Note by zemeunvalsts.lv

When observing the “social media storm” mentioned in the article online, one can discern a similarity to days of old or to the present day beyond our eastern border: namely, “the storm-raisers” have only one source of information and they believe only one explanation of the situation or one leader. At the same time, these “storm-mongers” rarely miss an opportunity to shoot their mouths off about diversity and variety. Just how much state-level thinking can be expected from people who are deliberately narrow-minded and intentionally want to know as little as possible would be a question worthy of a serious study.

In recent weeks, the forestry sector has experienced several developments that have not only caused a stir on social media but will also have a tangible financial impact on both state and private forest owners' budgets.

Shortly before Midsummer, the government concluded five years of discussions and, unexpectedly quickly, agreed to allow the felling of smaller and younger trees in the forest. Henceforth, the permissible tree felling diameter is 30 cm for pine, 26 cm for spruce, and 25 cm for birch. Previously, felling diameters were determined based on soil fertility, so the scale of this reduction can be viewed in two ways. On one hand, in the most fertile soils, the previous minimum diameter requirements were 39 cm, 31 cm, and 31 cm respectively, but in reality, timber usually reached the market from stands with average soil fertility, which had minimum diameter requirements of 32 cm, 28 cm, and 26 cm respectively.

The Forest Owners' Association views this government decision as a “half-step towards trust”. It will allow for more rational management, especially at a time when demand for timber is growing both in the context of energy challenges and to provide timber as an eco-friendly substitute for fossil raw materials. A large amount of deadwood is desirable in protected forests, but in commercial forests, it is seen as a sign of poor management – instead of the timber reaching processing companies, it rots in the woods.

“Compared to other countries in the region, Latvia's regulatory framework has been one of the most bureaucratic to date, taking little account of climate change risks, such as storms and mass insect outbreaks. In Estonia, felling volumes are very similar to what has now been adopted here. In Finland, there are no diameter or age restrictions at all, but there is a fundamental requirement that areas must be reforested. Sweden also has no diameter restriction; trees may be felled once they have reached 45 years of age. This explains the significant volume of deadwood in our forests – we are among the leaders in the EU,” points out association head Arnis Muižnieks. (...)