The bioeconomy is a relatively new concept that brings together various sectors involved in the production, use and recycling of renewable resources. It ensures a complete circularity of resources in the economy. In Latvia, the most important sectors in this field are forestry, agriculture and fisheries. In the Latvian economy, it is production that forms the basis for the export of goods, which allows the country to earn revenue. Within the total output of all production, the bioeconomy sector is absolutely dominant, which is why its development is extremely important to us. To share the latest research and developments, for the third year running, one of the Latgale development centres, Daugavpils, hosted the conference 'Sustainable Management of Natural Resources – A Driving Force for the Economic Development of the Baltic Sea Region'. Representatives from not only Latvia, but also PEFC International, Poland and Hungary, participated in the conference.
Bioeconomy versus fossil resources
The unifying theme of the conference sessions was sustainable development. We all want to live in a clean, orderly environment that has not been degraded by the overly intensive exploitation of resources. In his opening address at the conference, Juris Soms, Acting Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences at Daugavpils University, called for us to look at the future from this perspective.
"The North American Indians believed that we do not inherit the land from our ancestors, but borrow it from our children," he noted. We are currently experiencing a breakthrough in prosperity thanks to fossil resources. We live in a better world than ever before, but this is possible thanks to accumulated fossil energy. It is clear that we cannot continue like this forever, or even for long. In the last 100 years, fossil resources have been used ever more intensively. This is not good from an environmental point of view, as they cause significant pollution, nor from an economic perspective, as they will one day run out. It is bioresources that could replace fossil fuels. In the future, demand for them will only grow as the population increases, as will their purchasing power. People will want not only to eat more, but also better. And to furnish the environment around them as well.
"A Latvian bioeconomy strategy was developed a year ago. The main goals are to ensure stable employment in these sectors with well-paid jobs, add value to bioeconomy sector products, and promote exports so that these industries can develop more rapidly. We have calculated that 20 billion euros of investment are required by 2030. One of the challenges will be the commercialisation of knowledge, without which we will not get very far," says Aleksejs Nipers, a leading researcher at the Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies.
Potential of bioeconomy sectors in Latvia
When looking at the potential for producing bioeconomy resources, attention must first be paid to the land on which these resources can be obtained. Since the amount of rainfall in Latvia exceeds the amount of water that evaporates, leaching processes occur in the soil. The elements necessary for plants are washed into deeper soil layers. As a result, soil erosion and acidification occur, and the organic layer decreases. Conversely, opposite processes occur in Central Europe, because less water evaporates there than falls as rain, and soil liming takes place. "European member states have been unable to agree for 15 years on what soil management policy should be. Every country has different soil formation processes and interests," comments Dr Raimonds Kasparinskis.
Over the last six months, very contradictory information has appeared in the public media. For example: that forests in Latvia are being clear-cut because the annual growth of Latvian forests is only 3 million m3, while 12 million m3 are being felled. Or, on the other hand, that we are not using forest resources efficiently because growth is 26 million m3, but we are only felling 12 million m3. Both these views have been expressed by well-known public figures. What, then, is the average Latvian citizen to make of this clash of opinions? In reality, it is scientists who should be answering these questions. The Latvian State Forest Research Institute (LVMI) Silava, with the help of 16,000 sample plots, clearly determines what is actually happening with wood resources in Latvia.
"In the monitoring process, we measure everything, including bark and tops. In total, 26.8 million m3 grow in Latvia. 16.7 million m3 are harvested. 0.6 million m3 are harvested and left in the forest. Without direct human intervention, 6.1 million m3 perish annually due to various factors, which is known as natural forest mortality. The actual growth, or the change in stock over a year, when dead wood resulting from direct or indirect human impact is subtracted from the current growth, is 3.4 million m3, based on the last four years' results," says Jurģis Jansons, Director of LVMI Silava.
As is well known, forest areas in Latvia have doubled in the last 100 years. To determine specifically what the changes in area have been near the Latvian border with Russia, a study by the University of Latvia used declassified photographs taken 48 years ago by the first US photo reconnaissance satellite. Even in the pre-digital era, a special operation was organised to intercept the film as it fell from orbit so it would not fall into the hands of the Soviet Union. The goal of this operation was, however, completely different and unrelated to forests – to learn about the deployment and quantity of military equipment in the Soviet Union. 
"By comparing the images obtained by the US Army with the present day, we can conclude that in the territory of Latvia bordering the Pskov region, forest areas have increased by 28%, and in Russian territory, by 47%. The forest areas have become more homogeneous, and more intensive logging can be observed. This methodology has never been used in Latvia before, and this is a pilot trial to refine the methodology," says Dr Zigmārs Rendenieks. A large proportion of the new forest areas are overgrown agricultural lands, the proportion of which is particularly high in Latgale. This is untapped potential for producing more wood resources.
The path between extremes
When people see a clear-cut, an emotional reaction often arises, and there is a general belief in society that nature is being harmed, but is that really the case? "In the understanding of primary school textbooks, there are two types of landscapes in Latvia – natural and man-made. In pictures where there is an industrial park, a factory or something similar, no questions arise. But what does a landscape with birds in a field of grain belong to? Society believes that birds belong more to nature. But where does the forest fit in? The correct answer is that our forest landscape is the result of centuries of human handiwork and innovation. It is the duty of forestry workers to explain this to everyone they meet, should the opportunity arise," believes Jurģis Jansons.
