Around 20% of gross domestic product in Latvia arises from land use, which is why decision-makers must be able to take decisions that benefit society as a whole rather than individual small interest groups.

Conclusions such as these, and similar ones, were heard at the 10th international conference of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, “Sustainability and resources in land management: cooperation in times of crisis and change”. Land is an important resource for Latvia, one that can be used for a variety of needs. What is grown on it – agricultural produce and timber – serves as a significant resource for the processing industry, while land management is at the same time an important sphere of the national economy, providing jobs and tax revenue as well as mitigating a range of risks.

Use your head!

“Latvia's two misfortunes are over-regulation, when we try to take on and introduce everything anyone happens to recommend, but do not use our heads and do not adapt these recommendations to Latvian conditions; the second is excessive democracy, when projects that matter to society are held up because of objections from individual small groups,” stressed Uldis Ameriks, chairman of the board of SIA “Laflora”, pointing to the very great importance of policy and planning documents. “The most important document for the development of a particular area is the spatial development plan, which must be scrupulously assessed, separating areas intended for production from those intended, for example, for nature protection.” In his view, Latvia's legislation should be such that decisions can be taken quickly and plans that matter to society can be carried out. “Land use is not only resource extraction – the foundation of prosperity – but also the foundation of national security,” U. Ameriks is convinced.

Only 53% of the land for timber production

Dagnis Dubrovskis, member of the board of AS “Latvijas valsts meži” (LVM), pointed to the ever greater importance being attached to conserving biological diversity, which is why 23.16% of the managed area is set aside for one of the company's forest management objectives – nature protection. Timber production from forest accounts for 62.1%, timber production with environmental conditions for 16.2% and nature for 21.7% of the forest. Of LVM's total managed land, 53% is for timber production, 14% for timber production with environmental conditions, 19% for nature within forest, 7% for nature outside forest, 5% for infrastructure and 2% for other purposes outside forest and infrastructure.

The total forest area of Latvia is 1.73 million hectares, of which 1.59 million ha are managed by AS “Latvijas valsts meži”, VARAM holds slightly more than 89,000 ha, the forest research station slightly more than 28,000 ha, the Ministry of Defence just under 19,000 ha and the Ministry of Education and Science almost 2,500 ha.

There are no restrictions at all on 1.245 million hectares held under LVM management, 3,254 ha under VARAM, 22,518 ha under the forest research station, 7,194 ha under the Ministry of Defence and 2,217 ha under the Ministry of Education and Science. “Timber harvesting volumes over the previous five years indicate that no economic activity has taken place in the forests supervised by VARAM and the Ministry of Defence,” assesses D. Dubrovskis, recalling that the total area of EU-importance habitats in the country identifiable in the State Forest Register is 489,070 ha, of which EU-importance forest habitats have been identified on 334,597 hectares. 80% of the EU-importance habitats are on state-owned land.

A third less

In 2024, 7.44 million m³ of timber was harvested in LVM-managed forests; over the next ten years the timber stock that will reach the parameters for final felling and thinning will be 127 million m³. D. Dubrovskis drew attention to the fact that in LVM-managed forests timber is harvested on average several decades after the final felling age has been reached – for aspen this gap is 39 years, for pine 24 years, for spruce 22, for black alder 20 and for birch 14 years. “We fell older trees that have exceeded the final felling age laid down in legislation for the tree species,” said D. Dubrovskis, reporting on modelling carried out on the impact of the EU Green Deal and other commitments on annual timber harvesting volumes in Latvia: instead of the current 13 million m³, slightly more than 12 million m³ could be harvested; there are also scenarios in which the volume of timber harvested would be 8.2–9.5 million m³.

“That is an enormous impact both on the economy and on jobs and so on,” D. Dubrovskis acknowledged. In his view, to cushion the situation many processes need to be looked at differently from the way we do at present, and various solutions need to be put into practice. “Develop integrated forest management, introduce dynamic nature protection systems, increase stand productivity, improve forest management methods while ensuring soil protection, and set up a system for compensating environmental impact for the needs of the company and its clients by developing an offer of nature credits,” D. Dubrovskis replied to the question of how to make up for a possible fall in timber harvesting, stressing that this therefore requires changes to legislation, modernisation of the nature protection system, a review of forest management rules and improvement of the rules on environmental impact assessment. “To replace fossil resources, the use of wood products in construction must be increased.”

