Minister of Climate Kristen Michal's (Reform) statement according to which the State Forest Management Center's (RMK) future profits could be used to buy greenhouse gas emissions quotas to help hit climate targets in forestry is enough to give one pause and want to share one's thoughts with others. It is hard to imagine how such a plan, clearly proposed in a state of bewilderment, could even theoretically work.*

The public and environmental organizations have been talking about the need to reduce logging volume for years. The ministry has been aware of the considerable carbon emissions from forestry for a long time. It has been endlessly discussed publicly, during meetings and in the press, while all recent forestry decisions, which equally impact all sides of society, have been made blankly ignoring the fact. Estonia will need to buy hundreds of millions of euros worth of carbon emissions quotas in the coming years if logging volumes are not cut immediately.** Therefore, the only logical step would be to slash logging now instead of making it possible to postpone the decision.

People in Estonia have been paying for the profits of (big) timber and (big) logging industries through rapid deterioration of living environment for years. Landscapes have been left in tatters and so-called home forests (areas of heightened public interest – ed.) clearcut. We've lost mushroom and blueberry forests, while the ground has been left rutted by heavy machinery, impassable for people and wildlife.

The loss of pristine Estonia nature, which has so often been used as our calling card, is evident moving in different parts of the country. Harvesters are now common enough to be known simply as forest mowers and have reached nature conservation and Natura 2000 areas. The minister's statement is all the more peculiar if we consider that the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Estonia over logging in Natura 2000 areas.

All of these deepening problems have one root cause: excessive logging, which neither the Estonian nature nor forestry can endure for much longer. But Climate Minister Kristen Michal tells us that even if Estonia fails to hit its climate target and has to buy emissions quotas, the latter can be paid for using revenue from RMK logging.

Allow me to point out that the RMK manages state forests which constitute a public resource that needs to be protected and managed in the name of future generations, not at their expense.

Paying for damage caused by the overlogging of forests, while buying emissions quotas from other countries and allowing the sector to emit more carbon than necessary is a harebrained plan. Instead, Estonia should keep carbon locked in forests and sell emissions quotas itself. We have done it before, while we have now arrived at a dangerous crossroads, with one of our two options clearly the wrong one.

The continued overlogging of forests has only benefitted (big) loggers and (big) timber, and while their profits may reflect in GDP, the damage they've done to the country and Estonian society will be reflected in the deterioration of our natural environment and the health of future generations. Resorting to buying carbon quota would turn Estonia from a land of forests into one of the timber industry (and not even value-added timber industry).***

The government seems to have abandoned the principle of "polluter pays" as recent logging volumes spell an oversized forest and timber industry, which will continue adding to carbon emissions while the rest of society picks up the tab. While those creating environmental damage may come off as major taxpayers, the cost does not come out of their profits. The price is paid by our state forests and natural environment.

The decision would see the state (or the vague notion of "taxpayers") subsidize what is already an oversized industry. How else to express just how peculiar the mere thought is? Using revenue from logging to pay fines for excessive logging is like promoting alcohol sales in order to use excise duty revenue to cure alcoholism, instead of curbing availability or hiking excise duties.

All of it seems all the more peculiar because the Ministry of Climate isn't even considering reducing logging volumes. It's as if the government fails to understand what's best for the country.

Estonia's logging volume hasn't always been what it is today. (It was a little under six million stacked cubic meters in 2008 and just over six million in 2009.) Äripäev wrote in 2014 about a 2013 study according to which Estonia's total forest reserve will start shrinking if annual logging volume exceeds 8.5 million cubic meters, which is precisely what has happened since. It has been talked about ad nauseam. The annual logging volume has exceeded ten million cubic meters for years now.

The fish starts rotting from the head, as the saying goes, and this is where another peculiar aspect enters play. Namely that the academic side of forestry tends to side with the climate minister. Marek Metslaid, professor of forest ecology at the University of Life Sciences, in a recent article overlooks the importance of carbon locked in the soil and fails to mention how short logging cycles and disturbances, such as clearcutting, cause forests to take longer to recover and restore their carbon sequestration ability.

