“It is astonishing that the CJEU acted in such a delicate, sensitive issue, shaped over decades and even centuries, that it addresses with its competence the sensitivity of the nation and the cultural identity of Poland. For a forest is to a Pole what the sea is to an Englishman. Because Poles live from the forest, with the forest, for the forest,” Paweł Sałek, adviser to Polish President Andrzej Duda on environmental protection and climate policy, tells the wPolityce.pl portal.
wPolityce.pl: What does the CJEU ruling on Polish forests mean for Poland?
Paul Salek: We are dealing with the fact that the CJEU has issued a judgment on an issue related to Polish forests. The problem is that in 2016 the so-called The Code of Good Forestry Practices was introduced into the Forests Act, and later – under duress from the European Commission – the Code of Good Forestry Practices had to be moved to the Nature Conservation Act.
For clarification, it should be emphasized that Polish forest management is very closely related to nature conservation issues. Our model of forestry and nature conservation is completely different from the rest of Europe.
The Commission was motivated by NGOs to complain about forest management in Poland. And keep in mind that for 20 years, since we joined the European Union in 2004, this area of forestry and nature conservation has not been touched.
Saying in this judgment that we are not implementing the requirements of the Habitats and Birds Directives changes the ‘forestry’ part, which is a non-treaty part, in violation of the Treaty.
And now the CJEU judgment has been issued without advice from the ombudsman, although such advice is customary, and without hearing the parties. It is amazing that the CJEU has acted in such a way on such a delicate, sensitive issue that has been shaped over decades and even centuries. With its competence, the Tribunal addresses the sensitivity of the nation and the cultural identity of Poland. For a forest is to a Pole what the sea is to an Englishman. Because Poles live from the forest, with the forest, for the forest.
The problem is that we are accused of not protecting nature at a time when our forest management and the Polish long-term sustainable multifunctional forest management model are able to maintain and shape biodiversity, which is extremely important today. is, by species of plants, fungi and wildlife.
So far, as far as Poland is concerned, the EU institutions have mainly dealt with the “rule of law”, the situation of LGBT people or access to abortion. Why this interference in an area like forestry?
Now we have a situation where provisions related to nature protection have led to a loss of control over forestry and nature in Poland. And forestry is an area related to nature conservation in Poland, because the use of nature gives protection to biodiversity. And the core of nature protection in Poland is the forest ecosystem, managed by the state forests.
And now the state is constantly losing its sovereignty and control over its assigned property in successive environmental elements. At the same time, the story is forced on social media that society has no influence on forest management and foresters cut down forests. And yet the point is that once the tree trunk is mature, wood should be used as an ecological material, as well as a storehouse of carbon dioxide. It should be emphasized that access to forests in Poland is common and open. Mushrooms, berries, undergrowth or herbs can be collected for free and all biodiversity is shaped by rational forest management, supported by scientific evidence. What can be seen in practice.
And today there is a threat to the functioning of 1/3 of the country – because so many occupy forests. Consider, for example, the regulation on forest monitoring currently under discussion in the EU, which will be the military arm of the EC to influence member states on forest management.
Do conservation organizations, which could challenge forest management plans in court, really care about ecology? How much do they care about conservation and how much about different kinds of ideological issues?
I call them non-governmental organizations, I don’t add the word “ecological” – consciously. There is a serious problem here, because those in the West who have lost their natural resources teach us today how to protect our nature, while keeping it in very good condition.
Even if there are some mistakes, omissions, mistakes in forest management, when it comes to the whole, it doesn’t change the shape of things looking good. A mistake can always be made – for example, someone cuts down a tree with a hollow or performs other wrong actions, but looking at the whole country, the Polish model of conservation, forestry and hunting undoubtedly deserves praise.
What can the Polish state do about it? What instruments does it have?
I am currently reading the judgment of the ECJ that was published today and the question arises whether this judgment can be appealed. It is about the issue of forest management plans, ie a document that shapes forest management and nature protection in a planned and rational way over the long term.
As part of this assessment it will be necessary to consult forest management plans with those applying. Therefore, the development of forest management plans across the country may be blocked. This means a complete paralysis of forest areas and the State Forests.
To what extent is it Brussels bureaucracy, and to what extent is it another attempt to take Poland “under the heels”?
Everyone can assess the situation and form their own opinion about it. It suffices to look at what is happening around the FPA, forest management, treaty changes leading to the shift from forestry to the area of mixed competences. Through lower level laws, we are dealing with a change in treaties, and in the context of what is happening in the EP, we can talk about a change in the Treaty of Lisbon. For the time being, forestry is an area excluded from mixed competences and allocated to a Member State.
Thank you very much for the interview.
Size JJ
Source: wPolityce