Although 2020 will go down in history for the coronavirus invasion and the battle to contain it, terms like Europe’s “Green Deal,” “green bargain,” “circular economy,” and the greening of the economy are appearing ever more frequently in everyday conversation. At the same time, a peculiar sorting of sectors has begun in Europe, partly in an attempt to prevent “greenwashing,” which is being used to lure consumers.

For European foresters (at least some of them), the “Green Deal” seems like a unique opportunity. It is, and will be, but there are a few BUTs to consider. And what might these BUTs be?!

And yet... first of all, at least in Latvia's case, the area of land subject to nature conservation is likely to increase. The most important question will be: HOW much? Another very pressing question: which territories (forests, fields, mires) will this increase affect? By answering these two very important questions, we will be able to gain significant insight both for ourselves and regarding the development of the timber industry, which cannot exist without wood – and thus, without logging. If large areas of forest are removed from commercial use specifically for nature conservation purposes, it will mean fewer raw materials for timber processors. This realization, in turn, means that timber industry players working in Latvia (employers, taxpayers, contributors to the state treasury...*), looking to the future, must take into account the decline in the flow of raw materials – wood – from Latvia's forests. Consequently, any investment with a payback period potentially longer than 5 years also carries additional risk – there will be demand for the products from abroad, but the available wood resources in Latvia will be dwindling. The question remains the same: how much less? Over the coming years, annual timber harvesting volumes will shrink from the current 12-13 million cubic metres. How much will be harvested in Latvia each year: 10 million m3 or even less, and at the expense of what kind of wood? Oh yes, there is also the risk that environmental impact assessments might become mandatory for clear-felling, as well as the idea from our feathered friends about a “quiet period” for logging during the bird nesting season from April to the end of June! This means that local timber extraction will decrease and become more expensive. (Please, read the words marked with * in the parentheses above once more, carefully and with understanding!)

Of course, there is another measure that could turn forestry itself completely upside down. Namely, if forest owners currently derive their income from selling the wood or roundwood assortments grown on their property, in the future that might not be the case. How so? It is quite simple: a rather clever thing has been invented, namely, ecosystem services, which can be sold. In fact, selling ecosystem services will be a counterpoint to manufacturing wood products. In 2019, a socio-economic assessment of measures to restore the favourable status of habitats and species protection was conducted in Latvia, in which one can find some very striking quotes in black and white.

“In accordance with the ES indicators evaluated in the Assessment, it was determined that the highest biophysical values belong to active raised bogs, transition mires, and quaking bog habitats. In the short term, over a 12-year period, the biophysical values of ES habitats mostly increase following the implementation of management or restoration measures. Positive changes as a result of investments are expected for all grassland habitats, grey dunes, wet inter-dune depressions, heaths, swampy forests, lakes, and degraded raised bogs where natural regeneration is possible or underway. In the long term, over a 30-year period following the implementation of management or restoration measures, the biophysical values of ecosystem services for alluvial forests, swamp forests, and mixed oak, elm, and ash forests along major rivers will improve. Based on the ES indicators evaluated within the framework of this study, the highest biophysical value of ecosystem services for the 30-year long-term period after the implementation of management and restoration measures belongs to coastal and floodplain grassland habitats.

The ES assessment indicators with the highest economic return in “Natura 2000” network protected areas are for cultural services, and active and passive leisure recreation opportunities. The total indicator value across all habitat groups is 284 million EUR. The habitat group with the highest calculated total current economic value per hectare is wet inter-dune depressions, which amounts to 15,835.31 euros/ha.”

Did you read that? Is it clear to you now – the economic value of habitats will increase – and if you don't have any habitats, it's your own fault! Landowners whose properties contain (or will contain) such habitats... will suddenly... become filthy rich. Seriously! Who will pay for it?! Perhaps the source of this river of money will be the European Union? Yes, perhaps!?! But it could also be as it is now, namely, that “in the name of public interest,” it is borne on the shoulders of those landowners who have already had restrictions placed on their economic activities or have been completely prohibited from using their own properties.

Questions again. If we are talking about Latvia, logically, this approach should apply to all EU member states. That is how it should be! But will it be???? Already, for instance, in the “deadwood volume championship,” Latvia is a stable leader. Other forest-rich countries, such as Finland, have no intention of approaching the championship leader's performance, let alone coming close to it.

Strange?! No, it’s a natural consequence! What should be done in this situation? There is one suggestion – to establish a company called “Latvian luft” or “Latvian air” and... sell oxygen or CO2 sequestration to companies that (according to the regulations) are supposed to be green, but can only meet these rules or requirements by “buying” the corresponding “greenness” in some other place, for example, Latvia. Nonsense?! No!!!! Colleagues, what could be better than the simple trade of simple air?????!!!! Oh, yes, a small nuance: if the payment for “producing” air becomes more attractive than selling wood, what kind of bioeconomy are we talking about? And will we be talking about one at all?