In recent years there has been no let-up in the discussions about the supposedly harmful effect that reducing the felling age and diameter of trees has on the climate, on human wellbeing and on biodiversity.
If comparative categories are used – reduced, younger, thinner, smaller and so on – it is necessary to understand what the comparison is being made with; moreover, it must be remembered that in interpreting laws the conceptual aspect is often very important, so as to understand why such a norm was laid down or came about in the first place.
Latvian law sets out the methods of interpreting legal norms, specifically:
Administrative Procedure Law
Section 17. Interpretation of legal norms and analogy
(1) In interpreting (construing) a legal norm, an institution and a court shall use the following basic methods of interpretation:
1) the grammatical (philological) method of interpretation, that is, ascertaining the meaning of the legal norm from a linguistic point of view;
2) the historical method of interpretation, that is, ascertaining the meaning of the legal norm by taking into account the circumstances on the basis of which it was created;
3) the systemic method of interpretation, that is, ascertaining the meaning of the legal norm in connection with other legal norms;
4) the teleological (meaning and purpose) method of interpretation, that is, ascertaining the meaning of the legal norm on the basis of the useful and just purpose that is to be achieved by the legal norm concerned.
Hence the logical question – where these parameters were taken from or arose from, why such a norm was laid down at all, and what it grew out of. Speaking of the legal acts of the Republic of Latvia that directly concern forests and the forest sector, in my view one should start with 1923 and 1937.
Why?
In 1923 the first Forest Protection Law of independent Latvia was adopted… Quite short, but it remained in force until 1937, when a longer and expanded legal act was drafted and adopted. Both laws also included nature protection matters; they spoke, for example, of forests to be conserved, of natural monuments, parks and avenues. As is known, protected territories existed both in pre-war Latvia and earlier still (the Moricsala reserve, established in 1912). The 1937 law developed further what had been adopted before.
In connection with a question that is topical today – sustainable forest management – this matter was already mentioned in the 1937 Forest Protection Instruction, which was drawn up as a supplement to the law. As is known, in 1937 the status of the Saeima was “inactive” – legally it existed as an institution provided for in the Satversme, but in reality it did not function, and the law was adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers. Judged on the substance, the two pre-war Latvian forest protection laws did not differ greatly.
Neither of these two laws nor the instruction mentions a felling age or a felling diameter; that was the owner's choice. It is true that even then different rules applied to state-owned forests and to private ones. For example, it was not permitted to harvest more than the increment of the previous 10 years. There were exceptions to that rule, though – if you wanted to obtain trees from the forest for sale, the rule had to be observed, but if the wood was needed to renovate a dwelling or farm buildings, as much as was necessary could be obtained (even more) for own use. There were also other conditions that indirectly regulated felling volumes, for example, in some cases, the need to regenerate before felling could continue.
The USSR Forest Code and the Forest Management Planning Instruction
When Latvia lost its independence and the USSR occupation began, the USSR Forest Code and the Forest Management Planning Instruction were applied automatically. Why do I mention this? Neither the USSR Forest Code nor the later Latvian SSR one laid down felling ages at the level of law. They are to be found in the Forest Management Planning Instruction, which was a planning document.
In 1951 the All-Union forest management planning instruction was issued, setting the felling age class in pine stands of the highest site index classes (I-III) at 101-120 years, in pine stands of lower site index classes and in spruce stands at 81-100 years, in the birch and black alder management class of the highest site index classes (I-III) at 61-70 years and in the lower site index management class at 51-60 years; in the aspen management class the felling age class was 51-60 years from 1951 to 1958, and from 1959 – 41-50 years.
In the Soviet period Latvia adopted the Latvian SSR law of 14 December 1978 “On approval of the Forest Code of the Latvian SSR” (Latvijas PSR Augstākās Padomes un Valdības Ziņotājs, 1978, 51), which likewise contained no norms on felling age or on the diameter for final felling. It is true, though, that the Forest Management Planning Instruction was adopted on its basis, and this served as the foundation for forest inventory and forestry planning.
Historically, the term “cirtmets” has been used in Latvia. According to the terminology accepted in forest mensuration, the cirtmets is the age class whose lower limit is the felling age – the practice being that the stand also had to be felled within that period.
The age at which a stand is designated for felling on economic or silvicultural grounds is called the age of maturity. Under market economy conditions the age of forest maturity historically rested on the principle of the highest forest or land rent, whereas in socialist forestry the concept of maturity is linked to obtaining the greatest benefit for the national economy from the forest and from forestry. That is why so-called technical maturity was used in the commercial (Group II) forests of the Latvian SSR, that is, the age at which the mean increment of growing stock in the required assortments is greatest. Since the economy of the Latvian SSR needed large-dimension timber, technical maturity was determined mainly according to the maturity age of the medium-thick assortments.