"Currently, a conflict is visible between society and private individuals, as well as between present and future needs. As long as these interests pull in opposite directions, there will be no sustainability. Nature conservation should complement the use of natural resources. It is like a mirror facing the forestry sector. If there is no well-founded criticism, we may end up in a situation where we become too carried away with the use of natural resources. On the other hand, someone has to fund nature conservation, which is enabled by resource extraction. There must be harmony. As soon as the emphasis shifts from one to the other, sustainability is no longer possible. A kind of inverted 'compulsory procurement component' arises – everyone uses something, but one person pays for it. The scales have tipped slightly in favour of nature conservation at the moment. To balance this, compensation would be necessary. According to regulatory enactments, there are currently two options – either an annual payment or the buy-back of undeveloped land," believes Artūrs Surmovičs, Senior Associate at BDO Law.
Current regulatory enactments can be interpreted in various ways. For example, if the average diameter in a 55-year-old spruce stand is 28 cm, by felling the thinner trees during thinning, it will increase to 31 cm. "Is a thinning cut needed to reach the target diameter? Will a final felling immediately after thinning be against the law?" Jurģis Jansons asks rhetorically.
Recent events in forest certification
Jānis Švirksts, Executive Director of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia (LMSP), speaks about what is new in the field of forest certification. "LMSP was for a time the FSC representative office in Latvia. Now, for five years, there has been no such representative office in Latvia at all. The person who represents FSC interests in Latvia is part of FSC Baltics. Members who are in Latvia are not informed about changes at all. On a global scale, Greenpeace has stated that it will no longer continue its cooperation with FSC, because the certificate is not applied to everyone equally. If one looks at the history of FSC's development in Latvia, this is the first time it has significantly affected not the forestry sector, but the wood processing industry. FSC has two types of standards – forest management, where the only significant landholder is Latvijas valsts meži, and controlled wood, where, in fact, FSC directly or indirectly controls almost all felled timber to some extent."
Uniform forest management standards are currently being developed in the Baltic states. At the moment, a very elaborate battle is taking place over individual indicators. The task of an audit is to assess compliance against standard criteria, which are often very generally defined. However, no direct guidelines are given on how to verify them. Currently, the only thing not generally defined is that habitats are high-value forests, which would mean that, let's be honest, they cannot be cut.
At present, the requirements in the controlled wood standard are often set higher than in the forest management standard. The situation is such that the standard requirements are effectively impossible for sawmills to meet. Only if they work in very close cooperation with logging companies. The consequence is that a deliberate interpretation of the controlled wood standard is being carried out. The system realises that a huge mess has been made, so it must start dividing certification bodies into good and bad. A very good breeding ground has now been created for fake consultants who will say – 'join me, and everything will be fine'. Do we need such a double approach to standards, where for some we study every indicator in depth, and for others, just to keep the system from collapsing, we somehow push it forward?"
Panel discussion
A forest owner must have the right to realise their goals and intentions regarding the property in which they live and manage, because it is not something they got out of thin air. Owners take out bank loans and buy properties; these are obligations. Consequently, the conditions must be such that this owner can realise their goals based on the laws that currently exist. Such an owner will never be a good partner for implementing environmental policy. "If we want to manage pine stands with selection felling, then we must tell society what we want to achieve with it, what we will see there in 50–70 years. Before restricting anything, we should calculate how much it will cost us all together and whether this restriction will be in the public interest or the interest of individual environmental organisations," believes Aiga Grasmane, Executive Director of the Latvian Forest Owners' Association.
Lelde Eņģele, member of the Council of the Latvian Fund for Nature, also agrees on the need for appropriate compensation for forest owners. "In my opinion, to a certain extent, a convergence of views is taking place. Not as quickly as one would like. The compensation system should be re-evaluated. There is a difference between whether final felling is prohibited in grey alder or oak stands. The owner should be compensated for the losses incurred," she admitted.
The approaches to how research is conducted and subsequently published vary greatly. Given that views differ significantly, people must be very knowledgeable and think critically to be able to rely on what scientists say. "There is a great deal of pseudo-scientific knowledge and propaganda in this field. It is very difficult to distinguish it, as scientific views do not sound as loud. Often, a hypothesis is put forward which, when being proven, ignores arguments that could refute it. The situation is viewed from a very narrow perspective, without taking into account the overall picture. A position on what the result of the research should be is taken from the very beginning," believes Dr silv. Dagnis Dubrovskis.
Māris Liopa, Chairman of the LMSP Board, also expressed his view at the conference on the direction in which Latvia should look. "In my opinion, the points of contact that need to be addressed were identified very precisely at the conference. One thing is that we specialists know these things, but it is essential to pass this information on. In particular, one must work with decision-makers. This conference is taking place at a significant time. Long and painful negotiations on government formation are currently underway; parties promised a lot in the pre-election period, which the newly elected deputies will have to fulfil. We often forget where and on what we live and what we use. Therefore, the sustainable use of natural resources is extremely important for our country. We must forget that we are a bridge between East and West, a banking paradise and other nonsense that we have been told for decades. The Latvian nation has always held onto the land, and thanks to the riches of the land, we are here and speak Latvian, not some other language," he said.
Reprinted from the November 2018 issue of the magazine 'Baltijas Koks'
Photo by Vasilijs Šilovs