– Every now and then, either the Ministry of Climate or the State Forests come out and announce some “success”. But what they really want to convince you is that the tea gets sweeter as you stir it. Because after a year, not only are there no specifics, but even no basis to develop them – says Antoni Kostka from the Center for Environmental Strategies. The social side had high expectations after the promises made by the ruling coalition. Now hopes are increasingly replaced by disappointments.
Changes in the management of the State Forests (SF) and moratorium on cutting down 10 valuable forestsin Poland were one of the first decisions made by the new management of the Ministry of Climate less than a year ago. A lot for the first 12 months was happening around forest protection – but the social side has doubts about how much actually happened happened.
Marta Jagusztyn from the Forests and Citizens initiative talks about the “deepening chaos” around forests. He mentions that the Ministry of Climate has its own ideas and proposals, and the management of the State Forests – their own, often different ones. In addition, some foresters do not agree with either of them – recently they protested in Warsaw. And this despite the fact that, according to Jagusztyn, the ideas of the SF management are in fact “minimal changes” for forest management, and not real protection of 20 percent of forests.
Foresters' proposal
The Ministry of Climate and Environment has initiated several processes aimed at meeting the goal of protecting 20 percent of forests set out in the coalition agreement. Around big cities community forests are designated; Forests protected due to their natural values constitute a separate category. High-level talks are held as part of the so-called National Forest Conference (ONL).
At the end of November, at the second such meeting, both the ministry and the management of the State Forests presented their concepts for achieving the goal of protecting (almost) 1/5 of forests. Foresters informed that as part of their proposal, they “indicate 7.9 percent of tree stands completely excluded from timber harvesting” and “are working” on an additional 9.1 percent “to modify economic activities.” A total of 17 percent, leaving room for another three to be decided.
– This impressive pool is the result of the work of foresters who, at the first meeting as part of the National Conference on Forests, heard public expectations and, using their knowledge and caring for nature, developed this prospective and realistic solution – said Witold Koss, general director of LP.
However, the devil is in the details, and the presentation only showed a general map. When forests shared details on their portalit turned out that some of the proposals were at least questionable.
No more cutting down… on lakes and meadows
On the map provided by the State Forests, it is easy to see that many of the areas that foresters propose to exclude from logging are places where no wood is harvested today anyway. Antoni Kostka shows this on the example of the Przemyśl Foothills, where exclusions (marked in green) are already existing reserves, and very small fragments (e.g. along streams where logging should not be carried out).
Right next to it, a “modification” of forest management (orange) was proposed in the area of Połoninki Arłamowskie, where not trees but grasslands grow.
This is not the only place where forest management is to be modified or stopped, even though no trees grow there. On the map you can find, for example, the section of the lake covered by the “modification” proposal.
The State Forests explain in response to our questions that such places – technically “non-forest natural habitats” – are marginal, because they are only 30,000. ha out of the proposed over 1.2 million ha. They were included in the proposal because they are “strongly connected” with the forest and “indicate that the State Forests care for our nature from an ecosystem perspective.”
But it doesn't end there. North of Poznań, there is a large area of forest exclusions and modifications. But it turns out that this is… the area of the military training ground in Biedrusko. And the areas “excluded” from forest management are mainly exercise areas broken down by heavy equipment. Where trees grow on the training ground, there are no exclusions from felling, only “modifications”.
Many of the proposals are very small fragments of forests – including those where cutting down trees was not planned anyway. For example – as in one of the forest districts in Greater Poland – clumps of trees left in a much larger area that has already been completely cut down (leaving such small fragments in the cut down part of the forest – the felling – is a standard practice).
The proposal, of course, includes not only small fragments or areas where no trees grow. For example, it covers almost the entire Białowieża Forest. But there are no other valuable forests, such as those with a moratorium or places that could be nature reserves. According to the social side, this is not a real strengthening of forest protection. – It seems as if there was an idea behind it: “we collect scraps all over Poland until we collect a few percent.” This has nothing to do with the protection of forests or their ecosystem services – says Marta Jagusztyn and calls it “compromising”.
What foresters have been “protecting for a long time”
– Director Witold Koss said that “The State Forests indicate 7.9% of tree stands under total protection.” But he did not say how many of them are already protected. And this is crucial, because if the vast majority of people cannot harvest wood now, there will be no revolution – says Antoni Kostka. He adds that it was similar during the moratorium consultations, when “forest districts proposed that instead of valuable forests, it should cover low-value forests near construction plots.” – Sometimes it looks like a game of three cards: theoretically you play, but you always lose – says Kostka.
We asked the Forest Directorate for specifics regarding new areas that would be excluded from timber harvesting. Spokeswoman Anna Choszcz-Sendrowska informs that the designation of these areas was a “bottom-up process”. Foresters “examined 820,000 divisions (forest “plots” – ed.) and indicated, based on the needs of the forest, the most valuable natural areas that need to be protected.”
