Timber is one of the oldest materials that humans learned to use

 

For ancient Estonians, timber was the main material for both construction and the manufacture of goods. The oldest written records of Estonian forestry history date back to 1795, about forest management in Sõrve, but forestry as an industry emerged at the end of the eighteenth century. The first forest districts in Livonia for managing the forest were established in 1827.

 

Forest management is regulated by the Forest Act, more detailed rules for forest management are established in the forest management guidelines and the forest management rules. The state forest is managed by the State Forest Management Centre (RMK) The State Forest Management Centre oversees 47% of Estonian forests. Forest resources are managed in the forest register. For felling, you need submit a forest notification to the state.

 

The data in the forest register does not include the entire forest land. In order to obtain a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of Estonian forest resources, a statistical forest inventory was launched in 1999. The statistical forest inventory is a sample survey that provides operational and economic information on forests. The method allows to objectively monitor the dynamics of forest processes in the country as a whole. The main task of the statistical forest inventory is to describe forests and their changes and to provide an overview of felling. In addition to the information collected on forests, data can be recorded on, for example, land utilisation, biodiversity, non-forest timber stocks, and afforestation. The statistical forest inventory is a sample survey, which is why in this statistical survey, the estimation of a characteristic of a population based on the characteristics of the plots is always accompanied by an error due to probabilistic selection. Thus, the actual value of the indicators in the tables may be higher or lower by the margin of the reported error, or confidence level.

 

The forest composition:

Forest land area by dominant tree species in 2003-2022 (1000 ha)
Year	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
2022	705	426	686	150	95	227	36	2325
2021	709	431	686	149	95	219	35	2326
2020	711	439	684	151	95	210	35	2325
2019	725	440	683	149	91	209	36	2333
2018	729	439	683	146	88	208	37	2331
2017	732	438	687	144	87	205	39	2331
2016	736	429	682	138	83	208	38	2313
2015	739	419	692	134	78	210	37	2310
2014	744	410	690	131	75	208	38	2295
2013	733	388	697	129	78	205	38	2268
2012	722	385	702	129	78	196	37	2250
2011	726	385	701	1230	74	184	35	2235
2010	744	377	681	124	72	187	37	2222
2009	751	376	678	121	70	185	36	2217
2008	759	389	671	121	69	184	37	2229
2007	770	388	681	121	69	196	40	2265
2006	747	395	688	125	66	208	40	2269
2005	730	402	703	124	68	207	36	2271
2004	740	407	700	127	69	202	37	2282
2003	718	405	701	128	66	201	37	2255

 

Over the last 20 years, both the area and reserves of forests have increased. The amount of coniferous and deciduous forests is equal in Estonia. In the area distribution by the majority tree species, we have the most pine forests (30%), birch forests (30%), and spruce forests (18%). However, when you look at the distribution of tree species, pine is still in first place (29%), followed by spruce (26%) and birch (23%), meaning that spruce is often a cohabiting tree species in different stands.

 

Forest land growing stock by dominant tree species in 2002-2022 (1000 m3)
Year	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
2022	160 779	85 882	119 387	34 087	18 671	31 739	6 137	456 683
2021	164 069	88 787	120 064	34 208	18 731	31 795	6 203	463 857
2020	166 666	92 589	121 759	35 175	18 981	31 074	6 265	472 509
2019	170 919	94 241	123 866	35 041	19 192	31 825	6 529	481 612
2018	172 463	95 504	123 644	34 244	19 050	32 238	6 866	484 009
2017	175 025	96 279	125 428	34 092	19 586	32 330	7 191	489 931
2016	177 014	94 581	124 869	32 867	19 091	33 011	6 900	488 333
2015	178 683	92 039	125 868	32 023	18 685	33 506	6 540	487 345
2014	178 683	91 292	124 413	31 428	17 591	33 919	6 452	483 778
2013	174 786	87 123	125 965	31 822	17 860	34 535	6 565	478 656
2012	170 855	85 233	124 428	31 319	17 532	33 535	6 406	469 308
2011	169 050	84 179	122 255	31 593	16 775	31 519	6 056	461 426
2010	169 031	82 272	116 154	30 469	15 627	32 127	6 319	452 000
2009	168 733	80 400	113 147	30 198	15 547	31 371	6 245	445 640
2008	167 690	82 122	109 686	29 742	15 286	31 366	5 852	441 745
2007	165 432	82 431	110 128	29 358	14 837	33 425	6 284	441 893
2006	158 132	84 311	110 857	29 728	13 947	35 421	6 317	438 714
2005	151 200	85 042	113 165	30 017	14 672	34 907	5 978	434 981
2004	151 385	86 162	113 163	30 279	14 878	34 184	6 075	436 126
2003	143 928	85 039	113 164	31 137	14 424	34 194	6 475	428 360

 

However, the composition of the managed forest land is important in terms of the timber resources used. Here, two opposing processes have taken place simultaneously. Firstly, the area of managed forest land has been constantly increasing due to the afforestation of shrubs and unused agricultural land, but at the same time, new forests have also been placed under strict protection. For example, where in 2016, there were 271,300 ha under strict protection, then in 2022, there were already 21,663 ha.