This was assessed by the forest inventory; the trees in the forest of that time, under the forest management (or indeed non-management) of that time, had grown to the point where the required assortments could be obtained from them – that is how simply the felling age class “came about”; in the second half of the 1940s a study was produced in Latvia to justify why this, and precisely this, felling age class should be applied. The conclusion is short – it was the point at which a tree of the species concerned reached the optimum sawlog or construction log size (yield).
In effect we can speak of three assortment categories, leaving pulpwood aside – sawlogs, veneer logs and, for aspen, match blocks.
It can therefore be established that the final felling age is historically derived from the felling diameter, which in turn was set on the basis of the needs of the national economy and serves as a planning instrument.
The time of land reform in restored Latvia
The felling age of trees acquired the status of law considerably later, already in independent Latvia – in 1992. That was the time of land reform, when a large number of Latvia's inhabitants gradually recovered lost family properties, and so in the forest sector too, if I may put it that way, more than 140,000 “new” owners appeared, a large proportion of whom neither understood nor had any idea what to do with their newly acquired or newly recovered property. As mentioned above, in Soviet times felling ages were written into an instruction so that wood supplies would be even and sensible planning would be possible; now they were introduced as a norm in the Forest Law, “to keep owners in order”.
The 1992 law “On Forest Management and Use” largely took over the norms of the previous Latvian SSR law, apart from the norms on ownership rights, and introduced at the level of law norms from the Forest Management Planning Instruction, on the grounds of regulating forest management in an unclear ownership situation.
In 1994 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 24 “On Forest Management and Use” (adopted under the procedure laid down in Article 81 of the Satversme and later, in 1994, approved by the Saeima) largely took over the norms of the previous law, including felling ages, while retaining the division into forest categories introduced in the Soviet period, in accordance with which felling ages had previously been set.
The Forest Law was adopted by the Saeima on 24 February 2000. It sets the felling age of trees according to the site index (the quality of the growing conditions) and abandons forest categories – their place is taken by the regulation of the system of protected nature territories. This law also introduces the term “final felling diameter” – the mean diameter, at a height of 1.3 metres, of the first-storey trees of the dominant tree species in a stand, which has to be reached for the stand to be felled in a final felling before the final felling age is reached – although at the time the diameters were taken from the growth tables then available, showing how thick trees can grow by a given felling age – to a large extent a return to the old story of technical maturity, but without re-evaluating the conditions under the new economic and technological circumstances.
That time has passed too – forest owners have gained experience and learned, and many a property has changed owner, perhaps more than once. The forest has acquired not only the value of immediately saleable wood, but also the value of a long-term asset with capital appreciation; money can be made from it not only by selling wood but in other ways too, for example through carbon credits, and biodiversity credits are now in development as well (as is the still topical question of compensation).
If we assess how the felling age class and the diameter relate to climate issues, two things have to be considered – climate change mitigation and adaptation (adjusting to it). It must be remembered that the climate is changing regardless of us; I think more work is needed to find the best ways of helping the forest and forestry adapt to those changes. One need only look at the scientific research and so on.
Assessed over the long term, the forest is climate neutral
We can debate the factors that affect the climate. It is a fact that the amount of CO₂ is increasing and that “green life” takes it up in order to sustain (feed) itself. I hear two things emphasised much and often – that the forest will solve not everything but a great deal by taking up CO₂ (it should be remembered that the world's oceans take up more), and that the forest stores carbon, but... in all political documents and regulations the stock is not included, at least not in the calculation formulas; it has no bearing, what matters is only the dynamics, the increment and the mortality – the volume felled and the volume of natural mortality.
Another paradox we can argue about – in the forest (land) management sector, carbon uptake in the forest is not a solution. Assessed over the long term, the forest is climate neutral: it grows, it grows old, some of the trees die, new ones grow in their place, and a certain balance sets in between mortality and increment (between emissions and removals); the other option is that people fell the old trees and plant new ones in their place, or promote natural regeneration – this happens either in leaps or over a longer period, depending on the management method chosen. Both processes go on at the same time. What is the solution? Substitution – for example, if we build a building out of wood and use wooden components, we are not using fossil resources. Producing bricks or concrete consumes a fair amount of fossil resources. The real climate benefit lies in reducing the use of fossil resources. In my view, as long as the substitution of fossil resources is not added to all the formulas and discussions, the so-called climate battle over forests is pointless. What matters is halting deforestation, but that is not a forestry issue.
