Forest owners in Latvia have to grow their trees more than 30 years longer than their competitors in Sweden, and that situation will remain in place following the decision by a majority in the Saeima not to table the prepared amendments to the Forest Law, which would have reduced the final felling age for pine from 101 to 81 years, for spruce from 81 to 61 years, for birch and black alder from 71 to 51 years, and for aspen from 41 to 31 years.

Policy guidelines and an assessment first

Saeima deputy Uģis Rotbergs said that now is not the right time to be talking about reducing the felling age. Specifically, in 2024 the Constitutional Court heard a case on amendments to the tree felling rules promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture, which concerned the felling of smaller-diameter trees: “Age and diameter are linked. Who has ever seen young, thick trees? Nobody. And what did the court rule? The amendments were found to be incompatible with the Constitution. The court stressed that the environmental impact had not been sufficiently assessed, that the precautionary principle had not been observed, and that public participation in the decision-making had been inadequate. This country has a development planning system in place. Sectoral policies have to come first. A strategic environmental impact assessment is required where a sectoral policy relates to the environment.” The deputy pointed out that there are currently no policy guidelines in force for forests and related sectors, and no environmental impact assessment either.

“On 20 November 2025 the Prosecutor General's Office opened an inquiry into whether public officials acted in accordance with the requirements of the law when deciding on support for the timber industry. In March this year, the Prosecutor General's Office then initiated criminal proceedings over possible offences in connection with the unlawful granting of support to the timber industry. The State Audit Office has begun an audit of the effectiveness of the oversight of the joint-stock company Latvijas valsts meži, that is, of how the interests of the state and of society are being pursued in managing state-owned forests,” said U. Rotbergs, calling for the outcomes of the work of both the Prosecutor General's Office and the State Audit Office to be awaited.

Private forest owners at a loss

Private forest owners do not understand the position taken by the majority of parliamentarians, since the state is free to set different requirements for the manager of its own forests than it does for private forest owners; and to tie private owners' freedom to take decisions on their own property to the outcome of the work of the State Audit Office and the Prosecutor General's Office in relation to the manager of the state forests is, to put it mildly, very odd. At the same time, it can be concluded that the Saeima majority's decision deliberately denies forest owners in Latvia the same or comparable rights over the harvesting of timber resources as those enjoyed in Sweden, let alone in Finland or Norway. In essence, such a situation has to be regarded as a distortion of competition, the consequence of which is lower income for forest owners. This approach prevents forest owners from taking decisions that respond pre-emptively to risks – more and more often what comes off a property is damaged timber fit only for firewood (which always fetches a lower price than sawlogs or veneer logs). Growing firewood is by no means the most efficient or productive use of land, all the more so when the state is unable or unwilling to pay adequate compensation for the partial or complete restriction of economic activity.

A call for the right to choose

Aneta Rulle, head of the forestry services cooperative society (MPKS) “Mūsu mežs”, voices firm support for the proposed amendments to the Forest Law reducing the final felling age: “It is time to stop repeating the myth that a forest owner is the enemy of their own property,” she stresses, pointing out that the proposed changes are not an order to fell, but the freedom for an owner to decide about their own asset at the moment when the timber is at its most valuable.

“It is a mistake to think that a forest owner is the enemy of their own property; quite the opposite – an owner has every interest in the forest regenerating and remaining valuable for future generations, and nobody is compelling anyone to cut,” says A. Rulle. She explains that the proposed changes would merely give owners the right to decide about their own property themselves.

“We call for an end to frightening the public with myths. In Latvia, harvesting timber resources is not an ending but the beginning of a new forest – we plant and tend so that what is left to future generations is not rotting thickets but valuable stands.”

The management of Latvia's largest private forest owners' cooperative, “Mežsaimnieks” (more than 1,200 members, managing over 30,000 ha of forest), explains that forest owners are more cautious and manage their land more sustainably than the law requires. Specifically, contrary to fears of “wholesale clearance”, the figures from “Mežsaimnieks” show the reverse – annual increment of more than 200,000 m³, but actual harvesting of timber resources of around 100,000 m³ a year (including thinning).

“Reopening the Forest Law was an opportunity to give commercial forests their freedom,” adds A. Rulle, explaining that the proposed changes neither abolish nor weaken nature protection requirements, and do not alter the rules on specially protected areas or other restrictions in force, but concern the management of commercial forests.

“We are calling for a debate based on science, not on fear. Latvia's budget needs revenue for national defence and for prosperity; the forest sector is ready to provide it if the regulatory shackles are taken off,” A. Rulle is convinced. She points out that while some try to frighten the public with populist slogans, the sector is demanding the right to manage its land rationally rather than watch Latvia's green gold turn into low-value firewood and pest hotspots.

