In our country, forests are being excluded from economic activity without justification.

In 2022, the forest areas in Latvia where forestry activity is prohibited exceeded by one and a half (1.5) times the forest areas confiscated for the needs of the USSR occupation army (for training grounds and bases), where forestry activity had once been prohibited. In other words, today's green extremists, by banning forestry activity, have surpassed the appetite of the militarists of the USSR occupation regime.

Supplying oxygen to others

Recently, despite the significant overall increase in forest area, Latvia has seen a trend of rapidly increasing the forest areas where forestry activity is prohibited. In 2021, forestry activity was completely prohibited in 107.9 thousand hectares of forest, but by 2022, forestry activity was completely prohibited in an area of 143.1 thousand hectares.

The fight by green extremists against the sustainable economic use of forests is taking place without taking into account that Latvia is one of the most forest-covered countries in the world. Our country's forest cover is significantly higher than the global and, specifically, the European Union (EU) average.. It is worth noting that in 2020, more than 90% of the land area of Suriname, Guyana, Micronesia, Gabon, the Solomon Islands, and Palau was covered by forests. Forests cover between 75% and 90% of the total land area of Equatorial Guinea, Papua New Guinea, and Liberia. Among European countries, the largest forest areas in 2020 were in Finland (73.7%), which ranked tenth in the world by this criterion. Forests also covered more than 70% of the national territory in the Seychelles, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Brunei, Laos, Bhutan, and Guinea-Bissau. Sweden, with 68.7% forest cover, was 17th in the world. Forests also covered two-thirds of Japan, South Korea, Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Timor-Leste, and Montenegro. Slovenia was 25th in the world in terms of forest cover (61.5%), Estonia was 31st (57%), and Latvia was 38th (54.6%). Today, Latvia is richer in forests than Russia (49th in the world, or 49.8% forest cover) with the Siberian taiga located within its territory. The global average forest cover in 2020 was 31.2%, while in the EU it was 39.8%.

There are many countries in the world that have almost no forests because almost all land suitable for forests has been set aside for agriculture. In Pakistan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Chad, Tajikistan, Syria, the Maldives, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kiribati, Malta, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, and Jordan, forest areas account for less than 5% of the total national territory, while in Yemen, Bahrain, Niger, Algeria, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mauritania, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Oman, Nauru, and Qatar, the proportion of forests is less than 1% of the country's area.

When meeting with leaders from the United Arab Emirates, Malta, Bahrain, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries, it would not be a sin for the Latvian government to remind them that we are one of the countries providing the populations of those nations with oxygen and less carbon dioxide in every breath..

Definition of a forest

World Bank data and calculations on forest cover in various countries have been used for comparison. According to the definition used by the World Bank, forest area (% of land area) is land under natural or planted stands of trees at least five meters tall, regardless of whether they are productive or unproductive. Forest area does not include tree stands in agricultural production systems (such as fruit orchards and agroforestry systems), nor trees in urban parks and gardens. Given that the Latvian forest cover indicator in World Bank data is higher than that reported by the Central Statistical Bureau, it is highly likely that, by applying the World Bank's definition, swamps with natural tree growth higher than five meters are also counted as forests in Latvia and other countries. Changes in forest area are important because an EU regulation aimed at reducing global deforestation came into force last year. Therefore, it is important to check how Latvia looks compared to other countries when evaluating changes in forest area. Given that data for all countries formed after the collapse of the USSR, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia are only available from 1993, we will compare how forest areas changed between 1993 and 2020. Specifically, the difference between the percentage of forest cover in 1993 and 2020 is taken into account.

Globally, on average, 32.5% of all national territories were covered by forests in 1993. In 2020, total global forest cover had decreased by 1.28 percentage points.

EU trends are the opposite. On average in the EU, 37% of the total territory was covered by forests in 1993, but by 2020, the total EU forest cover had increased by 2.89 percentage points.

Between 1993 and 2020, forest cover increased the most in Bhutan (17.2%), Vietnam (15.7%), and Cuba (11%). Fiji (9.9%), the Dominican Republic (9%), and Spain (7.4%) also made it into the top six global leaders. The top ten was rounded out by Jamaica (7%), Palau (6.2%), Uruguay (6.1%), and China (6.1%).

