The role of socialisation of the forest management system in Poland in the face of the need to mitigate climate change

Climate change will have a wide and significant impact on forest ecosystems. On one hand, extensive adaptation measures will be necessary to strengthen forest ecosystems' resistance to the negative effects of this process. The requirements in this area and the necessary directions for action are relatively well known [Keenan 2015; Jandli et al. 2019; Paschalis-Jakubowicz 2020; Szmyt 2020]. On the other hand, the changes to the manner of forest management that should take place so that they contribute to the achievement of climate policy goals are much less defined. This is important because achieving climate neutrality by 2050 will not be possible without the participation of this sector. Moreover, forests will also play an important role in climate protection in the second half of the 21st century. Stabilizing the climate will require taking measures to ensure that after 2050, carbon absorption will significantly increase so that the amount permanently stored in soil, ocean, and biomass is greater than its emission. It will allow the restoration of a safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [IPCC 2018].

Actions to stop climate change are increasingly being indicated among the objectives of forest policy. Although in recent years two attempts have been made to create a new State Forest policy in Poland, none of them ended with the adoption of a strategic document [Rykowski 2016; Kaliszewski 2018]. The last official document to this effect was approved by the Council of Ministers almost 25 years ago, in April 1997 [MOŚZNiL 1997]. Therefore, it is not possible to clearly indicate what goals the Polish government has set for the forestry sector in terms of climate protection. Nevertheless, as Poland is a member of the EU, these goals cannot be contradictory to the goals accepted at the EU level. The main objective of the EU climate policy for forestry and agriculture is to ensure that GHG emissions from land-use activities are fully offset by atmospheric CO₂ equivalents through actions in these sectors. This is called the zero-balance rule [O.J. L 156, 19/06/2018]. To help the Member States to achieve this target, EU legislation allows the Member States to trade the net removals.

Forestry in the European Union is classified as one of the sectors of the economy not covered by the provisions of the European Emission Trading System (the so-called non-ETS sectors), the role of which in achieving the goals of the EU climate policy is determined by the regulation on binding annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by Member States from 2021 until 2030 [O.J. L 156/26, 19/06/2018]. According to that regulation, in the years 2021–2030, Poland will be able to use in the settlement the required level of emission reduction from non-ETS sectors 21.7 million tonnes of CO₂eq absorbed by forests (while for the years 2021–2025 the reference level was increased to 28.4 million tonnes of CO₂eq [O.J. L 60/21, 22/02/2021]). Nevertheless, due to the increase in the EU reduction targets in 2030 from 40% to 55%, it should be expected that the existing regulations on the role of forests in achieving the EU climate goals will be changed and the reduction targets in non-ETS sectors will be increased. As even the present obligations will be difficult for Poland to meet (reducing emissions in non-ETS sectors by 7% in 2030 compared to 2005), their additional increase will mean even greater efforts. As a consequence, the forestry sector will be under increasing pressure to actively participate in achieving climate goals.

The primary role of forests in climate protection is to absorb and permanently store carbon, thanks to which it is taken out from circulation and its concentration in the atmosphere does not increase. On a global scale, in the process of photosynthesis, forests absorb more carbon dioxide than they emit in the processes of respiration and oxidation of organic matter [Pan et al. 2011]. According to some estimates, this potential is very large and, according to studies published in 2017, it amounts to 23.8 petagrams of CO₂eq. About half of this potential (11.3 PgCO₂e y-1) can be achieved through activities costing less than $ 100 MgCO₂e-1 by 2030 [Griscom et al. 2017]. According to the authors of this study, this could provide a cost-effective reduction of CO₂ emissions by 2030 and significantly increase the chance of keeping global warming below 2°C. When planning the inclusion of forests in efforts to combat climate change, it should be remembered that they provide a much wider range of ecosystem goods and services than just carbon storage or timber production. These services include preservation of biodiversity, supply of fuel, food and medical semi-finished products, water retention, soil protection, protection against noise, improvement of the microclimate, weakening of the wind force in adjacent areas, and strengthening the resilience of the landscape to negative external influences. Forests also create conditions for rest and recreation. A growing number of people expect forest managers to carry out activities aimed at ensuring the high tourist attractiveness of forests [Stępień 2005; Paschalis-Jakubowicz 2009; Baranowska et al. 2021], even at the cost of limiting their production function. That is why it becomes so important to define methods of maximizing carbon absorption and ensuring its sustainable storage in a way that does not reduce the scope of other environmental and social functions, with care also for economic functions. This type of approach to forest management was also expected by the majority of respondents, both among representatives of NGOs and forest users. As one of the respondents pointed out: A forest is more than a factory of timber. Therefore, old forests should be protected to a greater extent. Only one respondent from the group of forest users considered the primary function of forests to be wood production.

