forest owners in Europe understand the aforementioned EU Forest Strategy as a policy planning document and a roadmap for the future of forestry in Europe. If we compare it, the previous EU Forest Strategy was different, with other emphases. It is good that forest owners in Europe have realised that without actively expressing their opinion and taking joint action, they will not be heard. For my part, I would like to add that recently, both in Latvia and in Europe, social partners from non-governmental organisations have been much less involved in the decision-making process. People are not being listened to (and not just on forest issues!), which is why only one course of action remains – we must react! Because if this attitude or situation continues, the failure to listen can only deepen.

Forest management in Europe is being steered towards biodiversity conservation, which in the EC's understanding means “managing” forests by doing nothing. Did you also discuss this?

Many conference participants mentioned this in their speeches, and this issue is also included in the declaration: in order to promote the mitigation of climate change, it is necessary to think about active forestry, not about doing nothing. By actively managing, we can achieve forest resilience against potential climate extremes, because it is understood: well-managed forest stands are more productive and sequester more CO2. But! It seems that decision-makers in Europe have not heard or understood this fact, which is so often discussed, reviewed, and chanted.

A good idea – the Green Deal – has so far been described (told) like a fairytale film: “It will be beautiful, everything around will blossom and turn green, and joy will shine on people's faces.” Policymakers avoid, or may not even know about, the (seemingly) small details that are important to every person, such as the increase in daily living costs or the need to change a car or heating system. Why is so little said about practical matters so far?

Slogans are crafted to be positive, so that what is planned at least sounds good. When we get to the question or fact: who will pay? ... Silence. In the declaration (Vienna Declaration of European Forest Owners on the EU Forest Strategy 2030), which was signed by representatives from 17 European countries and 7 organisations, it is emphasised: "For some reason, the strategy avoids facts and a description of the current situation. Forest areas and growing stock in Europe have increased, which can be considered the fruits and successes of the forest owners' work." Thus, the European Commission does not recognise the work and invested funds of forest owners. Why? So far, no one is calculating: what funds, labour, and investments the implementation of these beautiful slogans will require in everyday life. It is not known and it is not clear to society how much every European Union citizen will pay for the Green Deal. At the moment, there is concern about the significant rise in natural gas and electricity prices, which is already being felt in people's pockets. But is it always necessary to end up in a situation: everything has already happened, the train has left the station, decisions have been made, money has to be counted and... suddenly, but too late, one starts thinking and reacting to what has (already) happened. We must think and act before we are asked to pay a high price for something!

The second point of the declaration expresses an effort to ensure real (not just in words, but in deeds) climate protection, which resonates with the question of the use of oil, gas, and coal. In relation to climate change, we must abandon fossil fuels immediately, moving towards renewable energy sources. In some European Union documents, a desire to restrict and combat renewable resources appears: how can there be any talk of climate protection?

Has there been any serious research in Europe on the impact of forest non-management on biological diversity? For example, in 1992 a forest area in a specific region was left neglected, and in 2020 this and that was concluded...

I personally have not been able to find such studies. There are studies on what happens as a forest stand matures and grows older. Of course, species appear that require an older forest. How is this achieved? Through dynamic activity, through management. Of course, there are National Parks and reserves where practically no activity (research, perhaps tourism) takes place; the biggest mistake is to move towards static, not dynamic, nature conservation.

There was much discussion about scientists and research at the conference, with the observation: it could be that there are scientists close to (in various ways) the European Commission whom the Commission listens to, whereas, scientists associated with forestry and forest sector research are not heard or not wanted to be heard by the same Commission. Unfortunately, it is visible that the work and opinion of forest sector scientists does not appear in European planning documents.

We see similar trends in Latvia, where those who are not connected to the forest or the sector, but know how to talk about it “correctly”, pass themselves off as forest sector experts. Could this be a common 21st-century European problem: talking about science and praising it, whilst at the same time listening to anyone who has something to say, passing off their words as a significant opinion or research?

Strange changes are occurring in society in general. On social media, people who are by no means experts, and should not be, are “becoming” experts. Of course, there are also “forest experts” who are not experts at all. Unfortunately, a very simple way of trying to “neutralise” serious scientific research has become quite popular, namely, to say without evidence or justification that the scientist or scientific institution has been bought off, because... for example, the research needed by the sector is funded by the sector itself. So, that is considered being bought off! If someone doesn't like the research, but there is a lack of scientific counter-arguments or they are non-existent, the only thing left to do is mention “being bought off” and the research is at least discredited.

If the restriction of forest resource availability is planned in the EU Forest Strategy, has there been any thought, or is it perhaps already clear, where to source them?

That is a very strange and important aspect. It is clear that the global demand for timber will increase. If Europe declares itself as the world’s first green region, it is forgotten that the necessary resources will definitely be obtained elsewhere.

It is likely that “elsewhere” this will happen in a much less sustainable way. In Europe, there are many regulations and statutes that prevent the flow of illegal timber from European forests. There is no such certainty regarding other parts of the world. Furthermore, what will the CO2 footprint be when transporting materials from distant parts of the world? What is logging like in other parts of the world and what is its impact on the climate? Is it truly more careful than in Europe?

Strict requirements and certification have now “hit” Europe itself, even though it was intended to limit, for example, deforestation in the Amazon or the Congo Basin, East Asia, etc., where, by the way, forests are truly being cut down without reforestation!

It has always seemed to me that as a result of ideas created in Europe, timber of unknown origin should not be reaching us. However, this has resulted in bureaucratic documents and burdens for Europeans themselves. I would like to mention that in the documents prepared by European institutions we read about the need for a new, European certification system... Are FSC and PEFC not good enough? Is something else needed? What will be the costs and effectiveness of this system?

Scandinavians have taken a sharp stance against the EC Forest Strategy

I hope that a breakthrough has occurred in Europe, people are starting to “wake up”, and objections are emerging not just in Scandinavia. It should be added that Scandinavian resources are greater, given the importance of the forest sector in this region. I believe the Vienna Congress will be a turning point, initiated by the Austrians. I will add that, parallel to the Forest Owners' conference events, the Austrian Federal Minister for Agriculture, Tourism and Regions, Elisabeth Köstinger (Elisabeth Köstinger), invited several of her European colleagues to an informal meeting, where the ministers discussed the EC Forest Strategy and other Green Deal documents. The voice of forest owners and the sector in Europe will become more unified and stronger.

What would be the most important thing for us in Latvia in this regard?

Attention must be paid, as I already mentioned, to every piece of the puzzle, every document: this is the work of both NGOs and ministries. I will emphasise: the volume of documents from Europe is enormous; navigating them and putting them in the necessary order is not easy. This is undoubtedly the task of the ministries! The Ministry of Finance must approach the issue of taxonomy very responsibly; Latvia's position must not allow particularly unfavourable consequences to occur for the forestry sector. It would be good to have a coordinating institution in relation to the Green Deal that would know and oversee everything, for example, to ensure that the work and positions of the ministries do not conflict with each other.

Looking at and evaluating the work of the ministries during Covid: will the ministries manage the Green Deal in a clear and sensible way?

There is no alternative! They have to manage it! The consequences of failure and indecision can be dramatic for both the state and the residents. One must start demanding accountability from decision-makers. If the ministries cannot cope at the moment, it will further intensify distrust in public administration as such.
European Forest Owners' Declaration on the EU Forest Strategy 2030