I am reading the article by environmental activist E. Cepurītis titled "Time to sound the alarm about Latvia's forests" (in the 14 January issue of the newspaper "Bauskas Dzīve") and I cannot believe my eyes! It feels as though I have returned at least 40 years into the past, reading a rallying cry from some fervent Komsomol member in "Komunisma Ceļā"! "Increased clear-felling areas", "privileges at others' expense", "narrow interest groups"… A dramatic scene is being conjured up with very convincing demagogic claims – disaster and destruction that will befall Latvia if the amendments to the tree-felling regulations proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture are approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.

Are we really in a situation where complex issues such as forest management are being analysed and solved by influencers, bloggers and politicians, rather than scientists who have accumulated many years of experience and a wealth of data? I am a practising forester myself; I am neither a doctor nor a master. I do not represent any political force either. The forest is both my job and my hobby. At university, I was taught that the forest is one of the most complex ecosystems. Therefore, I believe it would be more appropriate for comments and forecasts regarding the true state, dynamics and permissible management intensity of forest resources to be provided by Latvian forest scientists, rather than by ordinary forest owners, timber industry professionals or so-called environmental activists.

Demanding additional responsibility

I represent the local forest owners' association "Bārbele", which was founded 14 years ago. Our organisation consists of private forest owners, mostly from Zemgale, with a few from Sēlija. There are nearly one hundred members in total, many of whom I have met personally. I do not know any of them who would be "at the starting blocks" with a chainsaw running, waiting for the rule amendments. And do you know why? Because they want to be responsible stewards of their land! Even if all logging restrictions in the country were lifted, as has been the case in Finland for several years, I am convinced that they would continue to fell, plant and maintain their forests according to best silvicultural practices, rather than rushing to deplete and "violate" their properties. That is self-evident and logical. Furthermore, as far as I know, most of them have no intention of selling their properties, as they are well aware of the value of their forests.

Frankly speaking, I am not exactly a "fan" of the aforementioned rule amendments myself. On one hand, the proposed changes give the owner greater freedom of action; on the other, they impose greater responsibility and obligations. We do not always readily accept additional responsibility. However, I trust the findings of Latvian forest scientists. I am convinced that they can see the interconnections of things on a global scale better than I can and look far beyond the boundaries of my forest. To summarise in one sentence, forest scientists point out that if we continue to manage our forests in accordance with the tree-felling regulations (which were developed according to Soviet-era metrics), we will not be able to ensure the necessary levels of atmospheric carbon sequestration or increases in forest productivity in the long term. Of course, it will take a few decades to verify whether the scientists are right.

Economically more valuable

But what will forest owners experience if the rule amendments are nevertheless approved? One thing is for certain: managed forest properties will immediately become economically more valuable, and this value will tend to increase over time in the long run. This increase in value will be ensured by the fact that the volume of timber legally (but not necessarily!) available for felling will have increased. In turn, long-term value will be enhanced by the condition that if you want to fell a forest before it has reached a certain age, the cleared area must be replanted with commercially high-value tree species.

Will more intensive felling of forests begin after the adoption of the rule amendments? Looking at the members of the "Bārbele" association as a representative sample, I conclude that the answer is "no". For those who are not satisfied with this answer and who live in fear of potential uncontrolled forest felling, I recommend visiting the State Forest Service website, specifically the "Normatīvie akti" (Regulatory Acts) section. If not to study them, then at least to take a glance at the range of regulations and requirements that have been and will continue to be in force regarding forest management procedures in Latvia.

The industry is being slandered

Is it time to sound the alarm about Latvia's forests? Probably, yes. But not in the sense expressed by E. Cepurītis in his article. The alarm should rather be raised over the fact that private properties, including forests, are increasingly being burdened with various restrictions without the owners' consent, while no appropriate compensation is offered by the state.

Perhaps the alarm should have been sounded long ago regarding the targeted slandering and demonisation of the Latvian forest industry and those working within it, thereby inciting and dividing society? Perhaps the alarm should also be raised over the fact that, thirty years after the restoration of independence, the spirit of stewardship is still being scorned, forgetting that forestry has been a branch of agriculture since ancient times. It provides both work and livelihood for tens of thousands of residents and significant revenue for the state budget. Let us be vigilant and critical in our judgements when listening to the radio, watching TV or reading newspapers! Especially when it comes to such a sensitive topic as tree-felling. By the way, it is a very grateful topic for someone or a group of like-minded people to seek to build their political capital upon.

*Head of the forest owners' association "Bārbele"
(Article first published in the newspaper "Bauskas Dzīve", 3 March 2020)