An additional aspect that must be taken into account when analysing the role of forests in climate protection is their biophysical impact on the climate, which may limit the positive effect of carbon absorption and storage. According to Unger (2014), deforestation caused by the development of agriculture had a positive impact on the climate, as it increased the albedo of the earth's surface and decreased the natural emission of volatile organic compounds by forests. Similar conclusions were drawn by Luyssaert et al. (2018), according to which increasing afforestation will not have a positive effect on the climate. These authors point out that coniferous forests in particular reduce the albedo and contribute to an increase in global temperature. These analyses were severely criticised by other researchers. Without undermining the results of studies that indicate the existence of biophysical influence of forests on the climate, they state that the conclusions drawn by them – the lack of the role of forests in climate protection – are too far-reaching [Popkin 2019]. As Grassi et al. (2019) state, the inclusion of forests by the EU in the 2030 economy-wide climate goals is a key incentive to identify the country-optimal relationship between strategies focused on carbon maintenance and/or enhancement by forest ecosystems. Therefore, the conclusions of Unger (2014) and Luyssaert et al. (2018) should not be taken lightly. They indicate the need to implement more detailed research in Poland, which will show what is the optimal model of forest management from the point of view of climate protection. Interview respondents, mainly from the group of forest users, were more assertive in this matter. In their opinion, forest area should not be reduced, even if it contributes to better climate protection. As one of them said: the forest area in Poland is not huge, and the existing ones are massively cut down. That is why forests must be protected against logging, even at the cost of their smaller contribution to the protection of the environment. However, the opinion of NGO representatives was slightly different. In their opinion, scientific knowledge should be the basis for forest management and climate protection.

However, it is highly probable that regardless of the model applied, it will be crucial to support the potential of Polish forests to absorb and permanently store carbon. National research [Ziemblińska et al. 2018] shows that coniferous communities in wind-damaged forest areas, aged 55–61 years, absorb approximately 18–28 Mg CO₂/ha/year. Slightly higher values, i.e. about 30 Mg CO₂/ha/year, are absorbed by pine forests near Tuczno, in the northwestern part of Poland [Chojnicki at al. 2009]. According to the national inventory of emissions and removals, in 2017, the total amount of carbon absorbed by Polish forests was estimated at 33,846,140 Mg CO₂eq [KOBIZE 2019], which means that the average balance of carbon absorption by Polish forests is approximately 3.7 Mg CO₂eq/ha/year. The total amount of removals in 2017 was approximately 115% higher than in the base year for Poland (1988), which should be considered a success of the national forest policy. It was possible mainly thanks to many years of efforts to increase the forest cover in Poland.

Unfortunately, as forecasts indicate, it will not be possible to maintain this state in the long run, the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by Polish forests each year will decrease until 2040 – from the current 33 million to about 9.5 million Mg CO₂eq in 2040 [Seventh National ... 2017]. In the opinion of the authors of this forecast, this will be the result of, first of all, two processes: the aging of Polish forests and a decrease in the area of afforestation [Seventh National … 2017].

