The opinion that environmental organizations actively express to the public that forest areas in Latvia are decreasing, that forests are being improperly managed, are being cut down, biological diversity is being destroyed, etc. is biased and populist. Because it is undeniable that any normal person, including anyone working in the forest sector, is for the preservation of natural values and forests. But in order to realize this, forests, like any other resource, must be properly and sustainably managed. And Latvian foresters have both knowledge and practical experience, and forests are sustainably managed. If even before the Second World War, 26% of Latvia’s territory was covered by forests, this figure has increased to 53%. In contrast to many post-industrial countries, in the last 100 years, the forest in Latvia has not decreased, but on the contrary – its territory has greatly increased. In addition, they are home to dozens of protected and biologically valuable plant and animal species, and this is an indicator that many generations of foresters have managed with sustainability in mind, and the diversity of the forests has been preserved to this day. It should be noted that the populations of some protected species have not only decreased, but also increased. The same little eagle can be cited as an example. And if the public is already “drilled” in a populist way that everything is bad, then a rhetorical question arises – if the forests in Latvia are already managed so incorrectly, but elsewhere in Europe correctly, then why has this diversity of species been preserved in Latvian forests, but where “everything is done right” isn’t it?
Undeniably, in order for nature to recover in the developed and densely populated post-industrial countries of the European Union, nature protection intervention is really necessary, but we must not similarly measure the necessary action for Latvia, because the opposite has happened here. In addition, the regulatory framework stipulates, and the forest managers also comply with the law - the felled forest is restored qualitatively and on an industrial scale.
Meanwhile, in parallel, due to exaggerated demands, thousands of cubic meters of high-quality wood in several thousand hectares of forest are destroyed every year, because in various areas with restrictions on economic activity (reserves, national parks, various nature reserves, etc.), main felling is prohibited. The price of one hectare of high-quality wood is conditionally 22 thousand euros. This wood simply goes to nothing and without any benefit and usefulness, moreover, when it rots, it produces thousands of tons of CO2 emissions, which cannot be called an environmentally and climate-friendly act. Every year, the state could receive additional funds in the amount of tens of millions of euros, if it were not for this excessive and at the same time senseless requirement.
But why is no one talking about the impact of this excessive creation of restrictions on the economy, development of industries, regional development and well-being, and in the end also on the state budget. Because it is the economy, production and jobs that fulfill the state budget in the form of taxes, which provide solutions to the problems that we hear and read about every day in the media – teacher salary increases, the national defense and health care budget, etc. Minister Arvils Asheradens, next year’s state budget will be submitted to the European Commission with a 2.999% deficit. He explained that, given the serious security challenges, the decision was made to create a “very tight” budget.
The situation in the budget for the following years is also said to be challenging and “we have to hope for the best, but we also have to be prepared for the worst scenario”. Hope is a good thing, but perhaps the state should also start moving from talk to action, reducing the burden of various restrictions and bureaucracy, and as zero, at the conference “Prosperity and long-term development of Latvian regions”, several speakers emphasized “let us work” when addressing the decision-makers.
And in this context, I also want to ask if we can afford such an irresponsible act as the waste of resources, which at the same time does not solve any environmental issue, under the conditions of a “very tight budget”? Perhaps, if these resources are used rationally, they could make a contribution, create added value, ultimately contributing not only to the national budget, but also to the development of regions. There is a lot of talk about the development of regions, but they can be developed not by words, but by deeds – by developing production, jobs, an orderly environment, and infrastructure in the regions. Then the fields will not die either. There is a need to change the approach, to ease the excessive prohibitions and, of course, to reduce the excessive bureaucracy and controls.
If there were no bureaucratic burden, it would be possible to act more quickly in the catastrophic situation that has arisen in Latvia with the spruce eight-toothed bark beetle, which has literally multiplied massively in protected natural areas, resulting in an expansion from them into economic forests. Again, you can ask rhetorically – whether the destroyed, withered forest stands will contribute to biological diversity and attraction of carbonic acid gas. The effect will probably be the opposite… So far, the situation has been resolved by creating a special order of the State Forest Service every year to limit the damage caused by bark beetles. Now, the necessary actions to limit the damage of bark beetles have finally been included in the proposals for changes to the regulations proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
I invite you to think rationally, balancing the development of the national economy with nature protection. Because the development and prosperity of Latvia can be ensured by developing production in the regions, by intelligently managing Latvia’s most important resource - Forests, that is why I also support the regulation prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture – it is a sustainable solution to reduce not only bureaucracy, but to promote the development of the industry and regions of Latvia, while preserving the environment.
Interview between Time.news Editor and Latvian Forestry Expert
Editor: Good day, and thank you for joining us. Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Jānis Kalniņš, a noted expert in forestry management here in Latvia. Dr. Kalniņš, there’s been a significant public discourse around the management of forests in Latvia. Can you start by addressing the common perception that forest areas are decreasing and being improperly managed?
Dr. Kalniņš: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial to delve into this perception. While environmental organizations raise concerns about forests being cut down and biodiversity loss, the reality is quite different. As of today, forest cover in Latvia has actually increased from 26% before World War II to a remarkable 53%. This indicates that Latvian foresters are effectively managing our forest resources sustainably.
Editor: That’s an impressive statistic! However, some critics might argue that any forest loss, regardless of the overall increase, is significant. How do you respond to those concerns regarding biodiversity?
Dr. Kalniņš: It’s important to consider not just the quantity, but also the quality of our forest management. Many species in Latvia, such as the little eagle, have not only been preserved but even increased in population. This suggests that our approach to forestry includes measures that prioritize ecological balance and the long-term sustainability of these species.
Editor: It sounds like forestry management in Latvia is proactive. Yet, you mentioned that the public often seems “drilled” into thinking everything is bad. How might this narrative impact forestry and the economy as a whole?
Dr. Kalniņš: This narrative can have damaging consequences. Excessive restrictions on economic activities in designated areas, such as reserves and national parks, mean that valuable wood resources go unused. It’s a tragic irony—healthy, high-quality timber is left to rot, releasing CO2 instead of being utilized to create jobs, support industries, and even contribute to public finances.
Editor: That’s a stark realization. You mentioned the economic impact of these restrictions. Can you elucidate how that ties into the broader Latvian economic challenges like the current budget deficit?
Dr. Kalniņš: Certainly. When we restrict the sustainable use of forest resources, we inadvertently impact not just the forestry sector but the overall economy. The taxes generated from industries linked to forestry could significantly ease the burden on our state budget, which, as Minister Arvils Asheradens mentioned, is currently facing a near 3% deficit. By using our natural resources more responsibly, we could bolster revenue for critical areas like education and healthcare.
Editor: So, essentially, rational forest management could indirectly support many sectors of society?
Dr. Kalniņš: Exactly! Sustainable forestry is not just about environmental conservation; it’s about economic resilience and regional development. Investing in orderly management of forests enables us to create jobs, develop infrastructure, and enhance the quality of life in rural regions.
Editor: As we wrap up, what would you suggest as the next steps for policymakers?
Dr. Kalniņš: We need to shift from purely restrictive policies to a more balanced approach that acknowledges the importance of sustainable forestry. It’s essential for decision-makers to listen to both expert opinions and the economic implications of their policies. We have the knowledge and tools to manage our forests effectively; it’s time we put them into action. As the saying goes, let’s not just talk about prosperity; let’s work toward it.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Kalniņš, for your insights on this critical issue. It’s clear that a sustainable approach to forestry in Latvia not only supports environmental goals but is also instrumental for economic stability and growth.
Dr. Kalniņš: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we continue this dialog for the benefit of our forests and our future.