Opinion article by Ilona Bērziņa
Latvia speaks about sustainability, climate goals, and the “Green Deal,” yet in practice acts in the opposite way — the state itself refused the opportunity to regain ownership of its forests, allowing foreign investors to become the owners of these renewable resources. Does this mean that forests are considered our national wealth only as long as they can be used in political games that cost nothing to those in power?
“The forests are Latvia’s national wealth, which must be preserved and increased,” states the introduction to Latvia’s Forest Policy. However, when Latvia had the chance to buy back the 135,000 hectares of forest land owned in our country by the Swedish forest owners’ association, it did not happen. The state-owned company Latvijas valsts meži (Latvian State Forests) could not afford such a transaction, and efforts to create a special fund or a joint venture for the repurchase of these forests also failed.
As a result, Latvian forests that could have become part of national capital now belong to Ingka Investments, a company associated with IKEA. The deal still requires approval from the Cabinet of Ministers and the relevant regulatory authorities in both Latvia and Estonia. In total, 135,000 hectares of forest land are being sold in Latvia, and 18,000 hectares in Estonia — about 89% of this land is forest.
Ingka Investments has stated that its plans include long-term cooperation with Baltic wood-processing companies and panel manufacturers, thus promoting wood processing within the region. This means that wood resources — and work for local entrepreneurs and residents — will remain.
It is also commendable that this transaction sends a positive signal to the world,
portraying Latvia as a country favorable to investment. Yet this is not just an economic issue. It is a story about Latvia’s inability to defend its long-term resources and a government that uses the “green course” in speeches but not in action.
The sale of Södra’s properties was one of the rare opportunities for Latvia to strengthen its position in the forestry sector and regain a strategically important resource. However, the government did not grant permission for Latvijas valsts meži to participate in the transaction. The reason — a desire “not to complicate the budget.”
Neither the statements earlier this year by Agriculture Minister Armands Krauze (Union of Greens and Farmers), who stressed that Latvia should take the opportunity to recover the Södra forests because it was a matter of national interest — including state and economic security — nor the readiness of Latvian timber and forestry companies to participate in the creation of a joint fund for this buyback helped change the outcome.
The Latvian government loves to talk about climate neutrality, sustainable forestry, and natural capital. But its actions show otherwise — forests are not regarded as a strategic climate asset, only as a commodity in the marketplace.
In the Nordic countries — Sweden, Finland, and Norway — governments protect their forests
and, in some cases, even buy them back from private owners. Latvia does not. We prefer to talk about “EU fund reforms” and “climate goals,” but we do not invest in our own carbon and environmental capital.
If forests cover 3.412 million hectares — more than 53% of the country’s territory — does it really mean that the 135,000 hectares of forest land the state failed to buy are insignificant? No, it does not.
Foreign investors see what Latvian politicians ignore — forests are worth their weight in gold. They provide guaranteed returns, serve as a resource for carbon credits, and offer stability during inflation. For Latvia, they are not only an economic asset but also a matter of national security — they represent territorial control, energy reserves, and biological protection.
When these properties belong to foreigners,
decisions about logging, carbon balance, and habitats are made outside Latvia’s borders.
In effect, we lose control over part of our land, while the government pretends this is a “market process,” seeing only the 720 million euros for which Södra sold its 153,000 hectares of forest land in Latvia and Estonia.
If this trend continues, we cannot rule out that in a few decades the majority of Latvia’s forests will be in foreign hands. This means that profits from forest-related economic activities will flow abroad; decisions about forest management will be made by others; and regional areas will face the risk of losing local income from the timber industry.
The timber industry makes a huge contribution to the national economy, accounting for 6.4% of GDP. Revenue from forest product exports reached 3.41 billion euros in 2024.
If we truly want to preserve and increase our national wealth, Latvia must urgently change its approach and recognize that forests are part of our security and future capital, not merely a tradable commodity or a rhetorical instrument used in political speeches that, in the name of popularity, attempt to hinder economic activity in forests.
While funds from Sweden, Finland, and other countries are buying up thousands of hectares of Latvian forests, our government remains silent. The state looks on as one of its few stable, renewable resources — capable of generating consistent income for future generations — is being sold off.
And, ironically, all of this happens at a time when Latvia officially proclaims its commitment to the green course and sustainable development.
Read also: Netherlands’ Ingka Investments to become Latvia’s largest private forest owner