The fact that Latvia has fertile land and that forests grow exceptionally well on it, which we like so much to call
our green gold, does not a priori mean that it is easy to manage and automatically
monetisable, participating in the global supply chain with finished wood products.
Fertile land as such is not, in itself, a guarantee of prosperity and economic development.

Plantation competition

To illustrate this, one can perfectly well use an analysis conducted more than five years ago by the world's largest and most competent forestry consultancy firm, Jaakko Pöyry.

Specifically – in order to satisfy the global demand at the time for mechanically processed wood
products, approximately 1.6 billion m3 of roundwood was required annually. Analysts had
calculated that in sustainable life cycles, this volume could be grown on a mere 70 million
hectares of timber plantations. To meet the global demand for pulp and paper
products, as well as wood fuel, two more territories of the same size were needed. Which, when placed on a world map, form three relatively small squares in the tropical belt, for example, in South America, Africa, and Asia. There, the life cycle in fast-growing tree species plantations is between 8-25 years, with the annual volume increment per hectare reaching as much as 70 m3 in certain cases!

Of course, time has passed and wood consumption has grown, just as the plantation areas
required for its theoretical coverage have grown proportionally. But the principle remains unchanged –
in the global competition for wood products, one of the determining factors is price. And
in terms of cost price, land-use efficiency is just as important as wages, direct production costs, logging, and
transport. The Latvian forest owner and
wood processor, if we want to export any kind of industrial
product from our country at all, is essentially competing with a land manager who has the ability to grow wood on an 8-year
rotation period. If the global timber processing industry acknowledges that wood obtained in this way is more profitable, we will be the losers.

Craftsmanship is not industry

Of course, we are talking about the industrial use of wood. At a craft level, there will always be the option to use one's own resources for local self-consumption. But firstly, given the number of inhabitants in Latvia, this consumption is small. Secondly, without exports, which, as we explained earlier, mostly rely on land use in Latvia, there is no question of any significant volume of the economy that could consume anything at all. Of course, a tree can be cut down, and without major investments, a piece of furniture can be made in a garage at a craft level, and many will be ready to thump their chests and claim that this is the “highest added value for wood”. However, global trade is not based on this – it is based on an efficient, competitive production chain at all its stages – starting from the hectare in the forest, where a competitive volume of wood can be obtained in a specific unit of time, and ending with the end-product market, which must be conquered not only by quality but also by price.

Representatives of environmental organisations often accuse the forestry sector of not thinking broadly enough, of having
narrow short-term goals, and that younger (and therefore for some reason very,
very much worse) forests will be left for future generations. That, in essence, we are currently
recklessly robbing our future generations in this way. However, let us look at what the global trends are and who has actually failed to look ahead. Because a shorter, more competitive rotation cycle in commercial forests is actually the only chance to ensure that there is an economic basis for forestry in Latvia in the future. I wonder what our children and grandchildren would say if we had wasted this opportunity?

Wood will be needed more and more

Although there are ups and downs in the short term, an indisputable
trend is clearly visible in the long term – global consumption of wood products is rising. On one hand, this is influenced by the increase in the number of
people on the planet – the more consumers, the higher the demand. But this is
a trend that must be reckoned with and is inevitable, unless someone wishes to think within the framework of
fascist ideology. A second trend that is appearing increasingly in the society of developed countries is
the awareness among people that it is necessary to move towards a circular economy, gradually ceasing
to base consumption on fossil resources, the use of which is not
sustainable from any point of view. Here, certainly, both passionate adherents of biocentric philosophy and
convinced anthropocentrists will agree – our shared home is planet Earth, and our entire existence depends on its “state of health”.
Both biological diversity and the opportunity to earn money through industrial projects. If there is no Earth, there will be no people, no animals, nothing.

Forestry is an excellent example of a circular economy, not to mention the possibilities of CO2
storage in wood products, thus simultaneously solving the problem of atmospheric pollution created to date. Furthermore, it is possible to produce alternative products from wood for almost every product currently manufactured on an oil basis. Oil, as we know, is the remains of organic matter that accumulated hundreds of millions of years ago. Essentially – ancient forest. Once we have used up these fossil reserves, there will simply be no other choice but to think sustainably, obtaining resources today. And that also means a greater emphasis on intensifying land use, because to replace existing oil products and maintain the current human lifestyle, much more wood will be needed than we use today.

