Our goal in expressing support for these projects is not to argue with people who ignore rational arguments and, for example, despite well-known facts, continue to believe that a human-planted forest is not a forest but "just trees", or that pine trees do not need sufficiently large gaps and plenty of light to grow.

It is difficult to argue with people who even deny the fact that 52% of Latvia's territory is covered by forests and that this area has doubled since 1935, claiming "it cannot be so", "scientists have been bought off" and "I have been in the forest myself and seen clear-cuts".

I would like to explain why, in order to obtain more productive forests in the future, it would currently be useful to make amendments that provide for the determination of numerical values for diameter, similar to Estonia, bringing Latvia's forest management conditions closer to our competitors in Northern European countries.

Firstly, such amendments provide that - if you have felled, plant a better forest in its place!

Secondly, the draft amendment provides that the main felling diameter for all forest stands of the same species is set to be the same...