Meanwhile, the second ten of the world's best afforesters included Italy (5.7%), Cape Verde (5.7%), Bulgaria (5.7%), Estonia (4.8%), France (4.7%), Belarus (4.1%), Greece (4%), Ireland (3.9%), Lithuania (3.8%), and Chile (3.8%). With a 3.5% difference between forest cover in 1993 and 2020, Latvia ranked 21st in the world. Among EU member states, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, and Lithuania were ranked higher than Latvia. Latvia's increase in forest cover (the aforementioned 3.5%) was higher than the average EU increase in forest cover (2.9%).

Forest cover increased below the EU average in Denmark (2.1%), Poland (1.8%), Croatia (1.4%), Finland (1.3%), Austria (1.3%), Cyprus (0.9%), the Netherlands (0.6%), the Czech Republic (0.6%), Slovakia (0.5%), Malta (0.3%), and Germany (0.27%).

On the other hand, Sweden (a 0.27% decrease) and Portugal (a 0.61% decrease) are the EU member states against which EU regulations aimed at preventing deforestation could even be applied, as forest areas in these countries decreased between 1993 and 2020.

Looking on a global scale, the list of countries where forest areas decreased by more than one percentage point between 1993 and 2020 is impressive: Suriname, Papua New Guinea, Mauritius, Haiti, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Singapore, Pakistan, the Philippines, Ecuador, Chad, Madagascar, Mexico, Argentina, Dominica, Togo, Namibia, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Eritrea, Sudan, Peru, Zimbabwe, South Korea, Somalia, Zambia, Samoa, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Guinea, Antigua and Barbuda, Panama, Colombia, Nigeria, Laos, Burkina Faso, Honduras, Brunei, Venezuela, Uganda, Botswana, Bolivia, Senegal, El Salvador, North Korea, the Comoros, São Tomé and Príncipe, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Brazil, Angola, the DR Congo, Guatemala, Tanzania, Malawi, Belize, Ivory Coast, Benin, Indonesia, Myanmar, The Gambia, Cambodia, Paraguay, and Nicaragua. EU regulations aimed at reducing deforestation could be directed against all of these countries. The EU regulation could apply to the import of cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and wood into member states. When the EU regulation begins to be widely applied, we will likely feel it as an increase in the cost of relevant products on the EU internal market. For example, palm oil, which is widely used in confectionery products, will have to be imported from 'more expensive' countries, where palm oil plantations are not deforesting, but rather afforesting. Regarding Latvia's wood exports, it should be said that the regulation might perhaps help our country's wood exporters obtain fairer competitive conditions in the EU internal market, as important product groups for our country's wood products are included in the regulation.

Forest area also grew in Estonia

Assessing the changes in forest area over the last 85 years, it is clear that Latvia's forest area increased by 28 percentage points – from 26.8% in 1935 to 54.8% in 2020. In Europe, only Estonia showed better performance over the last 85 years, with its forest-covered areas growing by 36.1 percentage points during this period, while Spain took third place with 27.3 percentage points. The smallest increase in the proportion of forest from total national area over the last 85 years was in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Perhaps the main brunt of the green orgies should be directed specifically at these countries, rather than at those that ensure high EU forest cover indicators with their forests and their growth.

In conclusion, it is worth recalling the words of Slovenian Minister of Agriculture Jože Podgoršek at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 15 November 2021, when discussing the new EU Forest Strategy for 2030: “Slovenia, as one of the most forest-rich countries in Europe, has always recognized the importance of sustainable forest management. The conclusions adopted today reflect the need for all stakeholders to work together and take a balanced approach to address the unprecedented challenges our forests are facing, while protecting the communities whose livelihoods depend on forest resources.” At this meeting, the EU Council also emphasized the need to strike a balance between the environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainable forest management, as well as the fact that national competence in forestry and forest management must be respected.

Za green extremist fight against the sustainable economic use of forests is taking place, ignoring the fact that Latvia is one of the most forest-covered countries in the world and our forest cover is significantly higher than the global and European Union average..

Proportion of forest in land area (table)

Source: CSB, arithmetic difference between the numerical values of CSB data