Of the total volume of timber harvested each year, on average around 10% comes from felling by target diameter, which is not a great deal. Following the Constitutional Court's ruling this share will fall, as State Forest Service data indicate.

In 2023, 1.72 million m³ of timber was harvested by target diameter, or 11.5% of the 15 million m³ harvested in total. In 2022, by contrast, 1.24 million m³ was obtained in this way, or 9.5% of the 13 million m³ harvested overall. The share of the total harvest (13 million m³) was smaller still in 2021, when 1.03 million m³, or 7.9%, was felled by target diameter. It should be recalled that on 8 April this year the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in the case concerning the provision that altered the numerical values of the target diameter for final felling, finding that the principle of sustainability and the precautionary principle had not been observed in the process of adopting the contested provision.

This means that the reduced final-felling diameter values are no longer in force; they had been set at the same level for all site index classes – 30 cm for pine (it will revert to the pre-2023 range – from 39 to 27 cm – depending on the site index class), 26 cm for spruce (reverting to the pre-2023 range – from 31 to 27 cm – depending on the site index class) and 25 cm for birch (reverting to the pre-2023 range – from 31 to 22 cm – depending on the site index class). In practice, 2024 has been and still is a return to the past. For the sake of clarity, a corresponding regulatory act on target diameters is due to be drawn up.

Competitors given the advantage

“Latvia is a 'unique' country: narrowing the scope for felling three tree species – pine, spruce and birch – by target diameter means reducing opportunities in the broadest sense of that word. At the same time, the regulatory framework for forestry in Latvia (when you may do what on your own property) is, at state level, extremely strict and obstructive, because our direct competitors in Scandinavia face no such state requirements as to when and what they may do in their own forest,” says Māris Liopa, chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, in a critical assessment of the situation. He stresses that competitiveness is vital at present, particularly within the European Union, yet it can become a significant obstacle. Why? In the countries that compete with us (with Latvia's foresters and timber industry) – in Finland, for example – there are no restrictions on either felling diameter or age, the only condition being that felled areas must be regenerated; nor is there any felling diameter restriction in Sweden. “The only countries where a felling diameter restriction exists are Estonia, where it is 28 cm for pine, 26 cm for spruce and 22–26 cm for birch, and Latvia,” M. Liopa notes, recalling that when trees are felled by target diameter in Latvia the stand must be regenerated by planting high-quality material. This created a mechanism for increasing the value and productivity of the future forest, and increasing carbon sequestration along with it. “That is a question of no relevance whatsoever at the moment,” M. Liopa replies when asked about the volumes of birch, spruce and pine harvested relative to the total annual harvest of each of those species. In his view, now that the Constitutional Court has announced its decision, it is far more important to think about what to do and how to proceed from here.

Jobs = timber availability

“The timber industry operating in Latvia needs timber in order to make its products. In a situation where sanctions have taken timber of Russian and Belarusian origin, and products made from it, 'out of the game', the question of the availability of timber resources becomes more acute; otherwise the questions about jobs, especially in rural areas, about the taxes paid and, of course, about export earnings, are and will remain just as pressing,” M. Liopa replies when asked what matters most right now.

It should be recalled that the two aggressor states accounted for more than 1 million m³, or a little over 72%, of total softwood sawn timber imports (1.49 million m³). In 2021, 57.9 thousand m³ of plywood was imported from Russia (almost 53% of total imports of that product), which is nevertheless less than in 2020, when plywood imports were higher still at 65.1 thousand m³. Another significant import product was wood chips, which are also used in heat generation.

Asked about the increase in the total volume of felling in 2023 – by almost 2 million m³ compared with previous years – M. Liopa says: “It is surprising, because demand on foreign markets contracted last year and the timber industry's output fell too; perhaps at first it seems incomprehensible and hard to believe, but a logical explanation may yet be found, unless some error has crept into the data.” Māris Liopa recalls the 'astronomical' timber prices seen in 2022, a leap triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing rise in energy prices; that was a time when many private forest owners actively worked their forests, both hoping the 'party would carry on' (which it did not) and reacting to reports of possible restrictions on economic activity. “They replaced Russian and Belarusian timber resources,” the chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia says of the second important factor behind the rise in harvest volumes. In his view, it was only thanks to the timber resources available in Latvia that companies previously supplied with timber from Russia and Belarus were not closed down (did not go bankrupt) and that jobs were preserved. “That is very, very important, because providing the services society needs – education, health care, security, social assistance – to an adequate standard requires additional money, and the only source of that money is business, which can earn only by trading successfully and can then pay part of what it earns in taxes into the state's common purse. If production plants or entire sectors are closed, the amount of tax collected can be increased only by raising tax rates,” M. Liopa explains.

Opinion. Unbelievable figures

Kristaps Klauss, Vice-President of the Latvian Forest Industry Federation

All the secondary market data – output volumes, the external trade balance, demand for logging services – as well as a subjective feel for the market, 'say' the same thing: in 2023, logging volumes in private forests should on the whole have been lower than in 2022, or at most the same, and certainly not up by more than 1 million m³. There are three possibilities: the first is that I am plainly mistaken and you need not listen to me in future; the second is that there is an error in the State Forest Service (VMD) data that will be found and corrected; the third is that neither I nor the VMD is mistaken, but that forest owners have declared in 2023, en masse, felling sites actually worked in 2021 and 2022, since felling permits are valid for three years. Under any of these variants, or variations on them, any further comment from me is superfluous, because these figures do not describe what happened in 2023 – or else 2023 in my world was quite different from what VMD statistics show! Setting 2023 aside and speaking generally, I would urge great caution in naming specific tree species. I have come a cropper on this myself and have seen it happen to people far cleverer than me when drawing up investment plans. Take a look at what is out there: apart from some of the pine forests, our mature forests are not dominated by single species or monocultures! Birch, spruce, pine and so on grow side by side. In the statistics, however, every mixed-species forest is recorded 'under' the name of a single species – birch stands or spruce forests, for example. So when 100 m³ is felled in a forest where birch dominates, VMD statistics will show 100 m³ of birch felled, even though in reality that stand may have yielded, say, 40 m³ of birch logs, 35 m³ of spruce, 15 m³ of aspen and 10 m³ of other species. The State Forest Service is not lying – it is no accident that, if you read the methodology, you know that forestry speaks in terms of dominant-species stands.

Naturally, we also obtain birch from forests dominated by other species – it makes up a considerable admixture in spruce and aspen stands, for instance – but it is doubtful that everything balances out. Looking at final felling for 2023, we can see that pine-dominated stands accounted for around 30%, birch for 35%, spruce for only 13% and other species for 22%. When timber is measured at the landings beside the felling sites, the share of pine logs will be somewhat lower than the share of the stands named after that species – closer to 25% – whereas I would wager that there will be considerably more than 13% spruce logs, I would say twice as much, while the birch yield will have been a third lower than the share of felling sites named after it. A forest is not simple arithmetic!