“How long will this discrimination in competitiveness be maintained in Latvia, with Latvian foresters currently backed into a corner by regulation while in neighbouring Scandinavia management is flexible and economically sound?”, asks A. Rulle sharply, adding that harvesting timber resources in good time feeds Latvia's economy and secures energy independence (security), rather than leaving resources to rot in the forest. “Only a young, healthy, growing stand actively takes up CO₂. An old, rotting forest is not a set of ‘lungs' but a source of carbon,” A. Rulle explains on the question of CO₂ uptake, which matters for the climate.

Let's encourage firewood production

“Latvia must make maximum efficient and productive use of its land resources, securing export earnings, jobs and tax revenue for the state budget,” is how Māris Liopa, chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, assesses the situation. He cannot see why the volume of rotted timber in Latvia's forests should be increased when, according to Forest Resources Monitoring data, it already exceeds 64 million m³, which even on conservative calculations means letting 2–2.5 billion euros rot away.

“Over the past 16 years the amount of deadwood has increased by more than 7.7 million m³ and, unfortunately, it will go on rising in future; spruce stands over 50 years of age, for example, are far more vulnerable both to invasion by the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle and to windthrow, which means that such stands will for the most part yield energy wood, and increasing that will bring no real benefit either to society or to the state budget – yet in the view of the Saeima majority owners must not be given greater rights to decide,” explains M. Liopa. He points out that the volume of timber obtained from sanitary felling has risen almost fivefold in recent years, which means lower income not only for forest owners but for the state budget too.

“Are most decision-makers really ignoring the figures? Forest covers almost 53% of Latvia's territory, the total growing stock is around 670 million m³ and annual increment about 24.6 million m³, while at the same time the volume of harvesting is substantially (!!!) lower. The forest sector on its own generates around 5.4% of GDP, and if you add in the orders it places with the services sector that figure will be more impressive still. The forest sector is particularly important in Latvia's regions, where it accounts for a large share of value added and provides better-than-average paid jobs,” M. Liopa observes. It is striking that, almost 36 years after the restoration of independence, the harvesting age for timber resources in Latvia still rests on Soviet-era principles.

“It is odd that the felling age for pine and spruce is the same in Latvia as it is in Russia, and that the legislative majority did not risk adapting it to our country's circumstances,” says M. Liopa sharply. He stresses that the actions – or more precisely the inaction – of political decision-makers have had and will continue to have a significant effect on Latvia's economy, on employment, on the amount of tax paid, and on prosperity too.

“That is why the future of the Latvian state, of the people living here and of the entrepreneurs creating value has depended, does depend and will depend precisely on the work of political decision-makers – either an economically sound, environmentally friendly and socially fair economy that generates tax revenue for the state budget, or excessive restrictions and prohibitions that allow assets worth billions of euros simply to rot and that befit the status of a nature reserve. As we know, there is an ever greater shortage of money to provide services that are vital to society and, unfortunately, the only remedy on offer is growing the national debt and raising tax rates (rather than earning money), where the ‘ceiling' may be reached in the very near future,” says M. Liopa.

Decisions must be based on data

Rolands Feldmanis, chairman of the board of the Latvian Agricultural Cooperatives Association

“The argument about the forest as a common good for society and a provider of ecosystem services is often invoked, and this debate frequently ignores the fact that it is precisely active, well-considered forest management that promotes the forest's productivity, health and capacity to capture carbon. The turnover of trees is not the destruction of the forest but a continuous cycle, in which a growing, young and vigorous forest captures more carbon than overgrown, stagnating stands. Purposeful harvesting and timely regeneration increase both the productivity of the forest and its contribution to meeting climate targets. Claims about a worsening CO₂ balance and uncertain outcomes often fail to take account of the fact that timber, once it goes into long-lived wood products, continues to store carbon outside the forest as well. Moreover, wood processing mainly uses stems of relatively small diameter, and thicker trees are not always needed for processing purposes. That means forest management can be precisely tailored both to the needs of the sector and to the long-term balance of the ecosystem.

The rule of law does not mean failing to take decisions or perpetual procrastination; it means the ability to base policy on data, on science and on a long-term view. Forest management founded on the turnover of trees, on rising productivity and on the use of timber in long-lived products simultaneously strengthens ecosystem services, reduces pressure on other, non-renewable resources and promotes carbon capture. The question, therefore, is not whether the forest belongs to society, but how to manage it so that, in the long term, society gains both a clean environment and a strong, competitive sector.”

Comparison of felling ages (final felling)

Source: Forest Certification Council of Latvia