How do SFs comment on the inclusion of places in the proposal where they no longer harvest wood? “We have been pointing out from the very beginning of the forest debate process that, as foresters, we have been protecting forests and other plant communities for a long time,” writes the spokeswoman. Although the forest directorate does not have a “detailed analysis”, it estimates that “between 3-5 percent was already under nature protection, and the rest belongs to new areas.” These new ones include the creation of reserves, wetlands, some of which have previously been harvested for wood, and valuable areas indicated by forest districts.
As for the second category, i.e. “modifications” of the economy, these are areas that include a “new approach” to forest management. As the spokeswoman explains, State Forests have already started to change their practices due to climate change and its impact on the forest (some tree species are threatened with increasingly unfavorable conditions). Therefore, on the one hand, foresters want to strengthen nature protection in “stable” areas, and on the other – check which forests are exposed to the effects of drought, diseases and even dieback, and adapt activities to these threats.
However, the State Forests do not have a single explanation as to what exactly the economic modification proposed for 9.1 percent will involve. forests – because an “individual approach” is necessary, depending on, among others, on the state of the environment or the type of ecosystem. The management also informed that implementing their proposal would mean a cost of PLN 900 million, estimated as “the value of withdrawing 3,050 million m3 of wood from the market.” However, in response to our questions, we learn that this number “only indicates the potential annual timber harvest that would be possible if the first group were used.” It is therefore purely hypothetical because it concerns wood in areas where logging will not take place under any circumstances.
Ecology yes, but “at your own pace”
So, has there been a real, beneficial change in forest protection over the past year? The social side admits that, above all, its voice is not completely ignored now, as it was under the previous government. – We meet and talk in a good atmosphere and in a wide group: foresters, scientists, non-governmental organizations – says Kostka.
But despite assurances of good will and declarations of dialogue, non-governmental organizations talk about difficulties, for example, in receiving data. – Sometimes we have been trying to obtain information about timber harvesting plans for many weeks. And when we receive them and point out that they have planned cuts in the valuable forest, we hear that nothing can be done because the tenders for forest works have ended. And when were they completed? While we were waiting for this data, says Kostka. In his opinion, “foresters want to move towards ecology, but at their own pace”:
They are ready to change the ways of obtaining wood and they are praised for it. But this should happen in a large part of the forests. And in the most valuable ones, we must have not minor modifications, but exclusions from the economy. However, the words “exclusion” are feared by the State Forests like the plague.
Anna Choszcz-Sendrowska points out that forest protection “should be looked at holistically.” So, taking into account “the health and stability of forests, the adaptation of forests to climate change.” “We cannot ignore the aspects of supplying wood, which, on the one hand, provides work for many Poles and, on the other hand, allows this renewable raw material to be used in furniture or house structures,” writes the spokeswoman.
No details from the government
The cause of many problems is believed to be the failure of the Ministry of Climate to set specific expectations and definitions at the very beginning. The State Forests also spoke that the lack of specific definitions and guidelines significantly hampered discussions on the designation of community forests around large cities.
– The coalition agreement states that “20 percent of the most valuable forest areas will be excluded from logging.” One year after the elections, we do not know whether this will happen within two years or seven; it is not known how to understand “exclusion from logging” – only limiting or completely stopping logging; It has not been specified yet whether it is 20 percent of the State Forests or whether it includes other public forests and national parks – says Kostka. We asked these questions to the Ministry of Climate. By the time of publication, we had not received a response.
Kostka, like many people involved in, for example, designating community forests, talks about the imbalance between non-governmental organizations and foresters. Both of them talk to each other as part of the Forest Conference or in teams for social forests. But for foresters it is part of their job, and for many activists – pro bono activity. – Sometimes we have to take a vacation, sometimes we have to travel from the other end of Poland at our own expense – says Kostka. While these issues may seem minor, they affect the balance of power throughout the process.
Although the social side does not intend to give up, growing frustration can be heard in the conversations. Among other things, because the reality differs from the declarations. In his expose, Donald Tusk he spokethat “a forest is not a timber economy, it is a sacred national resource.” According to Marta Jagusztyn, the Prime Minister is to blame for the fact that his promises are not fully fulfilled because he does not work to resolve the dispute over forest protection. – The State Forests feel strong because they are de facto out of control. The Ministry of Climate puts a good face on a bad game. And nothing changes much – he says, adding that he is losing trust in foresters more and more. In her opinion, SFs act primarily to protect the acquisition of raw materials, while, according to the Forest Act, this is only one of their tasks – in addition to nature protection and the preservation of forests due to their impact on the climate and water resources.