 

Distribution of managed forest land area by dominant tree species (1000 ha)
Year	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
2022	512	360	585	126	76	215	30	1 903
2020	526	370	585	131	77	200	31	1 920
2015	603	378	617	121	65	205	32	2 022
2010	633	356	623	115	64	184	35	2 010
2005	613	376	647	119	60	202	33	2 050

 

Distribution of managed forest land growing stock by dominant tree species  (1000 m3)
Year	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
2022	115 230	67 507	97 384	25 002	13 296	29 303	4707	352 430
2020	123 575	73 540	100 634	27 655	13968	29 098	5 174	373 643
2015	147 741	81 198	109 513	27 224	14 840	32 454	5 395	418 364
2010	146 760	76 965	104 267	27 093	13 748	31 414	5 792	406 040
2005	129 569	79 157	103 762	28 267	12 860	33 764	5 120	392 500

 

Felling

 

The volume of prescribed cut has lessened and grown nearly three times over the last 20 years. The peaks of the time series have been in 2017 and 2018, the lowest felling volume occurred in 2008. As to what kind of forests we cut down, it is easy to remember that 1/3 of clearcutting is done in birch forests, 1/4 of clearcutting in pine forests, and 1/5 of clearcutting in spruce forests.

 

Fellings by felling types in 2000-2021 (1000 m3)
Year	Maintenance felling	Incl dead trees	Regeneration felling	Incl dead trees	Other types of fellings	Incl dead trees	Total fellings	Incl dead trees
2021	1 665	403	8 062	356	248	4	9 975	763
2020	1 883	260	8 599	376	199	1	10 681	636
2019	1 833	190	9 150	378	274	6	11 257	574
2018	1 925	252	10 627	513	254	9	12 807	774
2017	1 665	311	10 618	464	315	31	12 598	807
2016	1 610	357	9 023	382	161	26	10 793	765
2015	1 671	258	8 239	241	192	23	10 102	521
2014	1 656	293	8 078	363	311	1	10 045	658
2013	2 017	351	7 667	423	423	2	10 108	776
2012	1 729	453	7 912	450	556	10	10 197	913
2011	1 816	378	6 774	427	414	12	9 003	817
2010	1 483	289	6 356	359	342	19	8 181	667
2009	1 406	240	4 732	324	223	10	6 362	575
2008	1 171	197	4 144	148	133	9	5 448	353
2007	1 335	292	4 203	183	437	12	5 975	488
2006	1 746	392	4 285	196	516	13	6 548	601
2005	2 461	473	4 967	406	550	13	7 978	892
2004	2 775	355	5 143	336	199	4	8 118	695
2003	3 350	301	6 313	287	191	4	9 854	592
2002	3 193	188	6 659	188	302	7	10 153	383

 

Felling area in 2002-2021 (1000 ha)
Year	Cleaning	Thinning	Sanitation	Clear felling	Shelterwood felling	Selection felling	Other fellings
2021	14,0	15,8	16,2	27,1	2,1	2,0	8,6
2020	8,8	19,4	15,9	29,7	4,3	1,8	8,2
2019	11,0	19,5	13,9	29,7	5,2	2,4	6,5
2018	10,2	19,3	13,0	34,6	3,9	1,2	5,7
2017	12,0	14,9	11,4	35,6	3,2	1,1	4,3
2016	9,7	14,6	12,2	32,4	1,8	0,8	2,4
2015	10,2	18,5	10,8	31,6	2,4	1,6	2,5
2014	8,9	18,9	11,0	29,7	2,4	2,6	2,4
2013	12,0	24,8	11,7	28,7	2,2	5,0	3,7
2012	12,4	18,7	13,3	27,4	2,3	4,8	4,9
2011	12,2	22,6	12,4	25,0	2,9	5,1	5,3
2010	8,4	16,3	9,8	22,8	4,0	5,9	4,1
2009	6,4	16,2	8,5	17,3	3,9	6,4	2,6
2008	5,8	12,5	6,2	12,8	4,3	6,1	4,7
2007	5,2	13,4	9,5	12,7	3,3	3,5	7,4
2006	4,0	12,7	17,5	12,2	4,0	5,4	6,7
2005	2,8	19,3	17,7	15,0	4,3	4,5	4,1
2004	3,0	22,0	16,6	18,3	5,9	4,9	3,0
2003	3,3	31,8	10,6	23,8	6,8	3,9	5,5
2002	3,1	30,2	10,8	26,5	5,0	4,6	5,1