If we look at the political documents that are so often debated – look, we did (not) fulfil or did (not) reach the targets set for 2030 – one thing must be remembered: nature is neither warmed nor chilled by it; the targets are for people, not for nature.
Laws adopted by people can influence people's conduct and its results, not nature
If we talk about the LULUCF sector and the documents associated with it, we can do a great deal through accounting, reducing or restricting something (for example, cutting felling volumes administratively), and on paper everything will be in order. As I have already said, the sensible solution is to take the material that is available and that the trees have captured with solar energy, and to use it to replace the fossil material. If we broaden the view in this way, the argument about the age at which we fell trees will have no significance (from the climate point of view, that is). Political discussion should not touch technical instruments.
It has to be concluded, though, that these technical instruments have become a symbol of environmental protection on a local (but not only local) scale.
Not only local, because Latvia's experiences are not unique. I will repeat myself: when starting an argument about some question, one has to understand why something once arose or was created. If we have managed to forget, a person takes the situation as a constant. Fine, that can be done, but there is some point behind that constant.
These days we often hear alarmed exclamations: “Oh dear, now they are lowering the felling age! Oh no, and they are lowering the felling diameter too!” Lowering it from what? What is the so-called starting point? What is the argument about? In fact, the argument is about a tree age and a tree diameter that were set in their day in accordance with the economic needs of the state at that time and with the technological possibilities then available. The felling age class we are talking about was derived from the diameter, not the other way round, as is sometimes mistakenly claimed.
As for the felling ages of the various tree species, these, as I mentioned, came to the fore after the Second World War, when Latvia was occupied. Some 80 years have passed since then, in which we have managed to forget why such rules came about at all and what they were based on. Knowing the historical background, the current arguments look rather odd, as if the felling age or diameter for our forests had been given and laid down by God himself. That is not so; they were devised and adopted by people, taking into account certain considerations of the time. The importance of biodiversity and the importance of climate change are factors that have to be taken into account, but they are not in themselves the justification for those particular figures at the moment they came into being.
Where diameters are concerned, the old fallacy about “cutting down absolutely everything” resurfaces again.
Managing a property does not lead a person of common sense to the idea of destroying the property they live on and live from. The law should serve the public interest, restraining those who are not on friendly terms with common sense, but it must not be an obstacle to rational management or hinder managing flexibly, so as to respond adequately to the various risks whose likelihood is increasing, including because of the climate change already mentioned.
Another topical matter – reproaching forest managers, often “Latvijas valsts meži”, for allegedly incorrect forest management.
What is “Latvijas valsts meži” (LVM)? Latvia owns a property – forest – which requires professional management, which in turn requires a professional managing agent. LVM is a professional commercial agent in forest management, observing all the conditions connected with the particular features of the forest, with nature conservation (here it would be important to remember that nature conservation is needed not by nature but by people themselves, because... without people and their needs such a concept would not exist, and people themselves need a healthy living environment) and so on. Forest policy sets out two things – that the value of the capital should not decline and that the management of that capital should generate income. Admittedly, forest policy also sets environmental and social objectives, which apply equally to forests in every form of ownership – including the state's. LVM delivers those successfully as well.
An important fact should be recalled: we do not have many state-owned companies that pay dividends. Where does that money go? Into the budget. Who needs the budget – doctors, teachers, security, police officers, firefighters … I will not go on. These are elementary chains that are usually forgotten in discussions.
It is popular to urge earning less (in the forest) while spending more.
An elementary “socialist approach”. Redistribution does not create added value. If I take something from you and you take something from me, and a third party collects it, there will be no more wealth in total.
The dynamics of time have to be taken into account.
The geological perspective (the ice age and so on), which we cannot influence. The biological one – we can try to understand it as well as possible and use that knowledge in planning our forest management, producing long-term management plans as a result – that means several decades up to centuries. Investment – it depends whether the investment is in forestry or in forest-based industry, but it will be 5-10 or several tens of years. Then there is the political time dimension, which is basically about a single election cycle – that is very short compared with the other dimensions. Political decisions cannot influence natural processes, only human conduct.
Anything longer than that one cycle (4 years) will be regarded as long term. The medium term is “this year”, “next year”. Regulatory documents are adopted by politicians, who are “products” of the election cycle. What is the time perspective? Discussion about things that have effects over long periods takes place from a short-term perspective. Take, for example, the LULUCF issues that were sharply debated 10-12 years ago. What happened? An agreement was reached – we shall do it this way. All EU member states aligned their policies and regulations with the decision taken. The 2020s arrived – no, we shall have something new, we shall calculate differently! The 2030s are approaching – sorry – we shall have different targets under the new approach! In land management and forest management nothing changes that quickly! You can write it down in documents, but it will make no sense – natural processes take longer.