In 1929, 25.2% of Latvia's entire territory was covered by forests. Currently, forests cover 54.7% of Latvian land. Over the course of a century, we have doubled our capacity to supply the planet with oxygen and increase carbon dioxide absorption.
Green hysterics, who demand we do even more in the name of green policy, should go to those countries that, unlike Latvia, continue to destroy their natural foundation and reduce biosphere diversity. For Latvian society, green excesses can only be harmful.
The forest has always been a source of livelihood and wealth for Latvians. During the age of slash-and-burn agriculture, growing forests restored soil fertility, as the majority of agricultural land was allowed to grow into forest after being depleted, only to be cleared again after a time to use the now-fertile land for farming. While the population and population density in Latvia were relatively low, the forest remained part of a sustainable agricultural system. Using slash-and-burn agricultural technology in land rotation required very large forest areas. At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, forests occupied 59% of the entire territory in the Latvian part of Vidzeme (Māris Zunde“Chapter II. Dynamics of changes in forest cover and tree species composition and their main influencing factors in the territory of Latvia”. In the book “History of Latvian Forests until 1940”. Riga, WWF– World Wide Fund for Nature, 1999, p. 176.).
As agricultural technologies improved (three-field and two-field systems, mineral fertilisers, and the use of manure), regular reforestation of agricultural land was no longer necessary to maintain soil fertility. Agricultural lands were expanded by clearing forests, and the forest took on a different economic significance. The forest provided firewood for heating, as well as raw materials for industry and construction. In the parishes and manors most suitable for agriculture, forest areas decreased significantly. In the western part of Zemgale, where the most fertile soils are located, forest areas had already decreased to such an extent by the beginning of the 19th century that timber could no longer be widely used for construction.
As noted by ethnographer and habilitated Doctor of Historical Sciences Linda Dumpe in the book “Livestock Farming in Latvia from the 19th Century to the Beginning of the 20th Century” (Riga, Zinātne Publishing House, 1985, p. 226), it was precisely due to the shortage of timber in Zemgale in the 19th century that even barns and animal shelters were built from stone, clay, or even bricks.
In the mid-19th century, forest cover in the Courland Governorate was 34.4%, but it was very uneven. In the Ventspils district, forests covered 44.7% of the total territory, while in the Ilūkste district, it was only 25% (Zunde, p. 188). Meanwhile, in Vidzeme, forest land accounted for 57.6% of the governorate's area at that time.
At the beginning of the 20th century, forest areas decreased significantly. In 1903, the forest cover in the Latvian part of Vidzeme was 24%, and 30% in the Courland Governorate (Zunde, p. 193).
During the First World War and immediately after, approximately 215 thousand hectares of forest were cleared in the territory of Latvia; these were not replanted but were allocated to new farmsteads during the agrarian reform (Bokalders J. Agriculture. In: M. Skujenieks, Latvia. Land and People. Riga: A. Gulbis Publishing, 1927– p. 485.). It is estimated that there were nearly 1.8 million hectares of forest in the territory of Latvia before the war (M. Skujenieks, Latvia. Land and People. Riga: State Statistical Office publication, 1922 – p. 340.). Conversely, the tenth volume of the Latvian Conversational Dictionary (Riga: A. Gulbis Publishing, 1933-1934, column 20412) contains information that the total forest area in Latvia in 1923 was 1,780 thousand hectares. New settlers who received land during the agrarian reform needed timber for building houses, and selling timber was the fastest way to obtain funds to establish their farms. Forest areas were distributed unevenly; in 1929, forests occupied 27% of the total area in Vidzeme, 34% in Courland, 25.9% in Zemgale, but only 14.6% in Latgale. In 1929, the average forest cover in Latvia reached a historical minimum of 25.2% of Latvia's territory (Zunde, p. 196). Subsequently, during the first period of independence, forest areas increased. Massive forest destruction occurred during the Second World War, both due to hostilities and increased logging for military and civilian needs after the war. There is reason to believe that forest areas in Latvia were at their lowest at the end of the 1940s, when even official USSR publications admitted that if logging continued at the scale seen during the first five years after the end of World War II, Latvia's forest resources would be exhausted and lose their economic significance within the next 10-20 years (Latvia. Land, Nature, People, State. Riga: University of Latvia Academic Press, 2018, p. 533.). The conservation of forest resources for industrial and construction needs was one of the reasons why the USSR leadership in Latvia restricted logging and began forest restoration work (1957).
According to official Soviet-era statistics, in 1950, forests occupied 1,964 thousand hectares, and their area gradually increased; in 1958, the forest area was 2,379 thousand hectares, and in 1965, – 2,528 thousand hectares (Economy and Culture of Soviet Latvia. Riga: Statistika Publishing House, Latvian branch, 1976, p. 162.).