The global battle for a shorter cycle

So, more wood will be needed. But that does not mean that the value of our forests will automatically
rise. The areas of plantation forests are developing rapidly in the world, and large timber processing companies are
increasingly investing in them. Of course, the choice in favour of one country or another
is determined first and foremost by its political stability and the potential risks associated with it. Until now,
it has often seemed too dangerous for Europeans to make such investments, but as the situation stabilizes in many
regions (and isn't that the common noble goal of all mankind – peace on
earth??), decisions to relocate production can be made much more easily. Here
it should be noted that the reliance of companies operating in Latvia, including those with local capital, on local resources is by no means to be taken for granted as an inevitable, no-alternative necessity.

There will always be an argument about the mechanical properties of tropical wood, which cannot compete with the slow-growing wood of northern regions and therefore cannot fully replace it in all forms of use. Yes, this is partly true, although with the development of selection and genetic engineering, this argument is also gradually losing its strength. However, even if a market niche for the highest quality and increased hardness/durability wood products always remains, there will be fierce competition for their production as well. Where, again, one of the advantages will be more efficient use of a land unit over a specific period of time. In other words – a shorter life cycle, which can be achieved through more precise and intensive management
methods, tree selection, and the harvesting of thinner trees. If we cannot provide this comprehensively, we will be losers in the world of the future. Why is agriculture in Europe currently subsidised and unable to compete in the global market based on real production costs?

Why does a cucumber or tomato grown in Latvia cost more in the shop than one imported from Spain?
These are also examples of competition with shorter life cycle farms.

A decision to be made

Interestingly, the aforementioned global trends are only confirmed by an example that many might
quite the contrary, be happy to cite among the greatest environmental protection victories in the world. Namely, since
1 January 2017, China has suspended logging in its natural forests. It sounds very
“green”, but in reality, it only points to the fact that there is a very strict distinction between nature conservation
areas and commercial forests, which in the case of China are rapidly growing plantation
areas. Given the global context, this is the most correct and, in fact, the only path that should also be taken in Latvia. By strictly separating forest areas intended for nature conservation and the preservation of cultural-historical heritage
from commercially used forests with
a liberal attitude towards the owner's ability to decide for themselves on forestry
matters, including the periodicity of timber harvesting.

It is essential to understand that even such forests in the Latvian case will always differ significantly from short-rotation
plantations. Regarding the amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers regulations proposed last year,
it was criticised by environmental organisations that much younger forests would be felled and there would be no opportunity
for older ones to form. But if we look at what a reduction in diameter by a couple
of centimetres means – it is the opportunity to fell a properly managed forest maybe just 5-10 years
sooner than is possible under current legislation upon reaching a certain diameter. Is that a significant difference from the point of view of nature conservation and the preservation of scenic values? Does it mean that trees that have grown for 200 years will now be cut in 50 years? Certainly not, but even 5 or 10 years is a significant difference to prolong Latvia's global competitiveness.
Of course, undeniably, such managed commercial forests will have a far more
uniform structure, will be of the same age and not as attractive to many species that provide biological
diversity. However, in contrast to classic short-cycle tropical tree
species plantations, they will nevertheless be more or less exactly the same forests that the
Latvian public has been accustomed to seeing until now.

In summary – the forestry sector is not an enemy of nature

Quite the opposite - representatives of the forestry sector, just like all people rooted in European, Christian values, are friends of nature. Very possibly, even greater ones than those who loudly call themselves that in every
possible situation and place. Because people in the forestry sector, operating in a business environment, are perfectly able to see connections, be aware of global trends, and plan in the long term. Striving to ensure that there will be a country called Latvia in the future as well, that prosperous Latvians will live in it, and they can rejoice that more than half of our country's territory is covered by forests and a certain portion of them are primarily dedicated to the preservation of natural diversity.

We are all friends of nature. But not only that. We are all also friends of our fellow human beings, our country, and
our future generations.