One of the most popular methods for spreading disinformation is the “cherry-picking” of various facts and figures, removing them from the big picture or general context, and creatively weaving them into a new story with an entirely different subtext. Sometimes this “deception” happens unconsciously if a person is not quite the expert they claim to be, yet still has a strong desire to justify the validity of their opinion. In such cases, facts are often simply replaced by emotionally charged messages. We could see a similar approach quite clearly in the recent discussions regarding the forestry sector.

There were certain groups of people who passionately opposed the idea that forest owners in Latvia should be allowed to harvest trees of a similar size to those permitted for our neighbours in Estonia, for example. One of the arguments put forward to journalists by the protest organiser, Jānis Balodis, was that as younger forests develop in Latvia, the proportion of old trees within them will decrease. This, in turn, could impact the hazel grouse population, as these birds purportedly nest in the hollows of old trees. This alarming message “spread among the public” (1), despite the fact that hazel grouse do not nest in tree hollows, but on the ground.

Similarly, in an attempt to convince others of the validity of their individual views, representatives of professional organisations sometimes slip up. In this instance, it is worth mentioning a representative of Latvijas Banka, Edvards Kušners, who, at a government meeting deciding on the forestry potential for increasing the availability of wood chips for fuel, stated that net exports of wood chips amounted to 1.5 million tonnes.

The thing is, there are different types of wood chips – to put it simply, one quality is primarily suitable for fuel, while higher-quality chips, known as cellulose chips and usually more expensive, are intended for the production of other wood products such as fibreboard, pellets, or cellulose. Furthermore, the net export of fuel wood chips (exports minus imports) is not 1.5 million, but nearly eight times less – in 2020, it was 0.18 million tonnes.

Even if we find market or administrative tools that make the export of fuel wood chips impossible, this will not resolve the rapid increase in local demand over the coming year. According to calculations by the Ministry of Economics and myself, over the next year, as centralised heating transitions from natural gas to wood fuel, the demand for fuel wood chips in Latvian boiler houses will likely increase by approximately 1 TWh, or 1.2 million loose cubic metres. Even the most conservative estimates suggest that the amendments to the regulations will increase availability by 288 thousand loose cubic metres of fuel wood chips, which will cover about a quarter of the increase in demand.

This is certainly not the same as “pouring a bucket into a pond”, as Mr Kušners let slip during the meeting. The latest market trends show that both imports and exports of all grades of wood chips are decreasing. Moreover, export volumes are falling faster than imports. This trend is very important, as our import options have diminished significantly since Russia, with the involvement of Belarus, started its brutal war in Ukraine. In previous years, Belarusian wood chips held a significant place in Latvia's energy sector.

In one of Mr Kušners' recent interviews, we can observe that either he has developed prejudices against the Latvian forestry and timber industry as a whole, or his communication skills need significant improvement, as journalists may have thoroughly misunderstood what he said. (2)

For example, a biased statement regarding the timber industry as a “small industry that produces an average of 5.5% of GDP annually but consumes close to 60% of all manufacturing energy consumption” caused widespread confusion among those working in the industry and experts alike. It is true that the timber industry is energy-intensive, because a lot of heat is needed to dry the material, and technological processes are also electricity-intensive. However, why must this energy intensity be described in, to put it mildly, such a manipulative way, misleading readers and presenting the timber industry as an extremely inefficient sector? It is correct to compare figures on the same scale; namely, if there is a desire to compare the timber industry's contribution to GDP, it would be correct to compare it with its share in total energy consumption, which is not 60%, but five times less – approximately 12%. On the other hand, if there is a desire to emphasise that the timber industry's energy consumption accounts for approximately 60% of manufacturing in 2020, then it is indeed strange to omit the fact that the timber industry also accounts for a quarter of Latvia's manufacturing GDP.

However, it seems to me that this was not a mistake, but a deliberate manipulation on the part of Mr Kušners, as the full quote from the interview is: “[...] a small industry – the timber industry, which produces 5.5% of GDP on average annually but consumes close to 60% of all manufacturing energy consumption. That is a huge proportion, and it is production with low value-added, 40 thousand employees stuck in the middle-income trap.”

Firstly, wage levels are determined by the overall national labour market, and according to State Revenue Service data, 45 out of 80 Latvian sectors, including public administration, have lower average wages. Secondly, it is only from a Riga-centric perspective that one could say the forest sector or timber industry is a small sector. For example, in Vidzeme, almost one in five private sector jobs was in the forest sector. Thirdly, regarding the low value-added – yes, it is still not at the level of Sweden or Austria, but according to Latvijas Banka’s own data, the value-added per employee in the timber industry in Estonia was only 3% higher than in Latvia, while we are 31% ahead of Lithuania.

The Latvian forest sector – forestry, timber processing, and furniture manufacturing – still has significant growth potential. One can also argue from the opposite perspective: if the forest sector is unable to grow fast enough and increase value-added, it runs a very high risk of losing both its international competitiveness and its appeal in the local labour market. The forest sector is aware of this and is constantly investing in both modernisation and the expansion of its product range. However, Mr Kušners’ thesis is absurd: “The opportunities to increase value-added and thereby reduce energy consumption by moving towards chemical processing are a huge untapped potential.” Undeniably, many wood chemical products have a higher value-added than those from mechanical processing, but why mislead people by suggesting that wood chemistry is less energy-intensive than sawing, panel manufacturing, or furniture making? For example, Latvijas Finieris produces betulin from birch bark and can explain that the amount of energy consumed in production per physical unit of raw material is ten times higher than in plywood production. In the Swedish pulp and paper industry, electricity consumption per cubic metre of raw material is at least four times higher than in Latvian mechanical processing. Wood chemistry is highly energy-intensive! And the high cost of electricity in Latvia has significantly hindered companies from looking towards wood chemistry over the last decade.

It may be that Mr Kušners meant something else in all these cases and was misunderstood. However, these communication errors not only mislead the audience and belittle the Latvian forest sector but also undermine the reputation of Latvijas Banka. If the messages from Latvijas Banka can no longer be considered credible and must always be cross-checked, it will be a major loss for quality discussion. I am not calling for Latvijas Banka to sugar-coat everything and I do not want to start a public squabble, but please, do not become “tabloid-like” and do communicate data correctly!
1. https://www.tvnet.lv/7557837/foto-pie-ministru-kabineta-notiek-protests-pret-valdibas-lemumu-laut-cirst-jaunakus-kokus
2. https://lvportals.lv/viedokli/342924-energetikas-politika-butu-svarigi-neimitet-parmainas-2022
Article first published on the portal delfi.lv on 19 July 2022
Photo by Nils Bernells used