Debates over Estonian forestry have for years focused on logging volumes, nature conservation and climate targets. While the future of Estonian forestry will be determined by how much forest is logged or protected, it is equally important how well society understands forests and knows how to care for them.

Simply leaving forests unmanaged does not in itself amount to caring for them or understanding them. If people's connection with forests weakens, making balanced, knowledge-based decisions about forestry also becomes more difficult.

If the public wants to see responsible forestry, people need to know how forests grow, how they are managed and why the forest sector is important to Estonia.

For years, the Environmental Investment Center (KIK) has helped do this work by funding activities that introduce people to forestry and help maintain society's connection with forests. It has supported forestry education, forest days, educational programs, community initiatives and other projects that give young people and adults an opportunity to see forests not only as places for recreation and natural environments, but also as a renewable natural resource and the foundation of an economic sector important to Estonia.

Two years ago, the state decided to move projects introducing forestry, along with the funding allocated for them, from KIK's forestry program to its environmental awareness program. The change was justified with a promise that funding for activities introducing forestry would not decrease as a result.

In practice, the conditions of the environmental awareness program have been changed in such a way that many traditional projects introducing forestry no longer meet the criteria for receiving support. It is also telling that forestry is no longer even mentioned in the program's conditions.

By now, the total amount of KIK support allocated to the three largest organizations promoting awareness of forestry for projects introducing forestry has fallen by approximately 70 percent compared with its 2023 peak.

The impact extends beyond individual projects being canceled. Reduced funding opportunities are felt most quickly in the places where people's knowledge, attitudes and understanding of nature are formed.

This particularly affects young people. If a young person never plants a tree, takes part in an educational day introducing forestry or encounters the use and management of forests anywhere other than in public debates or on social media, they may never develop a comprehensive understanding of forests. This alienation is exacerbated by urbanization and people's declining day-to-day exposure to forestry and forest management.

More and more people are familiar with forests primarily as places for recreation and natural environments and may not perceive them as a renewable natural resource whose sustainable use creates jobs, exports and tax revenue. Understanding of how forest management, the use of wood, nature conservation and the vitality of rural areas are interconnected may also weaken. Forests become something that people value but whose functioning and use they understand less and less.

Growing detachment from forestry also affects the sector's future workforce. If young people growing up in cities have no meaningful exposure to modern forestry, its technological development and its career opportunities, it is difficult for them to see forestry as an attractive field for their future. This could reduce interest in forestry-related fields of study and careers in the sector at a time when the field is already facing a shortage of qualified specialists. In this way, society's alienation from forests can also become a competitiveness problem for the sector.

Less knowledge, in turn, affects the quality of public debate. People are more likely to trust what they know and understand. When direct contact with forestry declines, it creates a knowledge vacuum that can easily be filled by emotions, fears, polarization and simplistic slogans.

Paradoxically, funding for activities introducing forestry is declining at a time when forestry needs more societal dialogue and a substantive understanding of different perspectives.

At the same time, an increasing share of the responsibility for maintaining awareness of forestry is being left to the forest sector itself. This is happening as the sector's room to operate is increasingly affected by various restrictions and regulations. Is it reasonable and fair to expect the task of maintaining knowledge of forestry and society's connection with it to fall increasingly on the sector alone?

This creates a vicious cycle. Less exposure to forestry means less knowledge and less interest in studying, working or starting a business in the sector. This, in turn, could weaken the sector's competitiveness and economic contribution and ultimately reduce tax revenue for the state as well. Today's savings at the expense of forestry education and awareness could therefore mean fewer resources tomorrow for funding other services society needs.

The state's task is to ensure that society retains an understanding of the full value of forests and the ability to understand the choices involved in forestry. This requires investment in education, public awareness and practical opportunities for people to engage with forestry. What is at stake, then, is whether Estonia wants to preserve society's knowledge of and connection with a sector that has created jobs, exports and tax revenue for decades.

--

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