Exploring the Sustainability of Estonian Forestry: The Socioeconomic Drivers

Abstract

Forestry as an important industry has both direct as well as indirect effects on the Estonian economy. It is therefore essential that it is sustainably managed so that it can continue to contribute to the economy in the future. The first aim of this article is to establish the situation regarding felling and regeneration in Estonia. As the available forestry statistics display discrepancies and lack consistency, it was as a necessary first step to gather information about and analyze the validity and reliability of the prime data to make the data sets useful for comparison over time and establish the current trends in Estonian forestry. However, with the help of interviews we are able to show that economic instability in Estonia brings with it increased logging rates and hinders investments into regeneration and maintenance. The problems are particularly pronounced in private forestry. Second, the article seeks to explain the socioeconomic reasons behind this situation. Economic problems among private owners, a liberal forestry policy, together with rapid land reform and weak enforcement of forestry legislation are some of the reasons that can explain the forestry trends in Estonia.

Modeling forest landscape futures: Full scale simulation of realistic socioeconomic scenarios in Estonia

“…First, our model supports a former prediction that the future national wood supplies are at risk, given the wood industry attitudes and private forestry development [57]. Specifically, we predicted a large reduction of harvestable forest owned by juridical private persons.…”

Effects of institutional changes on land use: agricultural land abandonment during the transition from state-command to market-driven economies in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

“…The dismantling of the state-command system, introduction of free-market principles, withdrawal of governmental regulation and support, and land reforms caused fundamental changes in all sectors of the economy, including agricultural land use (Lerman et al 2004, Lioubimtseva andHenebry 2008). Official statistics and case studies suggest that the transition in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries, including Russia, resulted in urban sprawl (Boentje and Blinnikov 2007), increased logging in some areas (Achard et al 2006, Brukas et al 2009, Urbel-Piirsalu and Bäcklund 2009, decreased logging in others (Bergen et al 2008, Eikeland et al 2004, Pallot and Moran 2000, and caused widespread agricultural land abandonment (Baumann et al 2011, Bergen et al 2008, de Beurs and Henebry 2004, Kovalskyy and Henebry 2009, Kuemmerle et al 2008, Lioubimtseva and Henebry 2008. In post-Soviet Russia alone, more than 40 million hectares of arable land was abandoned within 20 years (Rosstat 2010).…”