 

Sustainability

 

From time to time, sustainability becomes an issue. The concept of sustainable forest management (including 45 characteristic indicators) has been agreed during the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (https://foresteurope.org/).  One of the indicators is the balance between the net growth of managed forests and the volume of felling, which has been specified in the longer explanation: felling must not exceed growth in the long run; in the short and medium term, forestry can be sustainable even when felling exceeds the growth rate.

 

Net growth is the difference of the stock of live trees (excluding felling). If the stock of managed forests increases, the ratio of net growth to (live tree) felling is > 1. If the reserve decreases, the ratio of net growth to (live tree) felling is < 1. However, the premise of such a simple comparison is that the areas and land categories do not change. However, as previously described, there have been major changes in the areas. In addition to changes in the surface area of forest land, the age distribution must also be taken into account, and also in two aspects. First, the age distribution of the managed forest land. The net growth of very young and old forests is lower than the net growth of middle-aged forest land. Secondly, the age distribution of the land (forest) changing the land category. For example, when area with young forest increases in managed forest (overgrown grassland becomes forest land), the reserve of managed forest land grows relatively little, while when older forests are taken under strict protection, the loss of reserve is higher from the reserve of managed forest land for the same area. Taking all this into account in the short term is possible with a thorough analysis, while in the long term, a simple comparison of hectare stocks is enough. Therefore, we can say that the average volume of felling and the net growth of managed forests in Estonia over the last 16 years has been in the same range.

 

To understand the content of the indicator, the indicator can be viewed from a long-term perspective. We assume that the area of managed forests will remain the same. If we now cut less than the net growth continuously in the very long run, the net growth and thus the volume of felling will eventually reach zero. However, if the net growth is continuously exceeded, the forest reserve will reach zero. Thus, it is not possible to cut less or more than the net growth indefinitely. Finally, it is important to emphasise that this indicator only assesses the sustainability of timber use (and only in one respect). Sustainable forest management as a whole means much more (see here).

 

Distribution of forest stands in 2022

Distribution of forest land by development classes and dominant tree species (1000 ha)
Development class	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
Treeless area	17,7	17,5	32,6	5,3	3,8	7,0	0,9	84,9
Under regeneration	29,0	47,0	25,9	11,7	5,4	8,2	1,7	128,9
Young forest	35,8	46,5	89,3	37,3	17,4	63,8	3,3	293,4
Pole stant	39,3	28,2	65,0	12,3	8,5		2,3	155,5
Middle-aged stand	318,9	142,7	200,1	7,4	19,1	27,8	13,8	729,9
Premature stand	85,2	38,0	88,0	5,6	12,4	31,3	6,1	266,4
Mature stand	179,1	106,1	185,6	70,3	28,6	88,7	7,6	666,0
Total	705,1	426,0	686,5	149,8	95,2	226,8	35,7	2325,0

 

According to the development class, 40% of the managed forests are premature or mature. In reality, there are more managed forests that exceed the renewal felling criteria; the statistical forest inventory distribution does not take into account maturity by diameter and the weighted average felling age.

 

Distribution of managed forest land area by development classes and dominant tree species  (1000 ha)
Development class	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
Treeless area	16,1	15,7	31,2	5,2	3,6	7,0	0,9	79,7
Under regeneration	25,9	46,2	23,9	10,6	5,4	7,9	1,7	121,7
Young forest	29,9	44,0	83,5	35,1	16,3	62,8	2,9	274,5
Pole stand	30,9	25,8	57,1	11,3	7,6		2,1	135,0
Middle-aged stand	247,2	123,5	177,3	7,0	15,2	26,7	10,7	607,8
Premature stand	64,4	30,5	75,6	5,1	9,3	30,1	5,3	220,2
Mature stand	97,9	74,4	136,3	51,2	18,5	80,3	5,8	464,4
Total	512,3	360,2	585,0	125,6	76,0	214,8	29,6	1903,4

 

If it is necessary to know the content of development classes to monitor the development class distribution, it is easier to monitor the age class distribution. An interesting trend is the constant increase in the area of older forests; the area of stands both over 80 and over 100 years old has increased. Given the increase in the area of strictly protected forests, this trend is expected for the whole forest, but it is less known that there has been a similar trend for managed forests.

