As we approach 29 October, the date of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia’s 11th International Conference* “Environment and Sustainable Forest and Land Management – Current Solutions”, an interview with Āris Jansons, one of the conference speakers – forests, Latvia, the European Union, impact.
To what extent is the forestry sector in Latvia influenced by the European Union and its institutions, which, on the one hand, emphasise the diversity of member states while, on the other, effectively trying to standardise them in some way; and to what extent is it shaped by the long-standing knowledge of local people, industry professionals, and experts?
Data compiled by the European Forest Institute shows that at the time Latvia joined the European Union, 3-5 EU-level regulations affecting forests and forestry were issued per year. Currently, that number has reached 50-90 regulations annually. It is clear that this has an impact!
For the majority of EU member states, the forestry sector does not hold the same economic significance as it does for us and the countries in our region. Therefore, this “majority” (the citizens of those respective countries) does not understand our narrative particularly well; furthermore, it must be remembered that this “majority” are voters, which in reality creates a quite complex and even challenging situation for us. What can we do, and what are we already doing? We are engaging more actively and forming groups (collaborating) with those countries for whom the forestry sector is a sufficiently significant part of the economy. For example, the For Forest + group, of which Latvia is a member, “represents” more than 60% of Europe’s total forest area. For Forest + is an informal group, but through it, we can try to increase the visibility and awareness of the issue more broadly across Europe.
Do a large portion of the documents produced in Brussels, which, to repeat, whether we like it or not, try to shape the whole of Europe to be the same in some way, actually and practically hinder Latvia and Northern Europe? (Which, by the way, is impossible in principle.)
That is indeed the case! For example, the new European Bioeconomy Strategy emphasises wood processing and plans for increased investment in new, innovative wood products, which is very important. At the same time, the section that should have considered how to obtain these products – by growing forests and increasing productivity – was not noticed at all. It is pleasing that, by engaging in discussions in various forums, it has been possible to improve the situation. For example, in recent talks, European Commission representatives have significantly more noticeably and frequently emphasised the promotion of forest growth as an essential element of the bioeconomy. The situation is not rosy, but it is not hopeless either – one must go and defend the relevant interests, while constantly reminding oneself that the majority of European Union citizens live in cities located in countries where the forestry sector has little economic significance – it is natural that they know little about it. Therefore, it is necessary to explain, explain, and explain.
One example that illustrates the understanding of forestry among European residents: a recent survey in Great Britain found that over the last 10 years, the proportion of people who are against any kind of tree felling has increased from 25% to ~40%. But... the same survey clearly concluded that a wooden table is undoubtedly better than a plastic one. What is there to add?
As we know, the number of people who do not understand (do not know) that milk does not originate on a shop shelf is increasing, and the number of people who do not understand that a board does not “just appear” in a factory is also rising... To get there, someone works, grows trees, fells them, and then processes them... Informing the public is very, very important, and this is not just a Latvian problem, but a much wider one. Cooperation is also very important here, which is why we have very recently resumed active participation in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations forest communicators' network.
The Forest Sector Guidelines are currently under discussion. In your opinion, what should the industry have started doing in this regard “yesterday”?
A question that has been brought to the fore right now is land stratification, or the division of land according to different primary usage purposes and the determination of the respective proportions. This is not a matter for individual forest owners, but a question of forest policy, which is critically important. Why? If it is not clear what the area available for economic activity will be in the future, we cannot forecast wood availability either. In turn, without clear wood availability, we cannot hope to attract large-scale investment to Latvia. If there is no certainty, there is no focus on the specific actions essential for achieving effective results. This applies not only to deep wood processing. It is also important in environmental protection to transition to quality, to promote the improvement of habitat conditions, and to manage biotopes. However, there is a lack of focus and resources for this if the constant thought is only on how to increase the area. Consequently, there is also no result. The transition from quantity to quality is critically important.
Percentages. The dynamism of nature. The reasonableness of frameworks. Are these taken into account, and if so, how?
The question should be answered in two parts – regarding what has been determined, and regarding what we would like to achieve in relation to the mentioned guidelines and other legal acts.
Regarding what has been determined: existing protected areas have been established for specific purposes, which are largely justified. There is a clear understanding of the strict protection required for species sensitive to disturbance. Talking about plans – they relate to the other portion of forests, which is primarily allocated or to be allocated for biological diversity – where the principle of dynamic nature conservation could be applied. It is similar to “money follows the student” – in this case, “protection follows the protected”. That is, if a species that is essential not to disturb resides in a specific moment and place – we protect it; if it moves elsewhere after a few years – the restriction moves with it. In practical implementation, of course, it is not that simple, so we have started cooperation between ministries and with scientists in several projects, and we are also looking for examples of solutions outside of Latvia. We will find them!
Regarding problems in the forestry sector. If we set aside the supposed current issues of this year – timber industrialists and the management of “Latvijas valsts meži” – what else is a practical problem in our forests that requires a solution?
We have three groups of issues to resolve ahead of us, two of which are related to the need to adapt to a changing climate.
One is increasing forest productivity. The most significant issue in this is the more sensible construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of drainage systems. Starting with the environmental impact assessment process – we are working on simplifying it wherever possible. We are also working on a perspective of the catchment area as a whole and on solutions that allow work to be carried out while creating as little environmental impact as possible. Because not maintaining and not building drainage systems is not an option for a large part of our forest lands if we want to see vital and well-growing forest stands. And not only well-growing but also resistant to climate risks – as tree roots reach deeper into the soil, trees are more resistant to storms. Another element of climate risks is more frequent long periods of drought – therefore, scientists are working on “smart” drainage solutions that would allow water to be drained when there is too much and retained when there is too little.
The second is motivating forest owners, or more accurately – supporting motivated forest owners. The most significant instrument in this is the target diameter of trees. By working purposefully, this diameter can be reached faster – therefore, deciding faster – to participate in the wood market immediately or perhaps, by waiting for a moment with a more favourable price, participate in the carbon credit or biodiversity credit market. The planned changes in this indicator will place our country's forest owners in more similar competitive positions to forest owners in neighbouring countries. From an environmental perspective – a practical experiment with a smaller target diameter over a period of more than a year has already taken place. We see that it did not lead to larger felling areas, significantly higher logging volumes, or any other extreme shifts.
The third problem to solve is public awareness. Investment in higher forestry education is essential, increasing the number of people who are very knowledgeable about forest and environmental issues. It is also important to invest in various types of awareness-raising activities – whether on the portal zemeunvalsts.lv, through the media, or through other activities in the forest or indoors. It is complex, it is a big job that requires a common understanding of what we want to achieve. Do we work and act in the forest, or do we do nothing, let trees fall and rot, while people slowly gather in Riga and the rest of Latvia remains empty? That is not a vision we can support. Therefore, we are actively working not only on the Forest Sector Guidelines but also on the document for the next phase of Latvia’s National Development Plan. Without wood, there is no bioeconomy, and without a bioeconomy, there is neither development nor low environmental impact.
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/lmsp-11-starptautiska-konference-vide-un-ilgtspejiga-meza-un-zemes-1