A generator of 20% of GDP cannot be ignored

Uldis Biķis, chairman of the council of AS “Latvijas Finieris”, called for an understanding both of the geopolitical situation that has taken shape in Europe and of the forest sector's potential additional contribution to the state budget. The forest sector – forestry and the timber industry – currently accounts for around 6% of Latvia's GDP; together with agriculture and other bioeconomy sectors it already generates around 12% of GDP. And together with indirectly related sectors – transport, construction, education and others – around 20% of GDP arises from land use in Latvia. In effect, in Latvia every fifth euro “comes” from land management. “In Latvia we are delighted at the renaissance of wood in architecture, yet modern products require access to sustainable resources and sustainable land use. Unfortunately, in ten years we have not resolved this question,” concludes U. Biķis, stressing that the relevant decision will have to be taken sooner or later. “When the ‘big' decisions were taken in the European Union, several sector leaders had the feeling that at last there would be a division of land (10% under strict protection, 20% for multifunctional use and 70% for productive scientific and economic use) and that Latvia too would put this approach into practice, one in which we help one another rather than get in each other's way,” said U. Biķis. He recalled that today, compared with several decades ago, natural values are far more intricate and complex, while at the same time outdated legislation that does not match the real situation essentially forces timber to rot in the forest. “We are increasing biological diversity, including habitats for insects and so on, but... how much of it do we want and what picture do we see for the future?”

We are leaving ever more to rot

Forest resource monitoring data show that the total timber stock in Latvia is 671.5 million m³ and the amount of deadwood 64.1 million m³. Over the past 16 years the amount of deadwood has increased by 7.7 million m³, or 13.7%. U. Biķis asked whether the volume of this deadwood will continue to grow in future, all the more so because the amount of old forest in Latvia will increase. A great many spruce stands were planted in the Soviet era after storms, so in future the area of such stands (by dominant storey) in hectares will be almost twice as large as it is now.

“How much of what grows in these stands will reach wood processing and be used to create added value, and how much of it will remain (rot) in the forest?” asked U. Biķis. In his view, if decision-makers wish to give forest owners the right to decide, the sector must be ready to take in the timber resources concerned. The volume of timber felled because of damage has grown substantially in recent years, but for the most part what can be obtained from it is energy wood, which has little added value.

Producing more firewood will bring no significant contribution either to society or to the state budget. To resolve this question, decisiveness and responsibility are needed – replacing old spruce stands with new, more productive stands and establishing mixed stands in conditions suited to them, which would make it possible to achieve both economic and ecological goals. U. Biķis called for a comparison of minimum felling ages – for pine, in climatically cooler Sweden it is 60 years, in Estonia 90 years and in Latvia 101 years; for spruce, in Sweden 45 years, in Estonia 60 years and in Latvia 81 years; for birch, in Sweden 35 years, in Estonia 60 years and in Latvia 71 years. It should be borne in mind that in Finland and Norway no felling age is set at all: the forest owner decides when to harvest timber.

“Only if the owner is free to take decisions can we achieve the best result – for the owner, for wood processing and for the state (the budget),” assesses U. Biķis, highlighting the new three pillars of adequate competitiveness – performance, sustainability and security. In his view, there is now an opportunity to mobilise Latvia's forest resources; if this is done, more than one billion euros of added value can be produced and the level of the national economy raised. “To bring this about, the will of political decision-makers is needed,” stressed U. Biķis, acknowledging that Latvia has the opportunity to cooperate with the Nordic countries, where added-value creation and resource mobilisation are also under discussion.

A hard nut to crack

Āris Jansons, director of the Forest Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, pointed to the 2025 report of the European Court of Auditors, according to which cumulative inflation in 2019–2027 is estimated at around 33% on average in the EU but close to 50% in Latvia, which means a fall in purchasing power at EU level and a new priority – defence – to which substantial funds will be directed.

