Amendments to the “Regulations on Tree Felling” have recently sparked widespread public discussion. Forestry scientists have their own opinion, as do forest owners who wish to manage their land as efficiently as possible, gaining economic benefits while making rational use of not only the forest but also their time. Nature conservation organisation representatives also have their own views, and, naturally, so do all those who use the forest as a place for recreation and foraging.
However, as Jānis Eglīts, head of the office of the Minister of Agriculture Kaspars Gerhards, emphasised in a letter to the media, it is clear that there are significant factors in the story behind these regulatory changes that are being overlooked or twisted to appear as threatening as possible to the Latvian environment.
“Various significant facts have been left out, for example, that the regulatory amendments apply only to private forests, which make up half of Latvia’s forests. It will not affect state forest territories, as there is a completely different piece of legislation regulating forest management processes in state forests! Also, these amendments are provisionally expected to apply to only 10% of private forests, or 5% of the total country's territory. Furthermore, the most important factor – these conditions oblige forest owners to replant the forest area with high-quality planting material within a shorter timeframe,” points out Jānis Eglīts.
“Two years ago, forestry sector organisations met and decided that a new development strategy was necessary. The need to change the tree-felling conditions is based on scientific findings that high-value planting material, which we could plant in the forest, would lead to more productive tree stands in the future. If a tree grows better and faster, it absorbs more carbon dioxide, providing us with oxygen,” argues Arnis Muižnieks, Chairman of the Board of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia.
The proposal is to allow slightly thinner trees to be felled than before, although even this claim is not entirely accurate, the forest owner representative notes.
“If we look at the proposal, the felling diameter for one tree species is being standardised. Until now, these were numerical values dependent on the site quality, which was influenced by soil fertility and moisture conditions. Now, one felling diameter has been set for all stands of a single species, and for certain categories of stands, this felling diameter is actually being increased. Previously, there were site quality classes for birch where clear-felling could be carried out if the diameter was between 22 and 31 cm, but now it is set at 25 cm. Pine could be felled from 27 to 39 cm. Now it is set at 30 cm. This means that in certain forest types, trees will have to be allowed to grow for longer. It cannot be categorically stated that younger trees will be felled in all cases,” notes Muižnieks.
“From a nature perspective, a selectively planted, intensively managed and timely harvested forest will have less biodiversity than if the forest had regenerated naturally, had not been as carefully tended, and had reached [traditional] felling sizes. The absence of thicker trees hinders the survival of those species that require these big trees. For example, the black woodpecker, in whose excavated hollows the stock dove can nest, and a series of insect species that require thick trees. The forest structure will also become simpler; there won't be as much deadwood,” objects botanist Lelde Eņģele.
Forest scientist Dagnis Dubrovskis predicts that in the long term, a situation will arise where, outside of protected areas, there are no forests that have reached 80 years of age (the current felling age for pine is 101 years, for spruce – 81 years).
“Well, there won't be fewer thick trees! The truth is that in a large part of the forests – at least in a third of pine forests – there will be more thick trees; the permitted diameter in them will not decrease but will be increased.”
In class II site quality pine forests, known by foresters as *lāni* (heathy forests), the diameter reduction is 1 cm – from 31 to 30 cm – a small, visually imperceptible change. Pine forests of class II site quality and below occupy more than half of the pine forest area in Latvia. In long-term scientific sample plots, stands reach these diameter values at 40–50 years of age, so it is possible to grow sawlogs within a human's foreseeable lifetime,” counters Jurģis Jansons, director of the Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”.
Meanwhile, Viesturs Ķerus, Chairman of the Board of the Latvian Ornithological Society, points out in his publications, for instance, that there are no concrete figures proving that there is no risk in implementing these amendments.
For instance, there is no table showing how long it takes for a pine in a *damaksnis* (mossy forest) to reach 39 centimetres, and how long it will take to reach 30 centimetres. How many years it takes to fell a pine now, and how many years it will take after the amendments are adopted.
Another argument from nature conservationists: the inventory of protected habitats (nature census) in Latvia has not yet been completed.
Forest management must become scientifically based
“If an owner chooses clear-felling by diameter, the initiative mandates an obligatory duty to purposefully regenerate the forest stands in all cases. This is the most significant change. Today, the market price for purposeful, science-intensive forest regeneration work, including the price of seedlings, is about 1000 euros per hectare, compared to about 100 euros if so-called natural regeneration is used. The difference is ten-fold! The owner, of course, will also be able to choose natural regeneration, but then they will have to wait for the [age-based] clear-felling age,” emphasises “Silava” director Jurģis Jansons.
The initiative intends to restrict so-called 'black taxation' – the possibility of mechanically increasing a stand's diameter through thinning by felling the thinner trees, thereby reaching the [felling] stage sooner; from now on, clear-felling would not be permitted for three years following a thinning operation, the scientist adds.
“My personal opinion is that the volume of tree felling will not change significantly due to these conditions. To a certain extent, I even admire the forest owner community, who have agreed to support these conditions, which are restrictive in the short term but focused on the future,” considers Jansons.
Glued constructions instead of logs
Why does the state force us to wait and grow Soviet-era assortments if the modern market does not demand them?
