The European Court of Justice Ruling on Polish Forest Management and Its Consequences
An expert observer notes that the European Court of Justice has addressed a matter that touches deeply on national identity and long standing traditions in Poland. He compares a forest to the sea for a Briton, underscoring the strong bond between the Polish people and their woodlands. This perspective comes from Paweł Sałek, who advises the Polish president on environmental protection and climate policy, and was quoted by the wPolityce portal.
The original inquiry from wPolityce asked what the CJEU ruling means for Poland. The adviser explains that the Court’s decision concerns forestry policy in Poland and how it intersects with European law. A key point he highlights is that in 2016 the Code of Good Forestry Practices was embedded into the Forests Act and later relocated to the Nature Conservation Act under pressure from the European Commission. He emphasizes that Poland treats forestry and nature conservation as tightly connected elements that differ from the rest of Europe in their model and approach.
The Commission reportedly acted after receiving concerns from non governmental organizations about Polish forest management. Sałek notes that since Poland joined the European Union in 2004 this area has not undergone major changes. The ruling is seen as implying that the forestry components should conform to the Habitats and Birds Directives, which Sałek argues is a misinterpretation that affects the non treaty aspects of forestry within the broader treaty framework. The observer also points out that the ruling came without customary ombudsman input or party hearings, which he sees as remarkable for such a sensitive, decades long issue. The forest holds a special place in national life and culture in Poland, he says, likening its significance to the sea for a Briton and stressing that Polish people rely on the forest for livelihoods and identity.
The discussion moves to the current pressures on nature protection policy and the claim that the country is not protecting nature adequately. Sałek insists that Poland demonstrates a capable model of long term, sustainable multifunctional forest management that supports biodiversity across plant, fungi, and wildlife species. He argues that European Union institutions have mostly focused on issues such as rule of law, LGBT rights, and abortion access, while entering into forestry questions in an unprecedented way. The question remains why forestry should be a target of EU intervention at this moment in time. Sałek points to a scenario in which nature protection provisions could undermine national sovereignty over forest and nature. He argues that Poland’s forest management is closely tied to biodiversity protection and that the forest ecosystem, managed by the state forests, is central to this effort.
The adviser adds that public access to forests in Poland remains broad and open. Foraging for mushrooms, berries, and herbs is common, and biodiversity is shaped through rational forest management backed by scientific evidence. He warns of a risk that up to a third of the country could face changes if forest monitoring rules under discussion in the EU become more intrusive. The concern is that such rules would effectively act as a string of controls over national forestry decisions, influencing how forests are managed and who bears responsibility for those choices. He questions whether conservation organizations weigh ecological aims as a priority or pursue ideological objectives, and he identifies some Western voices as advising on Polish nature protection while controlling local resources.
Sałek argues that even when mistakes occur in forest work such as the accidental cutting of a hollow tree, the overall Polish approach to conservation and long term forest management remains commendable. He asks what tools the Polish state might use to respond to the ruling and how forest management plans might be shaped for long term planning. He notes that the judgment requires careful evaluation and consultation with practical stakeholders who implement forest plans on the ground. This consultation could slow the development of forest management plans nationwide, potentially leading to a temporary standstill for the State Forests. The broader question remains how Brussels bureaucracy relates to a real effort to influence Polish forest policy and whether this marks a shift in sovereignty toward shared competences or a continuation of longstanding national control.
Readers are invited to assess the situation and form their own conclusions by observing the interplay among forest management, treaty discussions, and the evolving structure of European governance. The current debate touches on various legal and policy changes, including how forestry is treated within the Lisbon Treaty and related frameworks. The present position holds that forestry remains a national responsibility, even as EU institutions push toward greater coordination in environmental policy. The interview closes with an acknowledgment of the complex balance between national interests and European oversight, and an invitation to consider the future direction of Poland’s forest policy.
End of interview. It is clear that the topic remains a live and evolving issue for policymakers, scholars, and citizens alike. The broader aim is to sustain forest ecosystems while ensuring public access, biodiversity, and responsible management for generations to come. A nuanced view recognizes both the value of European guidance and the need for national sovereignty in managing natural resources.
Note for readers: this summary reflects perspectives discussed in the interview with the Polish policy advisor and is intended to present a balanced overview of the ongoing debate. (attribution: wPolityce)