Once, while living in the Soviet information space, one had to encounter the phrase 'the obvious – the incredible'. Memory fails to recall the context in which this phrase (in Russian) was used. Nowadays, we can apply the phrase to the regulations governing tree felling in pine forests within the limited economic activity zone along the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga. But even more incredible is the categorical arrogance with which leading employees of various non-governmental, so-called environmental protection organisations have rushed to defend the current practice, involving the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM) and, in all likelihood, planting the idea in the public consciousness that someone has actually planned 'extensive clear-cutting' on the Baltic Sea coast.
What is the current situation? In the limited economic activity zone of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga, covering an area of approximately 80,000 hectares within 5 km of the coastline, relatively old, even-aged pine stands dominate. Information about the origin of these forests is sparse, but given their distinctly even-aged structure, we can safely guess that they were created by people. Pines planted and sown by humans have grown, giving us a serious basis to consider these forests a national treasure of Latvia, justifying strict restrictions on their management that differ from practices in commercial forests elsewhere in Latvia. The invaluable importance of coastal pine forests lies in their recreational and design (visual appeal) aspects, which determine the characteristic landscape. Their natural value is the same as that of any other human-created forest stand where trees have grown for a certain number of years.
Even a casual observer, driving on roads near the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga, has surely noticed changes in the landscape in recent years. Within the framework of the existing regulatory base, 'selective felling' has been carried out in these forests – initially continuous, later in 'groups'. Plant experts will agree that pine, like all light-loving species, has specific light requirements. Within the framework of existing legislation, it is permitted to fell pines in coastal forests, but it is forbidden to regenerate them – in the absence of light, pine gaps become overgrown with grass, bushes, deciduous trees and, in the best-case scenario, spruce. Foresters are allowed to create such 'monuments' all along the Baltic Sea coast. The situation is not hopeless – under the influence of natural factors, some of the old pines eventually die or blow down, expanding the openings, which over several decades will most likely lead to some new pines growing there after all.
A more attentive observer might have two questions – why is it necessary to carry out tree felling at all in this 80,000-hectare area? Perhaps we should create another reserve or sanctuary in addition to those already established in Latvia? And why then can we not apply the existing, permitted practice to all coastal forests, ensuring, in the opinion of some people, a great opportunity to 'obtain timber' in large quantities in 'openings', if only someone actually had an interest in making that a goal in these forests.
I will try to answer both questions. By using the phrase 'limited economic activity' and setting a standard for how it should manifest in forestry, the legislator clearly did not want to create a reserve. Perhaps because, within the framework of limited budget funding, the state did not want to take on additional financial obligations, as the maintenance of reserves is an additional expense item. Perhaps the legislator did not want to increase the intensity of forestry in the remaining forests outside the reserves by creating another one. Why it should be increased is another story, one that will end when we in Latvia find another industry equivalent to forestry that could replace it in importance to the national economy. Most likely, then we will finally have to find oil. But the esteemed reader, perhaps, also knows other ways.
Perhaps the legislator will have heard the widely publicised facts in Białowieża, near Moscow, and elsewhere, where primitive bans on tree felling have led to the death of mature forest massifs over large areas, most often as a result of mass insect reproduction. Today in Latvia, we are facing an outbreak of the pine sawfly population and mass tree dieback in the forests near Daugavpils, where, for a long time, the non-felling of trees was also practised, creating a homogeneous age structure. Although there are no scientifically proven reasons for the spread of the sawfly specifically in Daugavpils, it is known that structurally diverse forests are more resilient, more nature-friendly and visually attractive than monotonous single-species massifs.
The second question is more important – why, now that the legislation fully allows it, do the overgrown pine gaps still occupy a relatively small area, rather than being intensely practised to our collective chagrin? Given the large area of forest covered by the existing regulations, the state forest manager has nonetheless tried to carry out forestry in them, making pine regeneration the primary goal. Various methods have been used – from thinning the continuous old stands to felling openings and planting pines in them. In fact, the existing 'obvious – incredible' is the result of learning, because experience in working in even-aged pine forests with 'selective' felling had not been approved in this way in Latvia. To assess the result of the work within the framework of these legislative rules, Latvian forest scientists became involved.
The scientists' conclusion was simple – as the best method for regenerating pine forests among all the options allowed by the existing regulatory environment, the creation of openings (groups) about 40x50 m in size was recommended, while maintaining old-growth trees in the forest stand at a level of about 25-30%. Alternatives outside the regulatory framework were not evaluated. Similarly, a change in the forestry model in these forests was not evaluated. As any research conducted by the joint-stock company 'Latvijas valsts meži' in cooperation with scientists is publicly available to everyone, the assessment of the existing (permitted) practice carried out by scientists has also been noticed. More precisely, the first part of the finding has been noticed. The second, however, has not. Among those who have noticed it is the VARAM bureaucracy, which argues its categorical objections (I emphasise – categorical) to the forest industry's initiative to end the practice of creating gaps by citing forest scientists' research.
