It is often argued that Estonia's current overharvesting is justified because forest cover during the first period of independence was more than half lower than today. Indeed, in 1920 Estonia's official forest cover was only about 21 percent of the country's area. But this is not comparable to today's criteria for forest land.

At that time, only areas that landowners had officially registered as forest were counted. For example, farm forests were not included. There were also large areas where healthy forest grew but which were not recorded as forest (Yearbook Forest 2023, Environment Agency).

In 1937, forestry scientist Paul Reim wrote: "The concept of forest is, of course, not clearly defined. In our country, many trees grow in bogs, pastures, wooded meadows, and dense thickets of hazel and grey alder" (Forest Yearbook, 2023). Today, many such areas are counted as forest, including young alder stands and swamp forests, whereas wooded meadows and wooded pastures have largely disappeared (less than 2,000 hectares remain).

What did Estonia's forest landscape look like at the beginning of independence? It is true that clear-cutting increased compared with earlier centuries. The industrial revolution of the 19th century made clear-cutting the dominant forestry practice, and the new republic needed timber revenue. In some areas, there was even a shortage of wood, and by the late 1930s, significant overharvesting was observed.

In more densely populated regions, more land had been cleared for agriculture and overmanaged, with especially intensive clear-cutting near sawmills and glass factories. After World War II, forests regrew in these areas.

Although forestry in those decades was sometimes far from sustainable, there was still far more old-growth forest and undisturbed forest and wetland massifs — areas where human impact had been minimal for centuries.

In hard-to-access regions, logging pressure was much lower than today because those forests were physically difficult to reach. Modern technology, however, allows access even to remote areas, with new extraction roads and clear-cut sites expanding continuously.

As a result, the forest landscape today is very different — seen from above, forests resemble a grid. Outside strictly protected areas, logging has reached boggy and historically inaccessible forests as well, aided by extensive drainage. As a consequence, old-growth forests now make up only about two percent of Estonia's forest area.

The low percentage of forest cover in the past was also due to a mosaic agricultural landscape, where many small forest patches were not recorded as forest. Early 20th-century photos of Estonia's hilly landscapes show water bodies, small groves, fields, and wooded pastures as the main elements (Anneli Palo, Forests of Estonia).

A diverse landscape is the foundation of biodiversity in agricultural areas, yet such places are now rare outside national parks and the western islands. Many species associated with farmland (such as the European roller and ortolan bunting) have become extinct in Estonia or declined drastically.

After World War II, land use changed in many such areas, and forests grew where farmland once was. The same happened to former open coastal pastures. Today, these areas are turning into landscapes fragmented by clear-cuts, where nothing remains of the once biodiverse pastoral environment. Intensively logged forest landscapes are much poorer in biodiversity than both mosaic farmland and natural areas with minimal human impact.

There were also other open natural areas where forest gradually grew during the Soviet era. For example, large-scale drainage of bogs began in the mid-20th century. Decomposing peat and altered water regimes caused forests to grow in formerly open bogs, so that today about a quarter of Estonia's forest area has developed on drained land.

Semi-natural wooded pastures, common before the Soviet period and not counted as forest, also deserve mention. As they have lost their economic importance, most have become overgrown and are now recorded as forest.

Accounting for differences in methodology, forestry historian Toivo Meikar (Estonian University of Life Sciences) has calculated that Estonia's forest cover was about 36 percent in 1965, 39 percent in 1970, and 42 percent in 1980. Thus, the landscape of the first independence period differed from today in two key ways: many forests were not officially recorded, and biodiversity-rich open landscapes have since become forested and are now under heavy clear-cutting pressure.

The planned Forest Act would favor industry and destroy nature

Although the share of forest has increased due to statistical reclassification and land-use changes, justifying uncontrolled logging by referring to conditions a century ago is arbitrary and misleading. About a hundred years after the republic's founding, nearly 52 percent of Estonia's land area is now classified as forest.

Such a high share has never been recorded before, partly because today any stand of at least 0.5 hectares, at least 1.3 meters tall, and with 30 percent canopy cover qualifies as forest. Even recently clear-cut areas are still counted as "forest land," though temporarily without trees.

Over the past decade, the proportion of forest land without trees has steadily increased, while timber stock has declined. The planned forest law is likely to continue this trend, as it contains no measures to improve forest condition. Moreover, it would classify even local community forests as part of the 70 percent designated for commercial use, accelerating the loss of forests used for berries, mushrooms, and recreation — areas historically protected for people's living environment even during the Soviet era.

Because many fields and open bogs became forest during the Soviet period, forestry official Lembit Maamets recommended in 1995 more intensive logging, noting that growth had exceeded harvesting for decades. He projected a "target harvesting volume for 2020" of 5 million cubic meters annually, but subsequent legal changes increased this to 10.6 million cubic meters by 2020.

In 2018, harvest volumes reached nearly 13 million cubic meters. Instead of managing the forest resources that accumulated during the Soviet period sustainably, recent governments have chosen to rapidly exploit them, and these reserves have now largely been used up.

In addition to record harvesting volumes, logging intensity (cubic meters per hectare) in recent decades has been twice as high as late 20th-century peaks (Alternative Assessment of Estonian Forests).

This has been enabled by legislative changes since around the turn of the century, including lowering minimum cutting ages, allowing logging based on diameter rather than age (i.e., permitting harvesting of younger forests), and ending national-level logging planning.

As a result, multi-hectare clear-cuts can now be made even in forests just 30–40 years old. Anyone wishing to do so can legally clear-cut 100 hectares or more within a decade. Such a situation has not existed before under Estonian forest law.

The forest law bill should be withdrawn

What will Estonia's forest landscape look like a few decades after the current amendments take effect?

Outside strictly protected areas, open clear-cuts and young stands would dominate, interspersed with middle-aged, single-species, even-aged forests. Since current forestry plans allow increased thinning, future forests would be stripped of dead, diseased, or otherwise distinct trees — yet these are the basis of biodiversity.

Wherever natural disturbances occur, such as fires or storms, they would be followed by clear-cutting and replacement with uniform, low-diversity stands. Such forests lack ecological self-regulation and are more vulnerable to disease, bark beetles, and climate change.

Forest biodiversity would decline significantly, as species adapted to diverse habitats cannot survive in intensively managed forests — they cannot find suitable habitat, food, or light conditions.

The government's decision to continue unsustainable forest management — and to designate 70 percent of forests as commercial forest with no additional restrictions beyond the forest law — is not just about depleting timber resources. It risks turning Estonia's once nature-rich landscape into a production area, with unpredictable ecological consequences and the loss of people's familiar living environment.

At minimum, the forest law bill should be withdrawn. To restore sustainable forest management, the law must instead be revised in the opposite direction, removing mechanisms that encourage overharvesting.

--

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