The view that active forest management increases the absorption of carbon dioxide, due to the fact that with the maturation of forests, the primary net productivity decreases, and the natural mortality of the forest stand increases, and consequently the rate of carbon dioxide absorption decreases [Hektor et al. 2016; Nabuurs 2003] is often used to justify the strategy of the State Forests. It is also indicated that the risk of losses from fires and diseases increases with age. Therefore, it is recognised that cutting down old tree stands and planting new ones increases the rate of carbon absorption.

Nevertheless, in the light of contemporary research, this opinion seems at least too simplistic. The absorption efficiency depends not only on the age of the stands but also on the method of obtaining wood and carrying out new plantings. Moreover, the analysis of the net CO₂ streams of forest ecosystems shows that even a 200-year-old forest has the potential to absorb carbon dioxide at the level of about 8.8 Mg CO₂/ha [Luyssaert et al. 2008]. All interviewees pointed to the need to protect old trees. The difference between the groups studied was that for the majority of representatives of the group of forest users, the most important were aesthetic reasons (old forests are more beautiful than young ones), while for representatives of NGOs the primary reason were ecological reasons (old trees are better breeders and their presence increases biodiversity).

Preserving old forests is extremely important for ensuring a high level of carbon storage by forests [Craggs 2016; Lutz et al. 2018; Moomaw et al. 2019; Pugha et al. 2019], but also for maintaining high biodiversity. These goals do not contradict each other. The results of research carried out in China suggest that an increase in the diversity of forest communities by one tree species increases the amount of carbon stored by 6.4% [Liu et al. 2018], which confirms the hypothesis that the amount of stored carbon is also positively influenced by maintaining a high level of naturalness of forests [Lewis et al. 2019]. Therefore, according to some Polish scientists, a way to strengthen the role of national forests in climate protection may be their naturalisation [Kozłowski 2019]. However, as there is no detailed national research in this area, more detailed studies are needed which would allow for the formulation of recommendations regarding the need to naturalise some Polish forests and maintain mature stands.

The second process that will reduce the amount of absorbed CO₂ by forests managed by the State Forests National Forest Holding is the reduction of afforestation area. The data clearly show that the afforestation rate has dramatically decreased in recent years, from 16933 ha in 2006 to only 1165 ha in a year in 2019. Moreover, in recent years most of the afforestation is carried out on private land [PGL Lasy Państwowe 2020]. It is estimated that in order for the forestry sector to participate in achieving Poland's climate neutrality, it will be necessary to increase the forested area by 2050 by at least 0,55 – 1 million ha [Karaczun 2020]. This means that annually from 18000 to approximately 33000 ha should be allocated for forest purposes. It will certainly not be possible without a broad support for these activities from civil society. Reversing the decline in afforestation may also require the introduction of new tools that will increase the attractiveness of land transfer to afforestation. This can be done, for example, by introducing financial incentives for people and institutions carrying out such transformations (e.g. similar to agri-environmental payments).

The durability of carbon storage also depends on the methods of using the harvested wood. If it is used as a fuel, the carbon is oxidized immediately and its storage time in organic matter is approximately half the age of the harvested wood material. The carbon contained in wood used as a construction material is stored much more permanently. Here, the storage period depends on the duration of the structure itself and may exceed the period in which the trees from which the wood was obtained grew. Therefore, an important course of action will be to support the use of wood in construction [Kozłowski 2019]. Research by Himes and Busby (2020) indicates that replacing conventional building materials – primarily concrete and steel – with materials based on the use of wood, can reduce the carbon footprint of a construction by 69%, i.e. by approximately 216 kg CO2eq/m2 of the building surface. According to the assessment of these authors, on a global scale, the popularisation of wooden constructions would contribute to the reduction of global, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 9%. These assessments are optimistic because while in the past wood was used primarily in single-family housing, the current construction materials based on this material can be used in large-size and multi-family buildings [Harte 2017]. However, this is an issue that does not directly concern the forestry sector.