A rational person, in the event that the scientists' line of reasoning seems complex or incomprehensible, would pick up a phone, tablet, or some other achievement of civilisation and try to understand and clarify the scientists' opinion online. Unfortunately, another alternative widely used in modern times has been chosen – to rip phrases out of context and use them to confuse and provoke people. Because who among us would like 'extensive clear-cutting by the Baltic Sea', which has also been proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture?
What, then, is the rational proposal for forestry in these forests, if we assume we are not creating a reserve? The proposal can be found in the last decade of the last century, when new knowledge was introduced into Latvian forestry practice. The implementation was organised by the organisation 'World Wide Fund for Nature' (WWF) under the leadership of former MP Uģis Rotbergs. The Mežole forest district of the State Forest Service at the time, in what was then the Valka district, was chosen as the demonstration polygon. Today, these forests have the status of state scientific research forests, although there is still a long way between demonstration and science. However, we can evaluate a relatively old demonstration with today's eyes.
What was done in Mežole? In the pine forest, under the leadership of the World Wide Fund for Nature, an 'extensive clear-cut' was carried out in an area of about 1.2 – 1.4 ha within the boundaries of a 1.6 ha pine forest stand (in foresters' language – a forest compartment), without creating the felling areas with straight edges customary in commercial forests. Large trees and groups of them were preserved in the stand, as well as the existing pine undergrowth. The authors of the demonstration themselves most likely did not count this technique as 'extensive clear-cutting', thinking they had created a sample of nature-friendly, socially fair, and visually attractive forestry. And they succeeded entirely! Anyone interested can now, after about 20 years, go to this forest and look – do we want such a landscape in pine forests near the sea, or would we rather continue to obtain timber there in 'groups' or continuous gaps? Object coordinates: LAT. 57.3499468, LON. 25.9431156 (www.balticmaps.com).
Why do forest scientists and industry practitioners support the change of the existing regulations and the authorisation of regeneration felling (clearing felling, clear-cutting, openings, groups, windows, etc. – terminology is a matter of taste) of up to 2 ha in pine forests that people have historically created near the sea? By applying the best nature-friendly forestry methods, the connection of openings is possible. This, in turn, creates an opportunity to interpret tree felling as 'clear-cutting' by singling out ten-fold or star-shaped sub-compartments larger than 0.2 ha within the forest stand and effectively condemning people for a job well done. In the forest industry, such a risk is high, and we can neither blame nor limit the law's supervisors – because that is the law! The risk increases even more if we follow recommendations to work in the forest not with straight lines, but along the natural boundaries of the stands, respecting the size and structure of the stand and simulating the processes that took place in forests in an environment uninhabited by humans.
In Latvia, a move towards a European-style state is constantly, very slowly, but convincingly taking place. In the consciousness of many people in Latvia, we should be living at a Scandinavian level. But we must keep in mind that, at least in the forest industry in the Nordic countries, there is virtually no regulatory framework – there are state settings, recommendations (guidelines) and best practice. We have become accustomed to, and are unable to abandon, the idea that in Latvia, contrary to Scandinavia, best practice must always be reinforced with regulatory acts, which are simultaneously also the threshold for punishability. Paraphrasing – if we do not determine by law that a person must wash their mouth every morning, and do not think of a way for the state to control this norm, we will all walk around with unwashed mouths to the wonder of the whole world.
A reader tired of life will, most likely, be very worried about the Latvian people with black mouths. Similarly, we can worry about the possibility of 'stapling' state-owned coastal forests into 2 ha clear-cuts, keeping a 9-metre strip between them. Some 'friends of nature', who, fortunately for us, do not make decisions about the management of state forests, have insistently tried to include such a theoretical possibility on the discussion agenda. In our opinion, at this moment, the opinion of the joint-stock company 'Latvijas valsts meži' on the long-term plans to work in these pine forests, which, as I emphasised at the beginning of the article, have developed into a serious asset whose management reasonably requires a special and, therefore, more complex approach to forestry planning and implementation, would be very relevant. And, risking repetition, we would like to emphasise for a third time the request to the legislator to repeal the regulatory stupidity that prohibits the regeneration of high-quality, healthy and scenically attractive pine stands in 80,000 hectares of forest after the felling of the existing pines, which is already currently permitted there in effectively unlimited quantities.