 

Distribution of stands by age classes and dominant tree species (10 years age classes, 1000 ha)
Age class	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
...10	15,5	24,5	62,8	30,4	15,8	53,4	2,4	204,7
11...20	25,0	39,1	60,7	19,3	8,8	50,2	4,8	207,9
21...30	30,0	35,4	79,6	11,7	6,5	35,9	6,2	205,4
31...40	34,3	45,4	71,5	5,7	8,2	33,3	3,2	201,6
41...50	45,3	55,4	78,1	7,9	11,6	18,8	2,4	219,5
51...60	66,7	39,8	90,7	18,1	12,6	15,0	1,9	244,6
61...70	84,9	32,5	84,5	17,2	9,1	4,6	2,0	234,9
71...80	93,9	33,0	56,6	12,2	6,2	0,3	2,3	204,5
81...90	78,4	19,8	27,1	5,1	4,2	0,0	1,7	136,4
91...100	58,0	12,3	10,6	2,9	1,6	0,2	1,9	87,4
101...110	33,1	8,0	4,3	1,6	0,8		1,9	49,6
111...120	29,2	7,3	1,1	0,8	0,4		1,6	40,4
121...130	18,0	3,2	0,3		0,2		0,5	22,2
131...140	16,0	3,5			0,2			19,7
141...	30,0	2,3					0,3	32,6
Total	658,3	361,5	627,9	132,8	86,0	211,6	33,1	2111,3

 

Distribution of stands in managed forests by age classes and dominant tree species (10 years age classes, 1000 ha)
Age class	Pine	Spruce	Birch	Aspen	Black alder	Grey alder	Others	Total
...10	15,0	23,4	60,1	28,5	14,8	52,3	2,2	196,4
11...20	23,4	36,9	57,1	17,9	8,0	48,7	4,6	196,6
21...30	26,7	31,9	71,5	11,1	6,0	33,5	5,7	186,5
31...40	28,0	39,3	61,5	5,2	6,3	30,5	3,1	173,8
41...50	35,2	46,8	67,6	6,8	8,6	16,9	2,2	184,1
51...60	51,6	32,1	77,3	14,8	9,1	13,6	1,4	199,8
61...70	65,7	26,9	68,3	11,7	5,6	3,9	1,4	183,6
71...80	69,9	26,4	41,3	7,4	4,9	0,3	1,1	151,3
81...90	57,7	14,8	16,7	3,6	2,3	0,0	0,8	95,9
91...100	38,1	8,7	6,3	1,4	0,9	0,2	1,4	57,1
101...110	19,4	4,9	1,9	0,8	0,2		0,9	28,0
111...120	15,6	3,8	0,2	0,5	0,0		1,4	21,4
121...130	8,0	1,1	0,0		0,0		0,3	9,4
131...140	6,8	1,1			0,2			8,0
141...	9,4	0,3					0,3	10,0
Total	470,2	298,3	529,9	109,8	67,0	199,9	26,9	1702,0

Uses of wood

 

After Estonia regained its independence, the forest and timber industry has been one of the fastest growing and largest industries in terms of exports, accounting for one fifth of all manufacturing exports. In 2021, companies in the forest and timber sector (forestry, mechanical and chemical processing of wood, and furniture production) accounted for 3% of active companies in Estonia. Employees employed by the sector accounted for 6.3% of all employees. The forest and timber sector directly employs just over 30,000 people and, taking into account indirect and spill-over effects, creates almost 58,209 jobs. As a significant proportion of the jobs in the timber sector are located outside the centres, the sector plays an important role in rural development.

 

A more detailed overview of the use of timber is provided in the timber balance. The timber used from the forest is divided into different assortments. In the timber balance, sorting is performed based on the actual primary use of the timber, i.e. a log is the raw material for sawn timber, veneer, and plywood, paper wood is raw material for cellulose, pulp, and boards, and firewood is an input for energy or energy products.

 

                                                                                                                                           

                           

                                                                                                                                                     Text: Madis Raudsaar

                                                                                                                                                     Editor: Madis Raudsaar, Feliks Sirkas

 

Last modified: 08.08.2023

 

___________________________________________________________________

Eesti statistiline metsainventuur (SMI). Keskkonnaagentuur.

http://vana.loodusajakiri.ee/eesti_loodus/artikkel2599_2582.html

Sirkas, F. 2022. Puidubilanss. Ülevaade puidukasutuse mahust 2020. Keskkonnaagentuur, Tallinn.

Ernst & Young Baltic AS. 2023. Metsa- ja puidusektori sotsiaalmajandusliku mõju analüüs. Tallinn.