Soviet-era statistical collections did not always use the same definition for what constitutes a forest, so there are statistical collections where the entire forest fund land is listed as forest, which results in a figure significantly higher than the actual forest area. For example, the Statistical Yearbook published in 1972 contains information that in 1965 the total forest area was 2,951 thousand hectares, and in 1970 it was 2,966 thousand hectares (National Economy of the Latvian SSR. Riga: Statistika Publishing House, Latvian branch, 1972, p. 548.). This discrepancy arises because the total area of Latvia's forest fund at that time was 2.89 million hectares, but 15.5% of this area was land that was not forested – meadows, swamps, etc. (“Small Encyclopedia of the Latvian SSR”, Volume II, Riga, Zinātne Publishing House, 1969, p. 559.).
Of all forest areas during the Soviet period, 65.3% of forests were managed by the state, 19.1% by collective farms (kolkhozes), 13.6% by state farms (sovkhozes), and about 2% by other users (Latvian Soviet Encyclopedia, Volume 5(2), Latvian SSR, Riga: Main Encyclopedia Editorial Office, 1984, p. 78.).
During the Soviet period, the economic use of forests was significantly restricted by forest tracts transferred for the needs of the USSR occupation army. USSR military training grounds, missile and other types of military bases, and other structures related to the Soviet military complex occupied an area of approximately 100 thousand hectares (Upmalis, I., Tilgass, Ē., Dinevičs, J., Gorbunovs, A. Latvia — USSR Military Base. Riga: Zelta grauds, 2006, p. 59.), the largest of which was the forest tract included in the Zvārde training ground.
After the restoration of independence, the definition “area covered by forest” was used in forest statistics. According to this definition, in 1978, the forest area in Latvia occupied 2,554 thousand hectares, in 1983 – 2,657 thousand hectares, and in 1988 – 2,648 thousand hectares (Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 1991, Riga, State Committee for Statistics of the Republic of Latvia, 1992, p. 231.). In 1993, the recorded forest area reached 2,839 thousand hectares (Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 1995. Riga, State Committee for Statistics of the Republic of Latvia, 1995, p. 181.).
According to the Central Statistical Bureau (CSP) data, forest areas have gradually increased since 1994, reaching 2,956 thousand hectares in 2008. Subsequently, the accounting of private and municipal forests was changed, and due to these changes, the forest-covered areas were adjusted. In 2009, 3,232 thousand hectares were already reported. Since then, forest areas have gradually increased, reaching 3,305 thousand hectares in 2023. The growth of forests is occurring through an increase in private and municipal forest areas, as the area of state-owned forests in 2023 (1,521 thousand hectares) was even smaller than in 2009, when the state owned 1,530 thousand hectares.
In 1929, the state owned 1,387 thousand hectares of forest. The ratio of state to private forests was 84% and 15%, while 1% were municipal forests (Latvian Conversational Dictionary. Tenth volume, Riga, A. Gulbis Publishing, 1933-1934, column 20413.). The fact that from 1998 only half of all forest areas belonged to the state, and in 2023 54% of all forest areas did not belong to the state, indicates that over the century, former agricultural lands that belonged to farmers before the Second World War have grown over with forests. The majority of current private forests were fields and meadows in the 1920s and 1930s.
In the 21st century, in addition to significant growth in forest areas and an increase in private forest areas, there is a clear trend of rapidly increasing forest areas where forestry activity is prohibited. While in 2021 forestry activity was completely prohibited in 107.9 thousand hectares of forest, in 2022 forestry activity was completely banned in an area of 143.1 thousand hectares. In 2022, the forest areas in Latvia with prohibited forestry activity already exceeded by 1.5 times the forest areas confiscated for the needs of the USSR occupation army (training grounds and bases) that had forestry bans. Latvian green extremists, by banning forestry activities, are exceeding even the appetite of the USSR occupation regime's militarists.
Supplying oxygen to Saudi Arabia
The green extremists' battle against the sustainable economic use of Latvia's forests is taking place without regard for the fact that Latvia is one of the most forested countries in the world and that Latvia's forest cover is significantly higher than the global and EU averages.
More than 90% of the surface area of Suriname, Guyana, Micronesia, Gabon, the Solomon Islands, and Palau was covered by forests in 2020. Between 75 and 90% of the entire country's area is covered by forests in Equatorial Guinea, Papua New Guinea, and Liberia.
Among European countries, the largest forest areas in 2020 were in Finland (73.7%), which ranked 10th in the world.
More than 70% of the country's territory was also covered by forests 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 cover approximately two-thirds of the territory of Japan, South Korea, Congo, Dominica, Fiji, East Timor, 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 place in the world – 49.8% forest) with all its Siberian taigas. The average forest cover index in the world in 2020 was 31.2%, and in the European Union – 39.8%.
