Should the documents (their drafts) currently being prepared by the European Commission regarding land use in forestry and agriculture be accepted (harmonised), they could significantly impact existing traditional economic models of forest and land management, as well as the production of forestry and agricultural goods.

“It is no secret that the Green Deal will fundamentally change many areas in the European Union, including the forestry sector, and especially forest management. The question of what these changes will actually look like remains current and unclear,” says Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia (LMSP), in his assessment of the situation. He believes the potential significance of these changes is illustrated by the involvement of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry in the discussion of these documents. “Scandinavian institutions carry far more weight in the corridors of EU bodies than a unified and coordinated position from the Baltic states or any individual forest owners' organisation from our region,” M. Liopa notes. In his view, if all forces are concentrated together, results will follow.

“As the classic saying goes: the devil is in the details. One of these is the so-called taxonomy (in other words, classification), which could have adverse consequences, particularly for small and medium-sized land (forest) managers. Why? Because they will simply be unable to meet certain requirements, even if those requirements are (or are labelled as) merely advisory. For example, legally, forest certification in Latvia and many other countries is a voluntary process, but... if a forest owner wants to sell the roundwood assortment growing in their forest, the requirements from timber buyers for a certificate mean that such certification becomes effectively mandatory,” M. Liopa says, answering the question about the root of the problem.

In his view, the worst outcome would be a situation where only large land managers are able to successfully meet the taxonomy requirements for sustainable economic activity, which in turn would mean excluding small owners from the economic cycle or forcing them to divest their properties by selling them. Māris Liopa reminds us that Latvia has already experienced a polarisation of opinions, where the same forestry practice is considered harmful to nature by some and nature-friendly by others.

“Will this mean that every forest owner, before harvesting, will have to carry out an assessment of the environmental impact of the planned operation (plan), including, at least theoretically, calculating the ecological footprint of this activity, greenhouse gas emission sequestration, perhaps even a bird index, and so on?” M. Liopa asks, describing potential problem areas.

He draws attention to the fact that CO2 emission levels are being recorded (applied) for Latvia inappropriately—namely, using metrics typical of a different climatic zone (for example, where Germany and France are located), even though research by the Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava” shows that in our latitudes, these levels are much lower.

“To use timber resources more rationally, EU institutions believe that timber processing into wood products should be promoted, and only once the life cycle of these wood products has ended should they be used for energy. Just one thing!... what are forest owners supposed to do with forest stands where the trees that have grown can only be used as fuel—for energy?” M. Liopa says, citing a vivid example. He reminds us that in discussions about biodiversity and natural values, there is a vast difference in understanding between people living in Northern and Southern Europe.

“As shown by a handout created for the 2020 meeting of responsible EU ministers in Bratislava, forest areas in Europe have not decreased, and everything is in order with the bird index too! But... there are active groups with unclear interests who are painting an entirely different picture,” M. Liopa says, pointing out a current contradiction that remains “unnoticed” by many institutions.