The tech sector's recent open letter on the draft Forest and Nature Conservation Act has opened yet another chapter in Estonia's forest debates  —  if not an outright "forest war." Undoubtedly, the authors are experts in their field and successful individuals whose opinions carry significant weight in public debate. The statement was clearly intended to influence the government and broader societal attitudes, including those of people with no direct connection to forests.

I will not speculate on why influential entrepreneurs have begun lobbying on forestry issues. Let us instead treat the signatories as concerned observers of forests and explain some of the fashionable concepts that have gained traction in recent years and were also addressed in the open letter.

Naturally, forests and related topics are close to many of our hearts. But without understanding the natural life cycle of forests — and without perceiving it over time — it is difficult for people distant from the field, whose contact with forests is limited to occasional walks and mushroom picking, to form an accurate picture of reality.

Preparing to understand the concepts

One of the terms frequently repeated by critics lately is "overcutting."

It seems to stem simply from the perception that "a lot is being logged" or that the "permitted logging volume" is large. The aforementioned letter highlights as a problem that even under so-called sustainable use, Estonia's forest stock will not recover to its 2015 level by 2065.

But on what basis do the authors assume there is a need to return to the 2015 level? And why is the current logging volume — now being criticized — set at its present level? Instead of a rational explanation based on data, a culprit has been found: overcutting. But before deciding whether anyone is to blame — or whether there is indeed forest-damaging "overcutting" — let us examine forestry more broadly.

Although I have written about this many times, repetitio est mater studiorum or repetition is the mother of learning, so I will explain again.

Historical context and explosive expansion of forest area

First fact: Between 1940 and 1955, war, deportations, collectivization, and massive changes in rural life left large areas of agricultural land unused, allowing them to revert to forest. As a result, Estonia's forest area increased from 882,400 hectares in 1938¹ to 1.608 million hectares by 1966² — 1.82 times increase in 27 years.

After the collapse of collective and state farms, the process partly repeated itself. Large amounts of relatively fertile abandoned land became forest again, often forming grey alder stands.

According to the 2024 national forest inventory³, Estonia's forest area had reached 2.351 million hectares — about 2.7 times more than before World War II. This is not gradual growth but explosive expansion in terms of forest development.

Ownership reform and its impact

A second factor has been largely overlooked: the objective consequences of ownership reform, through which former owners and their descendants received mature forests instead of their former agricultural land. This affected many farming families, heirs, and descendants who had moved to cities. For hundreds of thousands of Estonians, forest returned during the reform was their first real capital after occupation.

Just as raising capital is essential for success in the tech sector, for many Estonian families their first real capital after independence was growing in their own forest. As far as I know, no one has seriously calculated the full impact of this on wealth restoration and entrepreneurship in Estonia — but it is quite certain we are talking about value in the billions of euros.

And it is worth noting that at least one of the signatories raised capital from a forestry entrepreneur in the early years of their successful startup.

Energy wood or healthy, productive forests?

Third argument: It is essential to explain the concept of "rotation age." This marks the stage in a forest's development when growth slows and the share of valuable timber is at its highest. Since most postwar forests are mixed stands, a large portion has now exceeded the optimal harvesting age.

Given that many postwar forests have reached or are reaching maturity, it is natural to use part of this resource at the point when it yields the most valuable timber. Otherwise, we leave future generations stands whose economic value will largely be limited to energy wood — something the forestry sector is often criticized for using. This is one reason logging volumes have increased in recent years.

Even today, the share of energy wood from mostly unmanaged private forests is quite high. Based on my experience, firewood accounts for over 30% of the harvest volume in private forests. In grey alder stands, almost everything goes to energy use.

Thus, the longer we delay harvesting mature forests — trying to preserve them for future generations — the more we reduce timber quality year by year and increase the share that ends up being burned.

Of course, forest owners can decide what to do with their forests. But an "ever-growing" forest of firewood quality left to grandchildren may not appeal to them.

Is "even use" possible?

With a skewed forest age structure — where a large proportion of forests reached maturity around the same time due to historical reasons — it is nearly impossible to achieve even harvesting, especially for small owners.

An owner of five or ten hectares cannot realistically harvest a mature forest in tiny increments over 60 years just to create an "ideal" spreadsheet model. This approach does not work even for properties as large as 10,000 hectares if they consist of scattered small parcels (assuming we are talking about commercial forest).

We must understand that commercial forests do not operate according to simple mathematical schemes or spreadsheets, but depend on species composition, age structure, site conditions, and owner decisions.

Is there "overcutting" or not?

Keeping the historical context in mind, let us look at the term "overcutting" in light of developments over the past two decades.

According to the Environment Agency, between 2004 and 2024 the average annual logging volume in commercial forests was 8.6 million cubic meters. Average annual growth during the same period was 14.3 million cubic meters. Subtracting natural mortality (about 3.7 million cubic meters per year from drying, storms, disease, etc.), net growth averages 10.6 million cubic meters annually — about 2 million cubic meters more than the harvest.

Considering the entire forest stock, including protected forests, net growth was even higher — 11.5 million cubic meters annually, about 2.9 million cubic meters more than the harvest.

Based on these figures, it is difficult to argue that overcutting exists.

Forests are often discussed primarily as carbon sinks or biodiversity reserves. These are important functions, but forests are also dynamic systems of age classes where aging stands inevitably require renewal. Nearly a century ago, Estonian forestry scholar Professor Andres Mathiesen noted: "Where old forests are abundant, the allowable cut may and should exceed annual growth."⁴

Conclusion

The concerns expressed by the signatories are understandable, but there is no reason to fear the disappearance of Estonia's forests. Well-managed commercial forests and sensible conservation are not opposites. Protected areas with different regimes are also necessary. The real problem is the constant framing of these concepts — and the people working in these fields — as opposites. Who benefits from a divide et impera or divide-and-rule approach?

The tech sector knows well how risky it is to make major decisions in complex systems. People accustomed to thinking in terms of rapid innovation, funding rounds, and quarterly cycles may misjudge a system whose time scale is measured in generations.

According to CB Insights, one of the main reasons startups fail is a poor understanding of real needs — solutions are built for problems that do not exist or are misunderstood.⁵

 In this case as well, people who have only superficially examined forestry are confidently comparing and analyzing concepts in a domain with fundamentally different dynamics.

A forest is not an app that can be shut down after failure and restarted with new investors. Estonia's forests are shaped by decades of unique history: postwar abandoned farmland, rapid expansion of forest area, and the return of mature forests to owners through restitution.

Forests operate on long cycles. Ignoring these processes makes it easy to rely on slogans, but decisions that disregard the forest life cycle can cause irreversible damage — damage that cannot simply be "exited" away. In the startup world, mistakes usually mean financial loss; in forestry, wrong decisions may burden future generations for decades.

Understanding forest management requires more than enthusiasm, intuition, or good intentions. It demands deep study, experience, and the ability to see beyond the next headline to the next growth cycle.