zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

The issues mentioned in the article have been discussed by industry professionals, and zemeunvalsts.lv has written about them more than once (please see references). The author has pointed to a serious problem that is also taking deep root in Latvian politics: important issues and vital sectors of the national economy are being debated by those who have no understanding or experience in business, own no forest land, and have no connection to the sector that benefits Latvia. The state budget, various European (and other) funds, or projects create the illusion that "money is being earned over there – in Europe." "Latvian people do not need work and a livelihood." It is even more peculiar that this policy of non-involvement and incompetence is supported by the ministry responsible for both the environment and regional development (VARAM). Given the ministry's conspicuous flexibility in the face of European documents and its political direction, which ignores Latvian science, it must be understood that the ministry's plan is a "Latvian environment without regions and people." This is certainly not in the interests of Latvia's inhabitants.

The question should be formulated as follows: to what extent are local decision-makers and document drafters prepared to "listen to Europe," forgetting the interests of Latvia and its people? Naturally, a critical attitude is required towards many and various actions, but... recent political and political-economic events in Europe clearly show: there is the European Union, and there are its member states, with the member states' own very personal interests. Is there a desire in Latvia to stand out by showing ourselves as a country with no interests?

And furthermore... What exactly is the procedure by which Latvia's official institutions, including ministries, ensure and support the circulation of false and inaccurate information? Even if only by remaining silent about the diversity of false opinions...

The European Commission has presented the long-awaited document so important to the European forest sector – the new draft of the European Union Forest Strategy. Since last autumn, various versions of this document at different stages of readiness have been proposed and discussed. Despite the conclusions and recommendations of forestry organisations and scientists to develop a document that helps strengthen the multifaceted functions of the forest ecosystem, the result has been a bitter disappointment.

Why? Because the experts in those sectors who have long provided the forestry sector's contribution to society and science-based development are not being listened to, and because the EC is offering a document based on grounds of questionable reliability.

In the new document, the European Commission acknowledges the important place of the forest for people, nature, and the climate, but... emphasises that to preserve this importance in the future, things must be done differently, i.e., the focus must be placed on protection. This is the first and fundamental difference between those looking in from the sidelines and those who are "inside" (working in) forestry and science.

Latvian and other countries' forest scientists have studied the factors that make forests unstable against pest invasions, wind damage, and other climate extremes, and are modelling scenarios to create climate-resilient future forests. Yes, by emphasising active measures!

This is also the way to ensure other forest functions, including biological diversity. With correct decisions in forming species composition, selecting seedling quality, and proper silviculture, we can create forest stands that ensure forest multifunctionality and make a significant contribution to mitigating the effects of climate change. It must be remembered: we are talking about forests outside specially protected natural areas, where the focus must continue to remain on nature conservation goals.

Facing such fundamental differences in the understanding of how to ensure forest functions in the future, we read a paragraph in the forthcoming Forest Strategy about the main problems that serve as a justification for further guidelines. "Despite positive trends, European forests are under increasing pressure – partly as a result of natural processes, but also due to increased human activity ... the state of the ecosystem is poor even in the 27% of the EU's forest territory which is protected and which should be the healthiest."

Climate change continues to negatively affect European forests, especially in monoculture and even-aged stands ... Tree cover loss has increased from 27% in the 2001–2012 period to 74% in the 2009–2018 period, and an increase in logging volumes for various economic purposes has been documented."

So, there are three factors underlying the change of course from management to protection – the poor state of habitats in protected areas, the impact of climate extremes, and the increase in logging volumes. Regarding the impact of climate extremes, it is clear that forestry is the solution, not the problem, and together with scientists, desired forestry practices must be implemented.

The other two arguments, however, have caused sharp exchanges of opinion both at a national level and between scientific institutions. Therefore, it is sad if such highly controversial arguments serve as justification for fundamentally changing the role of forestry in Europe. Regarding the state of habitats in Latvia in 2013, data for the report submitted to the EC was collected by an interested party – the Latvian Fund for Nature – determining the state of habitats in protected areas and subjectively concluding that the state of forest habitats is poor and very poor.

It should be emphasised that in working groups organised by the EC this year, EC representatives stressed that by 2025, the practice of allowing subjective opinion as an assessment must be excluded from the habitat reporting process. Lo and behold, assessments obtained using undesirable methods are one of the arguments for significantly changing the emphasis in the EU Forest Strategy! Looking at the state of habitats in different countries, questions should have arisen as to whether there is something wrong with the methodology. Because: Latvia is the second worst, while Estonia is the third best in terms of habitat status. The Netherlands is three positions above Latvia! Draw your own conclusions.

