zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

The stakeholders, the involved, the provoked, and the encouraged have already managed to express their views on the regulations adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers on 21 June. Some have forgotten everything else because the leader, the only one worth listening to on forest and forestry issues, is unhappy with what has happened. In any case, it is highly interesting to read the objections and, alongside them, the questions – as to how one should properly object to something so that the objector does not look like a fool or a crank. This is not just about logging or the coming winter, but the very fact that a person wants to, understands, or is asked to protest about issues in which they are completely ignorant, points to serious problems for the individual themselves and their ardent supporters. In short – there is a diploma, but no education, no understanding. ...

• The article* is still full of mysterious, unfounded, and plucked-from-thin-air figures. I suppose I will have to sacrifice a few hours of my time and dissect this nonsense paragraph by paragraph. Stay tuned!
  
  
• This thread of tweets will likely be quite long, and I will be writing it over a longer period. One of the goals, perhaps, is to explain to people writing supposedly investigative articles what woodchips actually are, what they are produced from, how they are used, and what factors influence production volumes in Latvia.
  
  
• I should start with the explanation that woodchips, contrary to popular belief, are (speaking very broadly) of two types: fuel or energy woodchips and technological or pulp woodchips. As is clear from the names, only the first of these two types of woodchips is used directly in energy production.
  
  
• Technological or pulp woodchips, which have NO bark content, mainly come from sawmills, where modern sawing lines first use milling cutters to form a beam from a debarked round log, which is later sawn into planks. Shavings are also produced there, which are the main raw material for the production of briquettes.
  
  
• Currently, if we are talking about energy woodchips, we are not interested in these technological or pulp woodchips; nor are we interested in sawdust, from which briquettes are made, nor the bark separated during the debarking process, which is usually used right there on-site for heating the production complex and generating electricity.
  
  
• So where exactly do energy woodchips come from? From the forest. 1) all parts of the tree that are not timber – branches, tops, offcuts, yes, potentially stumps too, but rarely; 2) overgrowth on agricultural land, which is cleared by farmers from fields being returned to circulation.
  
  
• It is clear that the second case – the volume of woodchips actually produced on agricultural land – is in no way regulated by the new Cabinet of Ministers regulations on tree felling in forests. This activity is, in fact, regulated by almost nothing, except for the "Regulations regarding tree felling outside the forest".
  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/247350-noteikumi-par-koku-cirsanu-arpus-meza
  
  
• The amount of woodchips obtained from the overgrowth of agricultural land is determined by the market (price, availability of labour, the area of overgrown agricultural land, etc.), but not by the administrative decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Agriculture, or Latvijas valsts meži.
  
  
• Accordingly, we have finally arrived at what interests us most – woodchips that are produced as a by-product during forest felling, the volume of which CAN be influenced by the decisions and actions of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Latvijas valsts meži, and private forest owners. This does not cancel out the aforementioned market influence (primarily price).
  
  
• Here, for the first time, we will tackle the Re:Baltica "analysis". The article shows this extremely clear diagram, which supposedly proves the ridiculousness of the Ministry of Agriculture/Cabinet of Ministers argument. Yes, it looks pathetic, doesn't it? Destroying Latvia's forests for 2.6% of additional woodchip volume.
• Here we reach a critically important point in our story. Although Re:Baltica has data on the volume of fuel woodchips produced in Latvia as a whole, no one has any idea how much of this volume is produced in forests (as a by-product of tree felling) and how much outside forest land (clearing of agricultural land, ditches).
  
  
• Likewise, no one, especially Re:Baltica, is clear about how tree felling volumes will change as a result of the new felling regulations. One paragraph mentions 20% (Ministry of Agriculture?), the next 5-8% (also Ministry of Agriculture?). To make things even more interesting, try the proportion: 5%=80k, 100%=x. It comes out as x=1.6 million...
  
  
• Hmm, how one arrives at 80,000 cbm from a 20% or 5-8% increase in felling volumes is not clear to me, if we know well that the volume of tree felling in Latvia is around 11.5 million m³, which is split very similarly between state forests and private ones.
  
  
• It would be time here to return to one of the initial images (I took it from the Re:B article because it is not in the LR News summary). Pay attention to the increase in woodchip production volume! It is predicted to be ridiculously small, both in comparison to the increase in roundwood felling and to the existing woodchip production volume:
  
  
• To properly "lay out" these Re:B calculations, it is still necessary to understand how many loose cbm of woodchips one additional cubic metre of felled timber provides. I will be very cautious and assume that by felling an average of 2.5 m³ of timber, we obtain 1 m³ of woodchips as a by-product.
  
  
• And here, one's brain should break several times: 1) If Latvia fells 11.5 million m³ per year, then how do we manage to obtain 9 million loose m³ of woodchips?! 2) If Re:B predicts the increase in woodchip production at 0.288 million loose m³, then it follows that "forest destruction" = 0.566 million m³ of felling increase?
  
  
• Slightly imprecise in the previous tweet. 0.288*2.5=0.72 million m³ is that "forest destruction". As seen from the State Forest Service data, 0.72 million m³ is, in principle, within the limits of annual felling volume fluctuations:
  
  
• Note:
  If, as you say, it is 0.6% (I must have read that somewhere) and it affects nothing, then what was the point of all that, if it changes nothing? Why all the secrecy, why put effort into refuting it, you could have left it as it is. 0.6% cost your reputation
  
  
• I will tell you absolutely honestly – I do not understand how those figures were obtained. There is no logic there. I pulled 0.6% from what Re:B gave, and I can say for sure that it is not correct either... In fact, there will be a larger felling volume (I don't know how much), but woodchip production volumes will be significantly larger.
  
  
• It is like an equation with five variables, of which two are known. It is impossible to solve. Accordingly, one uses assumptions, and here the opportunity opens up to use the assumptions that one likes better.
  
  
• The article is unique in its illiteracy; it almost (yet again!) contains no numbers, and the few that are there are totally, totally wrong. Perhaps Re:Baltica and Latvijas Radio News need to have their articles proofread by someone who understands the topic at least at the level of Viesturs Ķerus?
  
  
• Question:
  Is there any other informative report referred to in the publication? In the one that can be opened from the provided link, one can count up to 440,000 m³ per year as additional m³ for heating. But again – one must have precise measurements. For example, for what time period are any predicted m³.
  
  
• My biggest puzzle, thinking about this, is – what exactly is the increase in felling volume on which the estimates are based. It is impossible to understand. As for the reports – no, I only studied the information that was linked in the article.
  
  
• In this publication, there are correct figures from the Ministry of Agriculture report. The LSM report says that there will be 80,000 m³ more per year in total... Regarding the predicted volume, perhaps it is the difference between the current fact and the stands being added by diameter, looking only at "active" forest owners.
  
  
• The additional volumes should be significantly larger, but that is my purely intuitive opinion, which is not based on any data analysis.
  
  
• I had calculated it on a previous occasion when it landed on the Cabinet of Ministers' table. From that time, the opinion remained that the changes would be most useful to, and used by, the large private owners who have a comparatively different age structure of forest stands in their properties (bought-up harvested properties).
  https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/zinu-analize/recheck-parbauda-vai-skeldas-razosana-pieaugs-par-20-un-ka-jaunaka-meza-cirsana-ietekmes-cirsanas-apjomus.a464864/