Under the law, the responsible minister must approve the state forest logging volume for the next five years by December 1 each year. This year, I did so earlier, on October 19. In 2027, the State Forest Management Center (RMK) may carry out regeneration logging on up to 8,445 hectares. At the same time, public debate focuses on logging volumes in cubic meters. Why do we talk about hectares when the entire forestry debate revolves around cubic meters?

Logging in state forests is regulated by law based on area. Regeneration logging includes clear-cutting and shelterwood cutting, after which a new forest is established. Each year, the minister determines how many hectares RMK may harvest through these methods over the following five years.

Area is a practical unit because it can be verified. A hectare can be measured on the ground and observed in satellite imagery. Environmental impacts and the obligation to regenerate forests also depend on area.

A cubic meter of timber, by contrast, is the unit used to measure forest growth and timber trade. Industry buys and exports timber by volume. Estonia's total harvesting and forest growth are also compared in cubic meters. That is why public discussions focus on cubic meters.

A productive spruce stand yields more timber per hectare than a birch stand growing on less fertile soil. As a rule of thumb, a hectare of regeneration logging produces 230 to 300 cubic meters of timber, meaning next year's state forest harvesting limit translates to as much as three million cubic meters.

At the same time, the same number of hectares does not produce the same amount of timber every year. State forests also provide timber through thinning and sanitary logging, which are not covered by the regeneration logging limit. In total, RMK sold 3.38 million cubic meters of timber in 2025, accounting for roughly one-third of Estonia's annual logging volume.

The limit is not a requirement. In 2025, difficult weather conditions prevented harvesting on about 910 hectares, or 10 percent, of the permitted 9,175 hectares. Actual logging volumes become clear only after forest notices are approved and operations begin based on weather conditions. If conditions prove too wet in a planned area, operations are shifted to drier sites. Those forests may produce more timber per hectare, reducing the area needed.

Area can also be viewed as the amount of carefully managed forest that should be harvested and regenerated each year. This is reflected in the legal concept of an optimal regeneration logging area. Optimal should be understood to mean establishing some new forest every year so forests remain diverse in age, ensuring forests and timber resources do not run out.

The state directly controls only one-third

Can the state control Estonia's total logging volume? Only partly.

RMK manages nearly half of Estonia's forests, but state forests account for only about one-third of all logging. The remaining two-thirds come from privately owned forests. In private forests, the state does not set harvesting quotas or overall volume targets. It sets the rules, including when forests are mature enough to harvest, maximum clear-cut sizes, and protected areas. Individual owners decide whether and when to harvest.

Logging in private forests depends primarily on timber prices, demand, the availability of mature forest, and the goals of landowners.

For example, in 2022, state forest harvesting remained unchanged, but high global timber prices pushed Estonia's total logging volume from 10.9 million to 11.4 million cubic meters.

This leads to an important conclusion. If the state sharply reduced logging in state forests while timber demand remained unchanged, industry could turn to private forests instead. As a result, reducing harvesting in state forests might not lower Estonia's overall logging volume. It would, however, reduce predictability for businesses. Timber from private forests is also considerably less uniform in quality.

How is the state forest harvesting limit determined? Each year, RMK calculates the area of mature and soon-to-be mature forests within the commercially managed state forest estate. The calculations exclude strict and limited-management zones within protected areas where RMK does not conduct regular regeneration logging. Conservation restrictions in production forests are also taken into account, and many community forests managed in consultation with local governments are largely excluded.

The next step is to find a balance between two extremes. Harvesting all currently mature forests within 10 years would lead to a steep future decline because there would be fewer younger forests available. The concept of a sustainable harvesting level shows how much forest could be harvested while maintaining a stable volume over a very long period.

Because mature forests currently outnumber younger stands, following that model would mean leaving part of the mature forest untouched for a long time, increasing the risk of damage and reducing timber quality. The calculated harvesting level represents a middle ground, gradually balancing the age structure of forests.

RMK's proposal is reviewed by the Environment Agency before it reaches the minister. The minister can also set a lower limit, and this has been done in the past. For me, determining logging volumes is a professional decision, and I trust the expertise of RMK and the Environment Agency in ensuring the sustainable management of Estonia's forests.

Logging will decline gradually, not abruptly

As recently as 2021, RMK could carry out regeneration logging on nearly 11,300 hectares. Next year's limit is a quarter lower, and RMK estimates it will gradually move toward 8,000 hectares over the longer term.

The area of commercially managed state forest has decreased because of additional conservation restrictions. In 2020, RMK managed 641,292 hectares of forest. Today, that figure stands at 598,850 hectares.

State forests must provide timber and jobs while also protecting nature, offering recreation opportunities, and storing carbon. Harvesting volumes must take all of these objectives into account.

When planning logging operations, RMK now evaluates the broader forest landscape rather than individual forest compartments alone. Forest ecologists review the distribution of logging sites, the availability of older forests, and habitats of protected species. This helps avoid concentrating harvesting in one area. If necessary, the location, boundaries, timing, or method of logging can be adjusted.

Currently, the minister resets the harvesting limit each year while planning five years ahead. That means the five-year figure can change every December. RMK, the wood-processing industry, and forestry contractors know the following year's limit with certainty, but little beyond that.

We intend to amend the Forest Act so the minister would establish harvesting limits for a full five-year period at one time, rather than revising them annually. This would give all stakeholders greater certainty.

Even five years is a short period in forestry. A pine tree planted today will not be ready for harvest until our grandchildren's generation. Investments in sawmills and wood-processing plants take decades to pay off, and forest owners think in terms of generations. When a company decides where to build a new factory, it also considers the stability of a country's forestry policy.

Greater stability is sought by industry, forestry contractors, and local communities alike. People want to know what will happen in nearby forests over the coming years. A figure that changes annually does not provide that certainty.

Every logging decision is a compromise. On one side are timber production, rural jobs, and state revenue. Based on RMK's 2025 results, €60.1 million was paid into the state budget through dividends and corporate income tax. About 70 percent of RMK timber is sold through long-term contracts to processors operating in Estonia, providing stability for the sector.

In my view, what matters more than the logging volume itself is what we do with the harvested timber. A large share of Estonia's wood is still used for low-value purposes. According to the Environment Agency's timber balance, more than half of harvested timber ended up being used for energy in 2023, while nearly two-thirds of pulpwood was exported, mainly to Finland and Sweden. The value added and jobs remain there.

For more than a decade, Estonia has been Europe's largest exporter of wooden houses. That happened not because we harvested more timber, but because we created more value from every cubic meter. The principle is simple: wood should first be used for houses and furniture and only ultimately for fuel.

This is also tied to stable harvesting volumes. A company considering building a new factory in Estonia first asks whether sufficient raw material will still be available 10 years from now. Stable logging volumes are therefore a prerequisite for higher-value wood processing. If more value is created from every cubic meter harvested in Estonia, we do not need to solve every problem by increasing logging volumes.

As minister, I cannot promise that everyone will be satisfied with these decisions. I can promise that decisions will be based on facts, made transparently, and properly justified. Estonia's forestry debate will continue, and that is natural because we expect forests to provide timber, jobs, recreation, and biodiversity at the same time. The debate would be far more productive, however, if we did not confuse state forest harvesting limits measured in hectares with Estonia's total logging volume measured in cubic meters and understood that the state can directly influence only part of that total.

--

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