Public discussions have also taken place between scientific institutions regarding the "dramatic changes" in tree cover. The EC's own scientific institution, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), published an article in the prestigious NATURE journal last year, claiming that there is a dramatic increase in logging volumes in Europe.

The researchers had used Hansen's global forest cover maps, which are based on the interpretation of satellite images. This came as a great surprise to many forest-rich countries, which, in discussions with JRC researchers, pointed to significant discrepancies with reality. Because, to claim, for example, that the area logged in Sweden had increased by 41% in eight years would have required a corresponding increase in the capacity of labour and machinery, as well as fuel consumption.

The Swedes have not detected anything of the sort in their statistical data. Shortly thereafter, researchers from the European Forest Institute analysed the JRC publication and found very serious errors in the use of satellite data. The JRC researchers had not followed the guidelines for data use, which state which data are compatible with other sources and for what purposes those data can be used. And so, these debatable conclusions are also included in the Forest Strategy as a justification for why the emphases are being changed!

European forest sector organisations have published a joint position with several points noting significant flaws in the forthcoming document. A very harsh view is expressed by Swedish colleagues, namely: "The EU Forest Strategy draft is unacceptable because it provides for a transition to regulated forest management planning, monitoring, assessment, administration, and production. It is clear from the proposal that there is no understanding of how forestry takes place, how the wood processing industry works, and what their contribution is to climate neutrality."

The Swedish forestry sector believes that the EC is proposing not a strategy, but effectively a common EU forest policy. "The draft document clearly exceeds the competence of member states regarding forest policy. Even if the EC has shared competence regarding environmental policy, the draft document cannot be justified by environmental policy alone. It looks like the EC is ready to do anything to increase its influence in decision-making, and that is not acceptable!" says Emma Berglund, Forest Director of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, speaking harshly about the proposed document.

The European Commission envisions new EU legislation in the future regarding forest monitoring and common forest management planning, including strategic plans for 10, 30, and 50 years. It includes a desire to regulate in detail how forests will be managed and used and what the industry should produce. The Swedes are taking a firm stand against Brussels' efforts to introduce a centralised planned economy.

Decisions about forests, forestry, and product processing must be made by the member states, forest owners, and the processing industry, which do so in accordance with national, regional, and local needs.

The Swedes are not only criticising the content of this document but also the work of the European Union institutions. In the autumn of 2020, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament had defined their positions regarding the revision of the Forest Strategy. The Swedes point out that they do not see the Council and Parliament's positions reflected in the proposed version. It is amazing that the EC so openly ignores the very clear instructions of the other two institutions.

This points to a deliberate deafness or refusal to listen on the part of the EC, which may threaten changes in the attitude of cooperation partners – the member states, forest owners, investors, and workers in the processing sectors. In the worst case, this strategy will stir up protectionism, non-cooperation at the EU level, and nationalism. In other words, the Commission is playing a political game with very high stakes, notes Anna Holmberg, Director of the Swedish Forest Industries' Brussels office, quite bluntly.

The Forest Strategy draft indicates which wood products are desirable to produce and which are not. There is a clear lack of understanding about how the forest sector's value-added chain works, namely, every part of the tree has a corresponding further processing chain that together resolves the mitigation of climate impact.

Long-lived and short-lived wood products cannot be contrasted against each other because they are produced simultaneously; the question is how we use them. To obtain high-quality timber, the forest must be thinned. Thus, small-diameter logs are obtained in thinning operations, which, together with wood processing residues, are processed into cellulose, and then into cardboard and paper.

It must be acknowledged that all the various wood products and bioenergy are crucially important for a successful transition to a circular economy that is free from fossil raw materials. The strategy draft also emphasises the involvement of interest groups during its implementation. Anna Holmberg, in turn, believes that this document could be meant for anything at all except the members of their association.

The EC has had until 20 July to rethink the wording of the document, which the European forest sector, of course, is hoping for. Forests and wood products will be a significant contribution to Europe reaching its stated goal of becoming the first climate-neutral part of the world, but to achieve this, the EU Treaty and the division of competences set out therein must be respected.
References:
1. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/datu-trukuma-del-
2. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/zinotaji-mulkis-un-pletetaji-
3. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/tiem-kas-strada-paliga-sauciens-nav-domats-
4. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/vai-latvija-glabs-pasauli-eiropu-un-kaiminus-intervija-ar-arni-muiznieku-latvijas-meza-ipasnieku-biedribas-valdes-priekssedetaju
5. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/aizliedzot-mes-it-ka-rikojamies-bet-realas-politikas-nav-