We should begin with a note from zemeunvalsts.lv that, for reasons that are not always clear, many otherwise substantial articles deliberately talk about the felling of forests, knowingly comparing logging in Europe with the vast territories in regions close to the equator, where after logging the forest is not restored and does not regenerate, because the land is used for other purposes. In Europe, in most cases the forest is restored (provided, of course, that roads, railways or other infrastructure are not built there). A second note – what the study mentioned in the article concludes is nothing new to Latvia's forest sector professionals; this issue has been discussed for at least 10 years. That is to say, when something is prohibited, altered, refused or attempted in a different way, no thought is given to balance and consequences, and in Europe security – including economic security – is particularly important.
Reducing logging volumes in the European Union (EU) will considerably increase timber harvesting in other parts of the world – recent studies prove this. The problem will affect regions where forest protection is far weaker than in the EU all the more seriously and substantially. Such a scenario would undermine the international impact and significance of the EU's climate and biodiversity targets (the LULUCF Regulation and the biodiversity strategy) and, it must be stressed again, the forest sector's economic activity and the financial benefit derived from it would move outside the EU. Meanwhile, reducing the use of wood products and replacing (or attempting to replace) them with more harmful materials would shrink the climate benefits even further. The study emphasises the importance of international solutions in achieving climate and environmental goals.
The information above is based on preliminary results obtained in a research project led by Maarit Kallio (Maarit Kallio), professor of forest policy and economics at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and funded by the Finnish Forest Foundation. The project's preliminary results were presented in Helsinki in December 2024 and, according to those results, two thirds of the reduction in logging in the EU would be replaced by an increase elsewhere in the world. This so-called leakage of logging would considerably weaken the global impact of the EU's biodiversity and climate targets. The aim of the EU biodiversity strategy is to halt biodiversity loss and put the trend on a positive path by 2030.
As is known, the LULUCF Regulation requires reporting on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and carbon dioxide removals, and sets corresponding targets. According to the study's preliminary results, in order to meet the targets set in the LULUCF Regulation and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, logging in the EU Member States and Norway would have to be reduced by 132 million cubic metres. The study compared assumptions about how the situation will develop up to 2035 with and without the impact of EU policy.
The largest "shift" in timber harvesting away from the EU would be to North America (38%), South America (25%), and China and other countries in Asia (19%). At the same time, "the impacts of logging would also be transferred" to countries in these regions outside the EU, and it should be remembered that the risk of biodiversity deteriorating in those regions is greater than in the EU.
Tropical forests. Their degradation
Logging would increase in countries where, for example, the range of tree species growing in the forest is wider, the coverage of protected areas is smaller and forest use is controlled comparatively weakly; it must be stressed that a deterioration in the state of forests is particularly likely in the tropics.
"Meeting the LULUCF Regulation's targets in Europe will increase the risk of biodiversity deteriorating in other parts of the world," M. Kallio noted.
According to the project's results, as logging volumes in the European Union fall, the availability of wood products will fall accordingly. As is known, these products store atmospheric carbon over the long term. When wood is replaced by other materials, such as concrete, emissions can increase both in the production process and at the end of the life cycle. Part of the financial benefit from the forest sector would also "be moved" outside the EU.
First, industrial production would decline, particularly in the sawmilling and panel manufacturing sector. "That would cause a large-scale transfer of income from the EU to other regions of the world, but the climate benefits arising from that transfer would be close to zero. EU decision-makers ought to reconsider the role of forests in preserving the climate. The cost of meeting the current targets will not be proportionate," M. Kallio assessed.
EU policy instruments are not effective
Speaking at the above-mentioned event in Helsinki, Martta Fredrikson (Martta Fredrikson), managing director of the Finnish Forest Foundation, stressed how important it is to assess the international impact of EU forest policy instruments. "A considerable outflow of logging volumes from the EU shows that EU policy instruments are ineffective," she said.
As mentioned earlier, in her study Maarit Kallio compared two scenarios for the development of the forest sector. In one of them it was assumed that EU policy measures are implemented; in the second scenario their potential impact was excluded. The project compared the impact of EU policy measures, the EU biodiversity strategy and the LULUCF Regulation up to 2035.
Commenting on the study's results, Matleena Kniivilä (Matleena Kniivilä), research manager at the Natural Resources Institute Finland, said that the results obtained are consistent with earlier studies and their findings.
"The results are quite disheartening, but... they do not diminish the importance of working for the climate and biodiversity. On the contrary, they mainly underline the importance of global mechanisms," said M. Kniivilä.
The results of the study (project) discussed in this article concern the impact of the EU biodiversity strategy. The study report "The potential impact of the EU biodiversity strategy on the EU and global forest sector and on biodiversity" is currently under peer review.