“We will have to rely more on our own resources, not only to keep the economy going but to reach the ambitious goal set by the Ministry of Economics of doubling Latvia's GDP by 2035. That means annual growth of at least 8%,” said Ā. Jansons, noting that this can happen at the expense of the sectors in which investment is made. “As a result of investment by 12 wood-processing companies, the value of fixed assets has grown in two years from 273 to 425 million euros,” Ā. Jansons calculates, recalling that securing investment requires stable, predictable conditions both in tax policy and in the availability of resources. “From time to time one can observe a situation where people have managed to create an illogical picture – ‘green' coal and ‘non-green' trees, proposing to reduce the use of wood even though it is the excessive use of fossil resources that is blamed for climate change,” is how Ā. Jansons describes this paradoxical picture. In his view, changes to legislation will have to be made so that part of forestry can be reoriented towards alternative forms of income – trading in carbon and nature credits, as soon as that becomes available – and competitiveness with neighbouring countries must likewise be evened out. “We have to think about the state of EU forest habitats, which will not be simple, because there are many such habitats (more than 335,000 ha) and high criteria have been set, since there are boreal forests covering more than 100,000 ha, and, when structures and functions are assessed, 82% are in good condition (62% excellent and 20% good), yet the assessment is unfavourable,” said Ā. Jansons. He explains that this merely indicates the preconditions for achieving an improvement, where the total habitat area does not change and solutions are used that are simple as well as financially advantageous or neutral, so that forest owners who have little money are able to carry out the measures, while at the same time using the available resources more usefully – in research, developing solutions and monitoring. Ā. Jansons noted that there are still fairly large areas in Latvia where the state of habitats is described as unknown.

The best figures are for intensive forestry

“Forestry has a strong impact on other sectors, particularly transport and trade,” said Mārtiņš Danusevičs, a researcher at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences of the University of Latvia, explaining data from the study “Economic and social aspects of the development of Latvia's forest sector” and noting that, when the best economic growth scenarios are analysed, the best results are shown by the intensive forestry scenario, while the Green Deal scenario shows a contraction of the sector. Interestingly, intensive forestry could on the whole provide a greater degree of CO₂ sequestration in the long term than the other scenarios. It is concluded that the Green Deal has no clear economic benefits and is slightly less advantageous than business-as-usual management, whereas afforestation can generate considerable gross value added. The study shows that the Green Course (more correctly, the Green Deal...) could at the same time deliver ecological benefits, but the price does not seem proportionate. The benefits do not seem as good as the economic growth forgone. A higher subjective value of forests is a trade-off with economic benefits. The loss of economic growth appears considerably greater than the loss of recreational value.

To gain something, something must be given up

“We are masters of planning, because in forestry the Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava” has offered several dozen options for how Latvia can achieve the goal of raising forest productivity by 25%. Carrying these plans out, however, has not gone particularly well,” acknowledged Artūrs Bukonts, executive director of the Latvian Forest Industry Federation, noting that economics begins where resources are limited and their use has to be planned. Every choice also means giving something up, because the same tree cannot both be left in the forest and used in production. “A study by the think tank “Metabolic” concluded that a fair amount of the resources in the existing timber flow can be used again, both by recycling them and by finding new applications, without increasing logging volumes or the flow of timber from the forests,” explained A. Bukonts, recalling the researchers' conclusion that the lifespan of wood products can be extended and that wood products can be reused, for example in building structures.

The trust and efficiency factor

Professor Linards Sisenis, vice-rector for finance at the Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, offered a number of wishes to the forest sector, to those who prepare and take decisions, and also to “green friends”: “My wish for decision-makers, and for the Ministry of Agriculture in particular, is not to stop, but to continue the fight they have begun against bureaucracy and against the regulatory burden placed on forest managers.” He noted that Latvians are diligent workers and there is no reason to doubt that forests might be managed badly, calling for forests to be managed without hindrance. “My wish for society, and especially for its thinking part, is to state ever more often and ever more loudly the view that forests must be managed and tended, and that only then can we obtain from them both timber and non-timber values, with the national economy and the country as a whole gaining as a result,” L. Sisenis continued, wishing the forest sector to be efficient. “Nowadays efficiency in wood processing is measured not in seconds but in hundredths of a second. In forestry, efficiency is the forest management cycle, which we have shortened substantially. Efficiency is how great a financial gain, both in non-timber values and in terms of cubic metres, we obtain from the forests,” stressed the LBTU vice-rector for finance, calling on everyone to work more efficiently. “My wish for our “green friends” – I urge you to understand that in the long term your prosperity too depends not on how many real or fictitious habitats we count today, or how much forest we include in protected forests, but on how strong the national economy in Latvia is, because that alone determines the contribution of money (taxes) to the state budget, which is the source for financing the services that are important and necessary for the whole country (society),” Linards Sisenis concluded his address.