There are many countries in the world that have almost no forests of their own because all lands even remotely suitable for forests have been turned over to agricultural needs.
In Pakistan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Chad, Tajikistan, Syria, the Maldives, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kiribati, Malta, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, and Jordan, forest areas are less than 5% of the entire country's area, but in countries such as 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.
It would not be a sin for the Latvian government, when meeting with leaders of the United Arab Emirates, Malta, Bahrain, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries, to remind them that Latvia is one of those countries that provides the residents of these nations with oxygen and a lower amount of carbon dioxide with every breath.
Here it must be added that World Bank data and calculations on forest cover in countries of the world 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 5 meters tall, regardless of whether they are productive or unproductive. Forest area does not include tree stands in agricultural production systems (e.g., fruit plantations and agroforestry systems), nor trees in urban parks and gardens.
Given that the Latvian forest cover index in World Bank data is higher than that reported by the CSP, it is quite likely that by applying the World Bank definition, swamps with natural tree vegetation taller than 5m are also counted as forests in Latvia and other countries.
Changes in forest areas are important, as last year an EU regulation came into force to reduce deforestation worldwide. Therefore, it is important to check how Latvia looks against the background of other countries in relation to changes in forest areas.
Given that data for all countries formed after the collapse of the USSR by dividing the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia are available only from 1993, we will compare how forest areas changed between 1993 and 2020 (the difference between forest cover (%) in 1993 and 2020).
On average, 32.5% of the total territory of all countries was covered by forests in 1993. In 2020, the global forest cover decreased by 1.28 percentage points. In the European Union, the trends are the opposite. On average, 37% of the entire EU territory was covered by forests in 1993, but by 2020, the EU's overall 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 (11.0%). Fiji (9.9%), the Dominican Republic (9.0%), and Spain (7.4%) also entered the world's top six. The world's top ten was rounded out by Jamaica (7.0%), Palau (6.2%), Uruguay (6.1%), and China (6.1%). Meanwhile, in the second ten of the world's best afforesters were Italy (5.7%), Cape Verde (5.7%), Bulgaria (5.7%), Estonia (4.8%), France (4.7%), Belarus (4.1%), Greece (4.0%), Ireland (3.9%), Lithuania (3.8%), and Chile (3.8%). Latvia, with a 3.5% difference in forest cover between 1993 and 2020, was 21st in the world. Only EU member states such as Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, and Lithuania were higher than Latvia. Latvia's forest cover increase of 3.5% was higher than the average EU forest cover increase (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%). Conversely, Sweden (-0.27%) and Portugal (-0.61%) are EU member states against which an EU regulation on deforestation could even be applied, as forest areas in these countries decreased between 1993 and 2020.
The list of countries whose forest areas decreased by more than one percentage point during this time is impressive: Suriname, Papua New Guinea, Mauritius, Haiti, Rwanda, Central African Republic, Singapore, Pakistan, Philippines, Ecuador, Chad, Madagascar, Mexico, Argentina, Dominica, Togo, Namibia, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Eritrea, Sudan, Peru, Zimbabwe, Korea, Rep., 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, Comoros, Sao Tome and Principe, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Brazil, Angola, DR Congo, Guatemala, Tanzania, Malawi, Belize, Ivory Coast, Benin, Indonesia, Myanmar, Gambia, Cambodia, Paraguay, and Nicaragua.
An EU regulation could be directed against all these countries to reduce deforestation worldwide. The regulation can be applied to EU imports of cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and wood. When the EU regulation is truly widely applied, we will likely feel it as an increase in the cost of the relevant products in 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 leading to deforestation, but rather reforestation. However, regarding Latvian wood exports, the regulation might perhaps help Latvian wood exporters gain fairer competitive conditions in the EU internal market, as the most important commodity groups of Latvian wood products are included in the regulation.
Meanwhile, when assessing changes in forest areas over the last 85 years, Latvia's forest areas 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 increasing by 36.1 percentage points during this time, while Spain was in third place with 27.3 percentage points. The smallest increase in the proportion of forest area from the total country area over the last 85 years was in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Perhaps the main burden of green orgies should be redirected precisely to these countries, rather than those that are ensuring 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 meeting of the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on November 15, 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 cooperate and adopt a balanced approach to address the unprecedented challenges facing our forests, while protecting the communities whose livelihoods depend on forest resources.”
At this meeting, the EU Council also emphasized that a balance must be struck between the environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainable forest management, as well as the importance of respecting national competence in forestry and forest management.
https://www.db.lv/zinas/gadsimta-laika-latvijas-mezu-platibas-ir-divkarsojusas-514830