Forestry in Latvia will not be able to sequester enough CO₂ emissions to compensate for the emissions of other sectors. In fact, in none of the current possible scenarios can Latvia achieve its set climate neutrality goal.
Such harsh (or clear) findings were heard at a meeting of the Saeima’s Sustainable Development Committee. It should be recalled that Latvia must reduce emissions by 17% and ensure the sequestration of 644,000 tonnes of CO₂ by 2030. The 2023 report on greenhouse gas emission projections, policies, and measures shows that the land-use sector, despite providing stable sequestration, is moving further away from achieving its ambitious—and perhaps unrealistically set—goal every year. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the implementation costs of the measures included in the National Energy and Climate Plan (assuming they are implemented to the maximum extent) would be 1.56 billion euros (based on currently accepted price ceilings for such measures). This sum seems small compared to what is needed for the transport sector—more than 10 billion euros.
Several new restrictions
Andis Purs, Director of the Forest Department at the Ministry of Agriculture, explained that the forest industry will be affected by various different activities, namely the goals of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, such as increasing protected area coverage on land and at sea by up to 30% by 2030, including designating 10% of territory for strict protection. It also aims to ensure that by 2030, the conservation status and trends of all species and habitats protected by nature directives do not deteriorate, and that a favourable conservation status or clearly positive trend is secured for at least 30% of species and habitats that do not currently have one. The Nature Restoration Law will also affect the industry, which had a net turnover of about 5.5 billion euros in 2022 and employed approximately 40,000 people. It must be remembered that the overall impact will be much greater, as those working in the industry also use services and goods from other sectors. “All the mentioned factors will affect timber availability and, consequently, the entire industry,” says Andis Purs.
For now, only a “biological” solution
“The dilemma regarding land use is very difficult because there is a goal for 2050, yet technological solutions are only at an experimental level, and there is growing pressure to solve the issue in a ‘biological way’,” stated Arvīds Ozols, Director General of the State Forest Service. He acknowledged that there have already been discussions in Saeima committees about what to do with the peat sector in Latvia, as both its extraction and the unrecultivated areas of former extraction sites cause emissions that would need to be covered by sequestration in forests—which is impossible to do.
“There is interest in peat in Latvia because substrates are produced from it, which are used for growing both agricultural products and tree seedlings,” notes A. Ozols. He emphasises that emissions will mean buying the corresponding quotas. “Every sector is important; the peat sector generates 1.4% of total Latvian export revenue and provides work for about 2,000 people in rural areas, and together with related industries, that is about 5,000 jobs,” Dace Ozola, a representative of the Latvian Peat Association, responded to the idea of potentially sacrificing the sector to achieve overall emission goals, adding that discussions on these issues will be tough, but one should not throw around statements about the insignificance of any industry.
No answers from the state
“The industry is waiting for answers. Several years ago, the so-called ‘nature census’ was completed in Latvia, and an informative report was prepared, which... has been delayed for more than two years. Fundamentally, this should be the Natura 2000 plan for organising the network of nature areas, but environmental organisations believe it should become almost a ‘roof document’ for nature conservation in Latvia,” says Kristaps Klauss, Vice President of the Latvian Forest Industry Federation, assessing the situation. He explains that, unfortunately, Latvia does not know how to protect specific natural values, but rather (mostly) acts according to the well-known saying, “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”
“To protect one habitat of European importance covering 1 hectare in Latvia, a restriction is set for ~3 hectares. If we calculate that ~56,000 hectares of habitats would additionally have to end up in the Natura 2000 network, following current practice in Latvia, this would mean at least 150,000 hectares of forest. You can understand for yourselves why we are so cautious, as the primary goal is an obvious desire to impose restrictions on mature forests, which currently account for approximately 450,000 hectares in commercial forests, excluding grey alder. The question for timber manufacturers is clear: what reduction in resource availability should we count on? Responsible state institutions do not answer this question. Of course, the worst-case scenario for the industry is if 50 percent or more is removed from forestry circulation for 20-30 years,” calculates K. Klauss. He points out that 60% of turnover in the timber industry is directly dependent on the availability of roundwood, and only about 20% comes from, for example, furniture manufacturers, for whom it is not essential whether timber resources are extracted in Latvia or not.
Will we burn wood and buy CO₂ quotas?
“From 2025, the forest industry must take responsibility for both agriculture and peat. This could lead to a situation where a point in the Renewable Energy Directive states that renewable, sustainable fuel is only that which comes from a country where the entire land sector has CO₂ sequestration. The forest sector will have sequestration, but agriculture and peat will always be in emissions. This is absurd because there are emissions in arable land, but wood fuel has suddenly become unsustainable,” says K. Klauss. He recalls that in recent years, Latvia has rapidly transitioned from imported natural gas to the use of burning wood. Specifically, in 2023, natural gas consumption in Latvia was less than 8.5 TWh, compared to nearly 9 TWh in 2022, 12.7 TWh in 2021, and 14.5 TWh in 2019. “In six years, Latvia has reduced natural gas consumption by 6 TWh. Meanwhile, wood chip consumption has grown from 7.2 to 8.5 TWh, remembering how warm last winter (2022-2023) was. In a normal winter, it goes without saying that 2 TWh in energy have been added specifically through wood chip consumption,” says K. Klauss.
Like trying to hold water with a sieve
“There are just over 9,450 days left until EU climate neutrality. Brussels proudly declares this on its website. The slogan Fit for 55 is more like a lady's New Year's resolution to reach a certain weight by beach season, while – for gentlemen – not to exceed a certain clothing size threshold . If we ignore the question ‘do we really need this?’ and get to – ‘how to do it?’ – unfortunately, neither the Brussels website nor the strategies, directives, or regulations prepared by the institutions of this EU term provide an answer,” concludes K. Klauss. In his opinion, this should not be called negligence. “I suspect that there was no intention to give such an answer from the very beginning. To develop a detailed regulatory act that has passed a reality (practical) test, very careful and time-consuming work is required. This means that during the term of this European Parliament, only a few documents of this content and type could be issued, but... that did not suit the politicians—they wanted to set directions and give inspiring speeches. Therefore, we have plenty of ‘broad-frame regulatory acts,’ leaving the details to subordinates, who ‘bump into the wall of reality one after another’,” K. Klauss is critical. He expresses hope that the group of European Parliament members elected in the summer of 2024 will learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, as they will have to carry the burden of ‘how can it actually be done?’ that has been inherited from the visionaries of the previous parliament. “During the current term, the focus was shifted, using the age-old distraction strategy against the land management and use sector: ‘Stop the thief!’.”
Specifically, if growing stock in EU forests has increased by 42% since 1990, or from 19 to 28 billion m³, the rest of the world has lost 2% or 11.5 billion m³ in forests during this time. The European Union emits approximately 3 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually from the consumption of various fossil products and cement production. Until now, forests together with wood products have captured and stored approximately 355+42=397 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions from the atmosphere each year. Even if we stopped logging (and thus stopped storing carbon in finished wood products), in the coming years we could count on 355 (existing growth) + 500 (stopping cutting volumes) - 42 (there will be no roundwood from which to produce wood products) = 813 million tonnes of CO₂ sequestration. So, someone wants to solve a 3-billion-tonne problem with 450 million tonnes of additional sequestration in forests, where the side effect is the destruction of one of the greenest industries and the indirect stimulation of CO₂ emission-intensive sectors (cement, metal, fossil fuels),” K. Klauss explains the significance of the problem.