Peer-reviewed articles 17,970 +


Title: CAN TIMBER IMPORT IN LATVIA FROM RUSSIA AND BELARUS BE REDUCED?
CAN TIMBER IMPORT IN LATVIA FROM RUSSIA AND BELARUS BE REDUCED?

PlumX Article Metrics by Elsevier
Aija Pilvere; Irina Pilvere; Aleksejs Nipers
10.5593/sgem2023/3.1/s14.39
10.5593/sgem2023/3.1
1314-2704
978-619-7603-58-3
English
23
3.1
•    Prof. DSc. Oleksandr Trofymchuk, UKRAINE 
•    Prof. Dr. hab. oec. Baiba Rivza, LATVIA
Forest Ecosystems
Forests provide humanity with essential raw materials, and the demand for these materials is growing, especially in conditions where it is necessary to replace the use of fossil resources with renewable ones. Latvia’s import of timber from Russia and Belarus has increased 8 times in 2021, when comparing 2013, reaching 33% of timber import value. Current geopolitical situation and supply chain sustainability calls for necessity to evaluate possibility to reduce the dependency on the timber import from Russia and Belarus. The aim of the research is to determine whether with existing growth and felling rates of forests in Latvia are sufficient to reduce timber imports from Russia and Belarus, to calculate the possible reduction rate and define the necessary steps for its implementation. Research results indicate that with current theoretical growth rates of main forest tree species, it is possible to increase the felling rates to the level that residual growth stock of the tree species to remain as it was in 2019. Research results shows that it would reduce 2021 import volume from Russia and Belarus to less than 20% from current 33% in the value of total timber imports. In long run it is possible to increase forest yields with using more intense forest growing management.
[1] Pomeranz, K. (2008). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. 10.1002/9780470774212.ch29.
[2] Levers, Ch.; Verkerk, P.J.; Muller, D.; Verburg, P.H.; Van Butsic; Leitao, P.J.; Lindner, M.; Tobias Kuemmerle, T. (2014). Drivers of forest harvesting intensity patterns in Europe. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 315, pp. 160-172. Doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.030.
[3] McDonald, G.T.; Lane, M.B. (2004). Converging global indicators for sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp. 63-70. Doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00101-6.
[4] Bottcher, H.; Verkerk, P.J.; Gusti, M.; Havlik, P.; Grassi, G. (2012). Projection of the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models. GCB Bioenergy, 4(6), pp. 773–783. Doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01152.x.
[5] Ministry of Agriculture of Latvia. Data on Forestry sector stock, export and import (2011-2022) https://www.zm.gov.lv/lv/meza-resursi acc. 05.01.2023.
[6] Central Bureau of Statistics of Latvia. Data on cutting of the stock database MEZ012 2014-2021 https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEZ/MEZ012/tabl e/tableViewLayout1/.
[7] Forest Research, https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/ statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2018/sources/timber- 2/conversion-factors/ acc 15.01.2023
[8] Sewerniak, P. (2020). Differences in growth parameters of scots pine between Poland and Finland: A comparative study with reference to soil texture. Soil Science Annual, 71(2), 111-117. doi:10.37501/soilsa/122401.
[9] Turunen, M. T., Rasmus, S., Jarvenpaa, J., & Kivinen, S. (2020). Relations between forestry and reindeer husbandry in northern finland – perspectives of science and practice. Forest Ecology and Management, 457 doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117677.
[10] Eko, P., Johansson, U., Petersson, N., Bergqvist, J., Elfving, B., & Frisk, J. (2008). Current growth differences of norway spruce (picea abies), scots pine (pinus sylvestris) and birch (betula pendula and betula pubescens) in different regions in sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(4), 307-318. Doi:10.1080/02827580802249126.
[11] Nilsson, O.; Hjelm, K.; Nilsson, U. (2019) Early growth of planted Norway spruce and Scots pine after site preparation in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 34:8, pages 678-688. Doi: 10.1080/02827581.2019.1659398.
[12] Makinen, H.; & Isomaki, A. (2004). Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Norway spruce trees. For. Ecol. Manage., Volume 201 (2– 3), pp. 295-309. Doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.017.
[13] Laitila, J., Vaatainen, K., & Kilpelainen, H. (2020). Integrated harvesting of industrial roundwood and energy wood from clearcutting of a scots pine-dominated peatland forest. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 31(1), pp. 19-28. Doi:10.1080/14942119.2020.1672462.
[14] Winkel, G., & Sotirov, M. (2016). Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(3), pp. 496–514. Doi: 10.1068/c1356j.
conference
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2023/3.1/s14.39
Download PDF
Proceedings of 23rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2023
23rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2023, 03 - 09 July, 2023
Proceedings Paper
STEF92 Technology
International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM
SWS Scholarly Society; Acad Sci Czech Republ; Latvian Acad Sci; Polish Acad Sci; Russian Acad Sci; Serbian Acad Sci and Arts; Natl Acad Sci Ukraine; Natl Acad Sci Armenia; Sci Council Japan; European Acad Sci, Arts and Letters; Acad Fine Arts Zagreb Croatia; Croatian Acad Sci and Arts; Acad Sci Moldova; Montenegrin Acad Sci and Arts; Georgian Acad Sci; Acad Fine Arts and Design Bratislava; Russian Acad Arts; Turkish Acad Sci.
321-328
03 - 09 July, 2023
website
9162
forest industry, forest stock, import reduction