The knowledge that climate change is progressing and that it will have a significant impact on forest policy and practice is now common [Chmura et al. 2010; Keenan 2015; Dyderski et al. 2017; Jandl et al. 2019; Paschalis-Jakubowicz 2020; Szmyt 2020]. Nevertheless, there are no precise forecasts of the directions of these changes that will occur in Poland. The weakness of the national forecasts of changes in forest ecosystems is the lack of current, national scenarios describing the effects that would occur in our country in more detail than in global or European models. The analyses performed at the beginning of this century for the purposes of the KLIMADA (www.klimada.mos.gov.pl/) project are no longer fully up to date. Due to the acceleration of the effects of climate change [IPCC 2018], it should be assumed that many phenomena forecast for the second half of the 21st century may manifest themselves much earlier or be of a slightly different nature than previously forecasted.

This lack of precision means that there is no consensus on the activities that should be carried out in Polish forests. An example of this may be the controversy surrounding the study on the threat of the effects of climate change on forests [Dyderski et al. 2017; Duszyński et al. 2019]. It indicates what tree species common in Polish forests are most threatened by the effects of climate change: pine (currently covers about 58.5% of the forest area in Poland), spruce (about 6.4%), and silver birch (approximately 7.5%); and species whose survival opportunities will increase as a result of the forecasted changes in climatic conditions: silver fir, European beech, common ash, English oak, and sessile oak. These results were criticised by the representative of the State Forests, who stated [Frączak 2019] that the species indicated are subject to significant threats and should not be planted in large numbers. He also pointed out that ash in Europe is decimated by the disease caused by Chalara fraxinea, and therefore it is not and should not be planted in Polish forests. In his opinion, oak plantings are also at risk due to the observed dieback both in Greater Poland, in oak forests on the Krotoszyńska Plate, and in Lower Silesia. Drought is identified as the main cause of the problems of this species, which weakens the oaks and makes them vulnerable to secondary pests. With such significant discrepancies, it will be very difficult to decide which species should be planted in the coming years and which plantings should be avoided.

The above example shows not only the existence of a controversy between scientists and practitioners regarding the directions of activities that should be undertaken in the coming years in Polish forests but also a fundamental difference in the approach to the threat posed by climate change. While the position of the representatives of the Polish Academy of Sciences [Duszyński et al. 2019] was created with the belief that climate change is an irreversible phenomenon, and its effects will have a long-term impact, the position of the State Forests relativises this threat: ‘...some experts predict that the dynamics of the climate change process will increase, droughts will become more severe, temperatures higher, water deficit deeper, violent weather phenomena more frequent and destructive, and damage to forests more extensive. Others claim that in 5–8 years the situation will be reversed, it will cool down, rains will come, the climate will settle down a bit...’ [Frączak 2019]. Without resolving these controversies, it will be difficult to adopt and implement a forest management strategy in the face of the advancing climate crisis.

However, this is not the only controversy between the State Forests and other stakeholders interested in Polish forest policy. The conflict over the role that forests play in modern society is much more serious. In view of the progressive climate change and fears of its consequences, as well as due to the deepening ecological crisis expressed in the loss of biodiversity, air pollution, or water deficit and pollution, the protection of trees and forests is becoming a priority for many people. As a result, the expectation people have with regard to forest management also changes; non-productive functions of the forest become more important for them than the economic benefits obtained as a result of its exploitation. Naturalists argue with representatives of the State Forests about too low, in their opinion, levels of natural regeneration, improper management of wetlands, protection of old trees stands or some forest species, or the use of the Ia-Ic clearcuts. According to the opinion of the respondent representing the environmental NGO: ‘There are also dozens of smaller, local conflicts and disputes about the most common amounts and methods of wood harvesting. In most cases, attempts to amicably alleviate or resolve them are not made. From the point of view of the employees of the State Forests, it is easy because the State Forest policy has extended the competencies of this institution in the field of forest policy coordination, giving it an almost monopolistic role in this respect. Therefore, they do not see the need to share competencies with other stakeholders and rarely try to enter into a dialogue with them’.

