A forest is not a sentimental fairy tale about "teenage trees"; it is an economic and ecological resource that demands active, skilled management. In Latvia and the Scandinavian countries — Finland, for instance, where forests cover more than half the national territory — passive "protection" means only one thing: trees rotting, carbon emissions rising and substantial losses to the national economy.

The debate about forestry (or forest felling, as the uninformed and the non-specialists theatrically call it), stoked by demagogues such as Madara Merle writing in the magazine "Klubs" (January 2026 issue), ignores the facts: mature forests must be felled (or harvested) at the moment they reach maximum productivity, rather than being left to collapse, feeding pests and releasing CO₂. The article in "Klubs" in fact explains why felling is a sustainable necessity and not some invented "crime against nature".

Why a forest must be felled once the trees have grown...

It seems that certain "friends of the environment" — unfortunately far too loud, not always competent or wise, yet for reasons hard to fathom much favoured in some circles of society — love to dream of forests as romantic museums or pretty postcards where the trees "stand forever".

In reality, mature trees — Latvian pines reaching the age of 101, say, or spruces at 81 — have to be cut down (and put to good use) in order to regenerate the forest and prevent its degradation. If this is not done, the trees begin to deteriorate (to rot), releasing carbon into the atmosphere rather than storing it. According to research, dead trees not only fail to absorb CO₂, they release it at eight times the rate of a year's burning of fossil fuels. Forestry in Latvia is sustainable: annual growth exceeds felling volumes by 20-30%, ensuring that forest area continues to increase. In Latvia and Scandinavia, forests are a cornerstone of the economy. Our forestry sector generates 20% of export revenue, employs tens of thousands of people and drives the bioeconomy, in which timber replaces plastics and fossil resources. If we let the trees rot, we lose not only money but also the chance to fight climate change.

Mature forests become vulnerable to pests such as bark beetles, which destroy many thousands of hectares. Climate change only sharpens that risk: warmer winters allow pests to multiply, and dying forests become disease hotspots. In Finland, where no minimum tree diameter or age is set for harvesting, forestry rests on the owner's decisions and on sustainability, allowing action to be taken when it makes economic and ecological sense. The Finns know what they are doing!

Demagoguery about "teenage trees"

In her article for "Klubs", Madara Merle resorts to a cheap trick — one with no bearing whatsoever on competence or knowledge — comparing trees to people and claiming that we are felling "teenagers", which is in fact nonsense that ignores the facts and the science. In Latvia, pines are felled at 101 years, spruces at 81 and birches at 71. These are not "teenagers" but mature trees that have reached their maximum height and in some cases have already begun to die. The comparison with humans is deliberately (and purposefully) skewed and absurd: a forest is not a family but an ecosystem, in which old trees compete with young ones for space and resources. M. Merle's argument is, sadly, the customary emotional manipulation that appeals to sentiment rather than data. (It should be added that over recent decades, where forests and the related industries are concerned, falsehoods about the sector have been deliberately "drip-fed" to part of Latvian society, not without deliberate support from the state and from the media. There is a bleak and unpleasant comparison to be drawn here: if you look online at Russian series or films made from roughly 2008 onwards, you will notice from time to time seemingly small, seemingly casual references to "terrible" neighbours, to the mistakes of Europe and NATO, to Ukraine's "wrong" conduct. They are not stated directly, but in passing — and regularly. In one film, then another, then a third, and ... the result, sadly, is there for us to see.) If a forest is not felled in good time, the old trees shade out the young ones, reducing the forest's productivity and increasing the risk of fire, as can be seen elsewhere: forest felling blocked by so-called environmental activists after windstorms has led to mass collapse and to fires.

Demagoguery leads to real losses. So-called environmental activists, actively lobbying for bans (in Latvia such lobbying evidently counts as a fight against red tape), ignore the fact that unfelled forests become a "dead zone" — the trees rot, releasing methane and CO₂, and biodiversity suffers because trees of varying ages are absent. Forest growth in Latvia is around 20 million m³ a year and we fell considerably less, which is proof of sustainability rather than destruction. Finnish legislation sets no age limits on felling; forests are managed efficiently, harvested at 60-80 years of age, before they begin to degrade.

The "achievements" of VARAM and the so-called environmental activists are trees rotting across large areas

How do pressure from so-called environmental activists and decisions by VARAM leave trees to rot? Following the Constitutional Court ruling in 2024, more than 1000 felling permits have been withdrawn, affecting thousands of hectares of forest. Many forest owners may no longer fell on their own property, and as a result mature forests
stand untouched, slowly dying, losing quality and becoming breeding grounds for pests. Protected areas in Latvia continue to expand because of short-sighted decisions by VARAM (how do these square with the interests of national security? Real security, which requires real money, not the kind dreamt up in some article or broadcast). Invented and not always justified micro-reserves and protection zones remove tens of thousands of hectares of forest from economic use, where the trees simply collapse instead of being used.

"Environmental activists'" protests against harvesting in protected areas, for example, have created a situation in which forests become unproductive, pests spread, carbon is released and the economy suffers losses running into hundreds of millions of euros. The blocking of lawful forestry practice by VARAM and environmental activists only intensifies forest degradation. International examples bear this out. In the USA, so-called environmental groups have blocked harvesting after natural disasters, causing forests to collapse and burn, releasing more CO₂ than felling ever would have. (It should be added that a series of recent events — those surrounding the Skrīveri oak avenue, for instance — show that environmental problems in Latvia are frequently linked solely and exclusively to economic activity, with attempts to restrict precisely that; nor should it come as any surprise that energetic opponents of Latvia's forestry sector call for the war in Ukraine to be forgotten, and so on. Sadly, that is no surprise at all!)

Genuine, far-sighted protection is sustainable management

The paranoid campaign against the forestry sector and the emotional manipulation encouraged by various activities, articles among them (such as M. Merle's text mentioned above), only harm nature and people. A forest must be felled at maturity in order to regenerate it, to provide income for the owner and the state, and to fight climate change. Latvia is a "green giant" with sustainable forestry that delivers biocapacity six times the world average. If, ignorant but enthusiastic, we go on listening to VARAM and to the environmental demagogues who set their agenda, we will lose not only our trees but also our
future. It is time to stop dreaming and start acting, as the prosperous Scandinavian countries have long been doing!

(If anyone objects to the word "prosperous", it is time to learn or recall the annual debates on the state budget and what it can afford, and to bear in mind that security, nature conservation and regional development are impossible without a financial foundation.)