Political actors from the European Union are said to be seeking access to Poland’s forests from another angle, using ecological organizations as a front. If, as the European Court of Justice envisions, they gain the right to challenge forest management plans in court, supporters warn that arbitrariness and chaos could replace the current, carefully planned development. This view comes from PiS MEP Izabela Kloc in an interview on wPolityce.pl.
wPolityce.pl asked whether the CJEU ruling against Poland signals another attempt to undermine Poland’s forests.
Izabela Clock: Recently there has been a noticeable intensification of what she calls a forest focus by EU institutions. The European Parliament’s Environment Committee reportedly proposed a controversial idea to place more control over forest management and biodiversity in member states. Poland rejected the idea early on, and other countries did not warmly receive it either. Yet a problem remains. Critics warn that political actors from the EU might seek entry into Poland’s forest governance by partnering with ecological groups. If the court grants the right to sue forest plans, the result could be arbitrariness and chaos instead of orderly development. Brussels may not approve, but Polish forest management is described as sustainable, rational, and well-planned, as observed in several EU nations. The forests are adapted to climate change through selective tree species and a long-term approach, guided by the lifespan of trees rather than political terms. Preserving a diverse forest structure is said to boost resilience to extreme weather and enhance oxygen production while absorbing carbon dioxide. It is a complex, highly responsible process. For historical and organizational reasons, Brussels would not outperform the government in Warsaw. Shifting national forestry powers to the EU would threaten national economies and weaken a strategy to fight global warming.
What risks might Polish forests face from habitat protection plans?
Few specifics are widely known, as media and political commentary since the CJEU ruling often frames forest plans as potentially conflicting with the Habitats and Birds Directives. Poland currently protects around twenty percent of its land under Natura 2000, a share slightly above the European average. National conservation rules align with Western European standards. However, this is not decisive for the CJEU. Some have suggested that a Spanish judge could order the closure of a mine, a precedent they fear could be used to justify restricting forest management under the guise of protecting a particular species.
Why do EC and CJEU concerns appear to exist?
The prevailing view is that Polish forest management is performing well. In the mid-20th century, forests covered a fifth of Poland; today they approach a third. The Staatsbosbeheer model is cited for renewal, with active reforestation and ongoing forest maintenance. Foresters plant hundreds of millions of trees annually, a rate that astonishes many observers. Forests in Poland are widely praised for their beauty and management, a contrast that some find troubling to Brussels. The question remains who benefits from this attention and what it says about EU influence.
Is there a real threat to Poland’s forest management in this context?
If the European Union operated by its own clear rules, concerns would be minimal. The Lisbon Treaty recognizes forestry as a matter for member states. As long as the Law and Justice party governs Poland, the country is unlikely to surrender control of national forests to Brussels. Forests form a vital part of the Polish economy, employing a substantial workforce. Yet there is a warning about EU Commission efforts, framed as a method of gradually eroding national sovereignty in key areas of life and the economy.
Why do EU bodies bring Polish forests into political debate?
The answer given is twofold: economic and political. Wood remains a central material, used across countless products, and demand has surged with economic development. In Poland, timber consumption has risen markedly over the past two decades. Poland holds significant timber resources, with most under state care, and it ranks among the top European producers. This economic reality creates pressure from timber companies to harvest more, while ecological groups seek to curb extraction. The broader market forces fill any gaps left by regulation, and a vacuum invites imports. Politically, Brussels’ renewed interest in forests may reflect the broader reach of EU influence, especially as the climate agenda elevates forests as a common good. If Brussels succeeds, there might be a push to extend similar protective measures to other policy areas, a trend seen by some as a step toward deeper European integration.
Thank you for the interview.
READ ALSO:
– Judgment CJEU in case EC vs. Poland: Nature conservation organizations should have the right to challenge forest management plans in court
– Staatsbosbeheer responds to the judgment of the CJEU: It threatens to paralyze the economy. Germany and Austria cannot complain at all about forest management plans
JJ