As a consequence, the discrepancy and reluctance between the stakeholders deepens and they begin to see opponents presenting different opinions not as partners for discussions and negotiations, but as enemies and adversaries. Although the State Forests are victorious in most of these confrontations, it is worth asking whether this is beneficial for this institution in the medium- and long-term and whether they are Pyrrhic victories? Their price is often the growing reluctance of a large part of society to approve the activities of this entity. The evidence of this reluctance is the decline of confidence in the profession of a forester and the activities of State Forests; the percentage of people who assessed the work of this entity poorly between March 2012 and March 2018 increased by 18 percentage points from 10 to 28% [CBOS 2018]. Although this percentage decreased slightly in the following years, it still remains at a level twice as high as a few years ago. A loss of trust can have serious negative consequences as foresters may not receive social support when they try to counter political decisions that threaten the sustainability of forest ecosystems. In a situation of distrust, it will be more and more difficult to convince citizens to take actions that may be enforced by the effects of climate change – e.g. reconstruction of mature tree stands, that may no longer be capable to exist under the new climatic conditions.

An example of a lost opportunity to build cooperation between forest managers and representatives of society is the procedure of creating Forest Management Plans. Although the 2012 amendment to the Forest Management Instruction indicated the need to consult with the public (including non-governmental organisations) on the methods of planning and principles of forest management (§125.2.8), this recommendation is not obligatory, as evidenced by the provision of §§127.1 and 127.2 relating to the nominal composition of Technical and Economic Meetings. These regulations do not mention the representatives of the organisation (or the representatives of local self-governments) as parties to the proceedings taking part in the meeting ex officio, nor as persons who may be invited to such a meeting. Therefore, in practice, Forest Management Plans are developed for a small group of employees of the State Forests and experts cooperating with this entity. And when a conflict arises later, the representatives of the State Forests consider all protests unjustified, pointing out that all works in the forest are carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Plan. However, there is no consideration of the fact that fulfilling one of the criteria of sustainable forest management should be increasing in the participation of the local community and environmental organisations in decision-making on forest management development at the stage of the work of the Plan Assumptions Committee, Technical and Economic Meeting, and the Plan Design Committee [Jaszczak, Wajchman 2014]. It led to, in 25 July, 2019, the European Commission summoning the Polish government (www.ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/PL/INF_19_4251), and pointing out that Polish law did not provide access to justice in relation to forest management plans. The lack of reaction from the Polish side meant that a year and a half later, on 4 December, 2020, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (www.ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/pl/ip_20_2152). Presumably in response to this, the decision was made in 2021 to increase the possibility of public participation in the process of creating Forest Management Plans in cooperation with the so-called Local Cooperation Teams. At present, however, it is too early to assess whether this measure will allow for a real socialisation of forest management.

Controversies and conflicts over the way forests are managed have led to a situation where various stakeholders to the dispute do not cooperate and do not try to solve problems together. And as indicated earlier, without such cooperation it will be very difficult for the State Forests to implement measures to protect the environment and adapt Polish forests to the effects of climate change.

An example which shows that such cooperation is possible and can bring benefits was the initiative of the non-governmental organisation WWF Poland which put forward a scenario for Poland to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 in four sectors: energy, transport, construction, and LULUCF (understood as a sector agricultural and forestry) [Karaczun 2020]. At that time, a working group was created, consisting of representatives of the ministries of the environment and agriculture and rural development, scientific institutions, independent experts, and representatives of State Forests and environmental non-governmental organisations. As the representative of the WWF Poland stated during the interview: ‘the work carried out by this team showed that a substantive discussion and cooperation of such a diverse group of participants is possible and that it is capable of developing joint conclusions and recommendations. This could encourage such initiatives in the future. This is important because only in this way we can build support for the implementation of the Polish forestry practices that will assist the achievement of climate protection policy objectives’.