We are already accustomed to the fact that our lives and business development are influenced by European Commission (EC) strategies and directives. Member states have the opportunity not only to express an official national position on legislative initiatives but also to participate in public consultations on policy documents under development through sectoral lobby organisations. Such a consultation on strategies and directives affecting the forest sector takes place in Brussels twice a year. In July, the regular meeting took place, this time remotely, where, as usual, the Forest Owners Association of Latvia participated to voice their stance in defence of our national interests.
On the agenda were documents concerning the adaptation strategy for climate change, sustainable finance, EU action for the conservation of global forests, and the new Forest Strategy. One of the most heatedly discussed documents was the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The previous document, which remains in force until 2020, is still being evaluated and the final report is not yet available, but it is known that all the targets set for 2020 are far from being met. This means that more ambitious goals and stricter, legally binding conditions must be set for the next period to finally compel countries to treat the achievement of biodiversity targets more seriously. Personally, the first question arose for me already at the motto of the Biodiversity Strategy: Let's bring nature back into our lives. I think people connected to the forest will agree that nature has never left our lives; it is our everyday reality. However, there is no denying that such a motto reflects the ever-increasing trend of urbanisation, which takes people further and further away from nature. It leads them into metropolises of city comfort, entertainment, and increasing consumption, the maintenance and development of which certainly have an impact on the surrounding environment and natural resources.
The main premises in the forthcoming document are as follows: 30% of the EU land territory and 30% of the sea territory must be protected. And 10% of the land territory must be strictly protected. Although a precise definition for strict protection is not currently available, in the discussions, the representative of the Directorate-General for Environment explained that it should be understood as a complete ban on economic activity, except in emergency situations. Currently, in Latvia, 3.4% of forests are under a total ban on economic activity. There is an interesting note in these figures – these percentages are to be reached by the EU on average, not in every member state, which means they could be lower in some countries and higher in others, depending on criteria yet to be discussed. It is clear that territories that possess any natural values at all must be included in the additional protected areas. Can you imagine that in a country like the Netherlands, which is the size of Kurzeme and has 16 million inhabitants, 30% of the territory must be protected? What can be put into protected areas in addition to what is already protected there? Perhaps some countries do not have areas with natural values to offer for protection. Does Latvia have anything to offer? The answers may vary depending on the side represented. The foresters' proposal could be a contribution to achieving the common goals of biodiversity, climate change adaptation strategies, CO2 sequestration, bioeconomy, and others through sustainable forest management. Non-governmental environmental organisations would likely want to include all habitats found during the nature census, which will be close to 200,000 hectares, in protected areas. In turn, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM) continues to remain silent about its intentions regarding the results of the nature census, possibly for two reasons: one – to announce the unpleasant news to forest owners as late as possible; two – that the bargaining process over what quality, how much, and from whose forests to include in new protected areas will be very complicated. Most likely, it is both of these reasons.
The natural distribution range of forest habitats in Latvia's report to the EC is assessed as favourable, which means we have many forests that provide the functions needed by society while simultaneously meeting the goals of the listed European strategies. In this regard, many questions were also asked to the representatives of the EC Directorate-General for Environment about contradictions in different policies. It is known that non-resilient forest stands are suffering due to climate change, which is why the EC emphasises that resilient, well-managed forests that sequester CO2 and help achieve climate neutrality goals are very important for Europe. Then why does the Biodiversity Strategy foresee a reduction in the area of these well-managed forests? This was not an easy question to answer, as it is obvious that the goals are contrary to different policy documents. The same applies to the set target to restore 25,000 kilometres of free-flowing rivers in the EU. How does that go together with a 10% ban on economic activity on land? Latvia has well-known experience of what happens to small rivers if the forest on their banks is not well managed – the rivers are ruined by tree debris and bank erosion, which make them wider and shallower. One could prohibit economic activity, let natural processes clog them with debris, and then, under the name of nature restoration projects, spend the billions of the Green Deal to clear the rivers of trees and record the kilometres of free-flowing rivers in the achieved indicators. Situations in different countries may vary, but this specific river quality problem in Latvia has not been solved in a reasonable way so far. Another premise is to fully protect primary and old-growth forests. While Moricsala can be counted among the former in Latvia, the discussion on the latter is still to come. And again – what is an everyday thing for one is a wonder for others. There are experts from European countries who look at the crocodile-like bark of our pines as something very special and rare. In Scandinavia, the age of forest stands is lower than in Latvia because owners have more freedom in commercial forests. Consequently, due to various circumstances, Latvia has enough forest stands that could be called old-growth forests if compared with other countries.
Latvia's position regarding the new Biodiversity Strategy is still being prepared by VARAM. It remains to be hoped that our national interests will be observed and defended in it, so that our commercial forests continue to be a resource for our collective prosperity and green growth, rather than an object of green indulgence for major manufacturing nations.
Article published with the kind permission of the editorial board of the magazine "Baltijas Koks"