In any other primary material and resource market, such as fossil energy and mining or fisheries and agriculture, an increase in demand leads to a fairly rapid increase in supply. However, wood production is different. There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, forest resources grow and develop over much longer periods than economic markets: forestry must plan production cycles spanning several decades.
Secondly, the majority of producers are forest owners who are not professionals, but largely private individuals with other sources of income. European timber production is not concentrated in any specific number of property managers, but is scattered among millions of forest owners who have varying interests in different ecological and socio-economic circumstances that influence tree growth and the harvesting of timber.
An increase in demand in the timber sector can place significant pressure on forest land and lead to an insufficient level of timber harvesting, which can harm or even destroy the ecosystem. Looking back in history, large-scale deforestation took place in Europe in the 18th century. Growing needs for agricultural land to feed an increasing population, as well as the rising demand for timber used in manufacturing, international trade, and also warfare (for example, wood fuel for the steam engines of the time, construction timber for shipbuilding, and mining), led to the forest cover in most countries being less than 10% (though this did not apply to Northern Europe and the Baltics). The restoration of these lands required large-scale efforts, which resulted in forestry being established as the more or less systematic, institutionalised form of land management we know today, in order to mitigate the risk of deforestation and overexploitation.
In addition to the production of wood or woody biomass, forests provide many other ecosystem services to humans, some of which are very significant for forest owners, local residents, or society as a whole. This section provides the main ecosystem services along with specific, interrelated measures needed to reduce the impact of wood extraction.
Ideally, it is necessary to maintain the productivity of the forest in a specific location and climate at a constant level, as the forest ecosystem must regenerate after timber harvesting in accordance with a sustainable management regime. However, practices that cause soil erosion can have a significantly negative impact on land productivity. As a large proportion of unused wood resources is located in areas with difficult access, it is important that soil science recommendations are also taken into account when mobilising additional resources. It is necessary to maintain not only the quantity of the soil but also its quality (composition, richness, and biological activity) so that trees can grow well. This is especially true in soils where the structures of woody biomass (i.e., leaves, needles, and bark) contain high concentrations of nutrients.
As is known, barriers or constraints are any conditions that hinder the development and implementation of effective solutions for, so to speak, wood mobilisation and active forest management. These are mainly determined by a specific set of forest resources, markets, and management: the conditions of the respective region, often linked to structural shortcomings or a lack of usable knowledge among participants. Therefore, the identified obstacles are:
The characteristics of forest resources do not meet market demand. The current state of the forest is the result of many years of intervention by previous generations of forest owners and foresters. The species composition, age distribution of trees, and wood quality are fundamental characteristics of any managed forest area. These are the result of specific site and growth conditions related to the forest ecosystem (e.g., soil, climate, and forest genetics) and management. Together, these factors determine how much timber can be produced. The main obstacles to wood mobilisation include forest resources that do not meet the demand of available timber markets, as well as forest stands that are not yet mature for harvesting or have insufficient timber quality.
Inefficient harvesting techniques and practices. There are several ways to manage forests and harvest timber, each of which directly affects the costs of wood mobilisation and timber prices. Inappropriate choices in infrastructure design or timber harvesting can increase timber extraction costs and prevent harvesting even when marketable wood stocks are available. Modern knowledge and equipment for mechanised timber harvesting, which can significantly improve logging processes and worker safety, are not yet widespread, particularly among small-scale owners, and can thus be a major obstacle to wood mobilisation.
Sustainability issues and the impact of climate change. Concerns among forest owners or forestry specialists regarding the risk of forest ecosystem degradation due to increased logging can also be an obstacle to wood mobilisation. These restrictions are not legally binding, but are imposed de facto on forest lands, for example by owners who care about soil quality and nature conservation. Furthermore, as a result of climate change, the vulnerability of forests to diseases, pests, forest fires, or storms is increasing. The occurrence of more frequent environmental impacts reduces the stability of the forest and the amount of timber available for logging.
The types of forest resource barriers or constraints described above are often seen as the main "problems" encountered by local forest owners and foresters. Most of them are linked to obstacles in other problem areas, which are actually easier to address. For example, foresters may identify "steep slopes" or "swampy areas" as the main barrier to wood mobilisation. However, this problem cannot be solved directly, and it may be more useful to understand the associated obstacles as a "lack of access to capital" or "insufficient advisory capacity", which could be solved, for example, through co-operation. There are countries where co-operation has developed very successfully; here in Latvia, progress is not so brilliant, and we still have a great deal to do in this area. Nevertheless, some strong cooperatives have already been established that are operating very successfully, thus both improving the quality of services for forest owners and contributing to truly sustainable forest management.
Legislation and regulations that restrict productive forestry. This area includes laws and regulations that impose effective restrictions and/or lead to high costs or uncertainty for productive forestry. These include, for example, restrictions on the chemical control of pests on forest land to prevent soil and water pollution, obligations for environmental impact assessments (EIA), or limited use in certain areas for nature conservation and habitat protection. An important general obstacle, especially for small forest owners and forestry companies, is the heavy bureaucratic burden ("forest bureaucracy") caused by a complex regulatory system for forestry and the constant increase in environmental protection requirements, which is often subjective and provides no compensation for the burdens created.