Asko Noormets, professor of forest ecology from the Texas A&M University, instead explains how and why protecting old forest communities is especially important because of carbon locked in the soil. Scientists have overturned the previous notion that the faster (woody) plant life grows, the faster soil develops. We know the considerable role played by microbes now and the connection between it and carbon locked in the ground.

It turns out that short logging cycles cause the microbial community in the soil to change, with the balance shifting in favor of decomposers, which causes carbon to be released faster. That is why it is crucial to keep forest land covered in trees, switch (back) to longer logging cycles and avoid disturbing the soil.

The Stockholm Environment Institute's Tallinn Center (SEI) analysis "Impact Analysis of Development Scenarios for the Forestry Development Plan 2030" clarified that "although the logging volumes should not affect protected forests (protection is protection), in situations where forests in the limited management zones of protected areas can be managed, including clearcutting, higher logging volumes could lead to greater pressure on these limited management zone forests. Based on this consideration, a logging volume greater than eight million cubic meters per year was assessed as a threat to Natura forest species. According to the evaluators (SEI), high logging volumes reduce the forests' carbon sequestration capacity."

The emphasis on carbon storage in durable products is overrated, because only about a fifth of harvested wood goes into durable products (such as wooden constructions, furniture, etc.), and the substitution effect (using wood as a material, for example, in place of concrete, iron or for energy production instead of oil shale) is clearly too small in the near future to significantly mitigate other negative impacts on nature and the living environment. According to the 2017 wood balance in Estonia, 53 percent of wood is used for heating (carbon is immediately released), 26 percent goes into cellulose products (products have a half-life of two years) and 21 percent goes into various wood products.

Based on all this, logging volumes need to be reduced considerably and carbon kept locked in forest soil, instead of diverting attention from the need to slash logging volumes by talking about reforestation and plantations. Both constitute industrial practices as opposed to protecting carbon already locked in nature. Estonia lies in the boreal forests biome in terms of its climate and soil. Land use that calls for overextensive timber production is not suitable here, not to mention it making sense in carbon sequestration calculations.

The public debate over logging volumes has been raging for years. Polls suggest that most people in Estonia support reducing logging volumes and avoiding clear-cutting. A poll by Turu-uuringute AS from last year showed that 68 percent of residents are in favor of reducing state forest logging volumes by at least a third, while 77 percent of those questioned support managing state economic forests as sustainable forests.

It is important to remember that RMK and general logging volume increases have been decided with no public debate and mainly as a result of timber industry lobbying. While the need to reduce logging volumes has been debated publicly for years for the clear conclusion that logging volumes need to be cut quickly and decisively to help maintain the natural environment and values, but also the viability of the forestry sector.

The first study of its kind in the U.K. found that harming natural environment can slow the national economy and could result in a 12-percent reduction in GDP in the coming years, which is greater than the effect of a global financial crisis or the coronavirus pandemic. That GDP is not the best metric for measuring well-being to begin with makes for another topic.

Society cannot be set up to cater to the needs of industry, its profits or sport a tax policy that favors the latter because it can harm and in places completely destroy the natural environment. The damage will always impact all members of society. And that is what causes a country, people and culture to become impoverished.

* Minister of Climate Kristen Michal admitted that Estonia is not on target for meeting its climate goals in forestry and will have to buy emissions quotas to make up for it. The minister said that the sums that will be due in just a few years' time can be covered using RMK revenue from logging forests. Michal suggested that whether covering the deficit will cost €10, 50 or 100 million is pure speculation." (ERR News).

** Estonia can only meet its forestry and land use climate target by drastically reducing logging next year or by postponing the clearing work planned for Rail Baltica and military purposes. To cover the CO2 shortfall, Estonia will likely need to purchase emission units by 2027, which will cost the country an estimated €280-380 million. (ERR News)

*** The loss of natural values, berry and mushroom forests close to where people live is clearly the most immediate damage caused by overextensive logging of forests.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!