Polish policymakers and stakeholders are weighing a contentious proposal from the leadership of the State Forests that would redefine how vast forest areas are managed. PiS MP Paweł Sałek, a former adviser to the president, expressed astonishment at plans to remove substantial tracts from active forest management. He warned that these moves could push the National Forests toward financial instability and sparked debate about what should become of a potential bankrupt estate if the changes go ahead. The interview captured his concern that the current approach could threaten Poland’s forest legacy and the livelihoods tied to it.
In coverage by wPolityce, the minister collaborating with State Forests leadership is said to aim for a radical shift in how Poland’s forests are governed. The push is framed as part of a broader reform agenda that combines aims for better nature conservation with strategic policy ideas advocated by non-governmental organizations seeking stronger protection of natural resources.
Paweł Sałek pointed to a National Forest Conference in Korzecko where, beyond non-governmental organizations, participants included Minister Paulina Hennig-Kloska, LP Director Witold Koss, and GDOŚ head Piotr Otawski. He argued the gathering was one-sided and mainly served to validate the management’s proposals, noting that many communities were not present. He described the ideas as a surprising shift from the long-standing practices that had sustained Poland’s forests for generations.
What exactly are these ideas? The plan, as described, would exclude about seventeen percent of the forest area from current management and designate another three percent for national parks. The intention appears to be a broad move away from the existing model of forest stewardship toward a framework that could reduce active forest operations. Such a shift would represent a seismic change in how timber resources, biodiversity, and rural economies have historically aligned in Poland.
It is surprising that such proposals come from the director of the Forestry Commission, Witold Koss. Some observers wonder whether political pressure might be guiding the administration. There is an expectation that the Ministry of Climate will continue to press the State Forests to implement these ideas and that the changes would widely affect the economy, biodiversity, and long-standing forestry practices. Critics contend that the path being proposed contradicts logic, sound economics, and the biodiversity that ecosystems rely on for resilience.
Do Polish foresters support the new direction? Some forestry unions have formed a crisis team and are planning a protest in front of the ministry on December 6. In parallel, the Association for the Sustainable Development of Poland named after Prof. Jana Szyszko has begun collecting signatures for a referendum on defending the State Forests. This association has previously mobilized to defend forests during pivotal moments in 2010 and 2014. The campaign now seeks to remind the public that forests are a national treasure and a living system that deserves ongoing protection, not radical restructuring.
The argument advanced is that the nation’s forests are not merely property but a living resource that supports nature, work, and the social fabric. Proponents of defending the status quo emphasize that current forest management has produced robust natural resources and has funded both state budgets and local communities. They argue that the proposed changes would undermine decades of careful stewardship and could jeopardize the income streams that sustain sawmills, timber industries, and related sectors.
From the environmental standpoint, supporters warn that the planned changes could lead to the inactivation of forest resources and gradual degradation. They fear biodiversity would suffer as habitats are altered or abandoned, and species dependent on specific forest conditions could disappear. Critics also point to potential disruptions in employment, noting that new policies might pave the way for a wave of layoffs among well-trained personnel. They cite examples where labor optimization has affected employment structures in other sectors, arguing that a similar outcome in forestry would erode a system perfected over more than a century of experience.
This debate also touches on broader questions about national budgets and public finances. Opponents argue that removing large forest areas from active management could diminish revenue streams, reduce the value of timber and wood product sectors, and undermine the economic underpinnings of rural regions. They contend that the state budget might lose a reliable source of income, which would then burden taxpayers and local governments during difficult fiscal times. They urge caution and insist that the forests deserve a stable, self-sustaining framework rather than a transformation driven by political slogans.
Staatsbosbeheer, described in the discussion as the largest nature and forestry organization in the European Union, is cited as an example of an institution that has thrived under current arrangements. Critics fear the proposed reforms could steer Poland toward a scenario where forests become a political instrument rather than a self-financed, nature-centered resource. Observers warn that the ideas being advanced could set a precedent for regional fragmentation or even calls for converting state forest assets into separate entities or regional companies, risking the loss of a unified national strategy.
Is the director of Staatsbosbeheer aware of the responsibility that accompanies endorsing these ideas from the Ministry of Climate? The discussion flags the risk of undermining centuries of forestry achievements and raises concerns about eroding a system that has balanced timber production, biodiversity, and community needs. The central question remains: can the forestry sector sustain itself if large-scale exclusions from management become routine, and what would this mean for conservation, livelihoods, and the economy at large?
The interview underscores a belief among many foresters that the management side, composed largely of professionals with long careers in the Forest Service, understands the policy implications wrong. They argue that excluding vast areas from production endangers the very viability of processing industries and the supply lines that depend on a steady flow of timber. They warn that without timber for sawmills, furniture makers, and related businesses, revenues shrink, and the state must compensate through other channels rather than relying on a self-financing forestry model built up over generations.
As discussions about the Green Deal and climate policy continue to shape European and national agendas, some observers see these forest reforms as part of a broader strategic tension between environmental aims and traditional resource management. They caution that well-intentioned conservation efforts, if misapplied, could lead to unintended consequences for local communities and national assets. The dialogue remains open, with advocates for preservation urging vigilance to ensure forests stay resilient, productive, and capable of supporting both nature and the people who depend on them.
In closing, supporters of the status quo invite the public to reflect on the long arc of Polish forest policy, reminding citizens that forests have endured through generations because of consistent, evidence-based management. They urge society to defend the current framework, not just for timber and economy but as a commitment to biodiversity, culture, and the country’s natural heritage. The discussion about the future of Poland’s forests is far from over, and observers will be watching closely how policy, finance, and conservation converge in the months ahead.