Lack of legislation for effective cooperation. This area relates to legislation that does not encourage cooperation in forest management and markets, or that promotes fragmented activities. Cooperation between individual private owners (for example, in associations, cooperatives, or other organisations) is often insufficiently productive; therefore, there are situations where active wood market participants need a clearer legal basis. Legislative encouragement is necessary, as the creation of even more active and stronger cooperative groups in the forest sector must be promoted.
Other regulatory and legal obstacles. This area identifies laws and regulations that set restrictions and cause high costs or uncertainty for transport, markets, and trade (imports/exports). For example, timber transport is one of the most significant cost factors, so national legislation setting weight limits for timber has a very decisive influence. Tariffs on forest products are a key factor shaping the EU's international import and export markets for the forest sector. Import taxes or quotas on EU forest products are effectively protectionist subsidies for competing goods, and taxes or bans on timber exports to the EU can be a restrictive factor for raw material supply, further limiting market potential. Regarding competitiveness, legal requirements concerning worker health and safety differ significantly between countries and can be an important cost factor. Finally, forest health regulations are needed, particularly phytosanitary measures, to prevent the spread of pests, but these, in turn, can significantly limit wood mobilisation on a wider scale.
Financial and material obstacles
This area relates directly to obstacles associated with infrastructure and material resources, primarily at the regional level, with forest sector companies thus facing high transaction and operating costs for more active utilisation of forest resources.
Land ownership barriers.
Small-scale ownership and land fragmentation. Fragmentation is one of the most common obstacles, especially in private forests belonging to individuals or families (in the European context, they are often referred to as Non-Industrial Private Forest - NIPF owners). There are approximately 16 million private forest owners in Europe, two-thirds of whom have forest areas smaller than 3 hectares. (In Latvia, the average area is 8.8 hectares). The majority of European Union forest owners have only about 1 hectare of land or even less. Sustainable forest management is threatened by the fragmentation of forest land into small property units, unfavourable spatial shapes of properties, unclear boundaries, splitting into enclaves, and unclear or complex forms of ownership (heir communities, etc.).
Therefore, solving the problem of fragmentation is one of the main tasks of wood mobilisation.
The historical origins of fragmentation can be linked to the restructuring of management systems for common lands at the end of the agricultural intensification in the late 19th century. In many regions, community-owned forests were divided among citizens who had acquired private land rights. This was often carried out according to a rigid scheme, literally dividing the land on a map with a ruler. Over generations, these small plots were later subdivided. The traditional partible inheritance system, which requires property to be divided into equal shares among heirs, is an unfavourable reason why fragmentation continues to increase today.
This obstacle is particularly significant in Western European regions that have partible inheritance traditions, and in some Central and Eastern European countries where the number of private owners continues to rise due to restitution and privatisation processes. In small countries like Latvia, for instance, there are 135,000 forest owners, while in Lithuania there are around 250,000.
Lack of cooperation between forest owners.
Forestry operations can be implemented more effectively by carrying out forest management in larger areas simultaneously, thereby reducing logging and timber transport costs. However, forest owners often have different goals for the management of their forests, so building effective cooperatives is not always an easy task. In fragmented forestry, wood mobilisation can only be carried out through some form of cooperation between land owners.
Fluctuations and disruptions in key timber markets.
Timber markets have become increasingly globalised, which also makes them more sensitive to price competition on various scales. Market conditions for traditional forest industries are also changing due to the emergence of new market participants competing for the same raw material (e.g., bioenergy, biomass, and biofuel). International trends in demand or trade competition can significantly affect regional markets. Furthermore, catastrophic events such as storms, forest fires, or severe droughts can also cause significant fluctuations, as a sudden surplus or, conversely, a shortage of marketable timber disrupts the normal process of price development. Such events can affect several European regions simultaneously, depending on the scale of the events, since, of course, there is an interdependence of regional timber markets.
Although Latvia's forest sector is strong and we can justifiably consider Latvia a “forest superpower”, several of the problems listed above in the wood mobilisation process are still very relevant to our country. In the Latvian context, it is particularly important to emphasise the conditions for the effective use of forest resources, which are not disproportionately burdened by increasing nature conservation requirements that are often based on the subjective and biased activities of so-called “nature experts” and “forest policy experts”. As a result of these activities, we see constant disinformation of the public and fear-mongering with various supposedly scientifically based “horror scenarios” regarding the processes of biodiversity loss in our country. The developed species protection plans and other measures by environmental non-governmental organisations confirm this – for example, the recently written and approved “Hazel Grouse Protection Plan”, which is based on various claims and assumptions, but the consequences of its implementation could paralyse the entire forest sector...
I am afraid even to imagine what these experts will write in the 2019 report to the European Commission on the state of biodiversity in Latvia, as next spring the time for the next report will have arrived. It must be taken into account that the famous “nature census” (in reality, the identification of the distribution and quality of protected habitats of EU importance, costing 9.5 million EUR) will not yet have finished, and then one must ask – where will these experts get the data to prepare the report?
It remains to be hoped that this report will be submitted for evaluation to forest and land owners, representatives of the forest sector and related industries, local governments, and people who are genuinely interested in the prosperity of our land and country...