We are seeing more and more examples of modern wooden construction in Latvia – for example, the wooden bridge over the road in Tērvete or the ice rink and stage on Pasta Island in Jelgava. These structures are made of large-sized glued wooden constructions, using technologies that were not yet created during Soviet times. Such structures are much more durable than structures made from solid wood, as the director of “Silava” has verified.
The Latvian forest canon dictates that we grow sawlogs – large, thick trees over a sufficiently long felling rotation period. Therefore, Latvian forest scientists do not support the Scandinavian approach – complete freedom for the forest owner to fell a stand, for example, at a 'pole-timber age'.
Opponents of the amendments believe that the felling of younger and thinner trees throughout Latvia will reduce the areas of old-growth forests.
“The argument should be viewed as pure demagoguery,” rejects the “Silava” director. “In the next seven years, 65% of those stands that could be felled according to the new diameter will have reached the currently set diameter. In 12 years, this figure would be almost 90%. If we assume that 'evil' forest owners are standing there with roaring chainsaws waiting for the opportunity to cut down their properties, they will wait these years and do it. We must remember that even now, forest owners only use the option to fell by diameter in 13% of forests where it is possible. Diameter changes have nothing to do with the area of old-growth forests that sustain and ensure biological diversity. Therefore, we must ensure the purposeful creation of a protected forest network, or so-called landscape ecological planning,” says Jurģis Jansons.
More growth, more 'corpses' in the forest too
“According to national monitoring data, by re-measuring the forest over five years, we know that the volume of living trees in Latvian forests is nearly 680 million cubic metres. This is the largest amount of wood measured in Latvia since monitoring began in 2004 – back then, there were just under 650 million m3. Of these, nearly 280 million m3 of trees in an area of at least one million hectares (31% of all forests) are in mature forests outside of lands dedicated to nature protection. Almost 28 million cubic metres of wood grow in Latvian forests every year, people fell about 17 million, and six million die. About three million remain and accumulate.
In addition to living trees, there are at least 64 million cubic metres of deadwood in Latvian forests – its volume has increased by 15% since 2008. In my opinion, we should more frequently return to progressive (not selective!) felling, which is one rational, visually attractive and also productive type of tree felling. And, of course, we must also promote purposeful regeneration – its lack in one part of private forests still creates a feeling of untidiness and negligence,” notes Jurģis Jansons.
A wider playing field
Arnis Muižnieks, Chairman of the Board of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia: “The demand for wood has also changed. The market no longer demands very thick sawlogs as it did before. Wood processing technologies have also changed – this is clearly visible when entering any modern wooden building. There are very long beams, but made from glued materials. Even the price for 40 or 35 cm diameter logs is not as good as for slightly thinner ones. In sawmill price lists, one can read that they pay best for logs with a diameter of around 26 cm.
With the amendments, the forest owner is given a wider 'playing field' where they can make a decision – to fell or not to fell. Already, the combined volume of mature and over-mature forest in private forests, along with grey alder and aspen stands, is close to 110 million cubic metres. All of it could be felled due to age, but that is not happening. Private owners fell an average of 5–7 million cubic metres per year. The claim that everything is being cut down and therefore the amendments are needed does not hold water.
The new requirements will also mean additional costs – about 800–1000 euros per hectare. Therefore, it must be emphasised that the clear-felling diameter is one of the criteria for clear-felling, and it is not an order that felling must be carried out, but rather a choice – whether to invest in planting, tending, and gaining the opportunity to harvest the yield sooner, or to wait for the felling age parameter to be reached.
Forest owners must be trusted
Māris Liopa, head of the Confederation of Forest Owners and Managers of Latvia:
“The arguments mentioned by nature conservation organisations cannot be a reason for us, forest owners, not to be able to manage our own forests, just as they do in our neighbouring countries. In these same neighbouring countries, nature conservation requirements are also being met. Would that mean that in our own land, we do not trust our own forest owners? We have learned how to manage with advice and to think about the future in all aspects! I do not understand where the nonsensical idea has come from that everyone will immediately rush to cut everything down. We must understand that there is economic forest and there are protected areas. They must not be confused with one another!
By the way, economic activity in the forest often improves biological diversity, rather than a total ban on economic activity.
I am extremely worried about the desire to turn everything possible into protected areas, often with very weak justification, without thinking about compensation for the owners.
At this moment alone, 208 million euros would have to be paid out in compensation for these obligations.”
The older the forest, the more diverse
Botanist, member of the Latvian Fund for Nature council, Lelde Eņģele:
“Regarding the reduction of the felling diameter in clear-felling, there has been no general risk assessment as such. The regulatory amendments provide that thinner, and therefore consequently younger, trees can be felled. In the short term, this opens up new areas for felling, and as a result, there will be even more clear-cut areas than before. The fragmentation of mature forests will increase. Secondly, if it is permitted to fell younger trees, trees might never reach their current sizes – if there is market demand, they will fell as much as is profitable for the owner and as much as is available.
For example, if currently in a *damaksnis* (the most fertile pine forest type, which the amendments to the felling regulations would affect most significantly) one can fell 101-year-old pines or a pine that has grown to 39 centimetres in diameter, then according to the amendments, this tree could be felled upon reaching 30 centimetres in diameter. Thus, we might no longer see a 39-centimetre thick pine in a *damaksnis*. And that is just an example. The longer a forest develops, the more different species it contains.”