State Forests at the Center of EU Policy Debates
In January, the ENVI committee approved amendments to treaties governing state powers over forestry. The core issue is straightforward for many observers: destabilizing the state forests could undermine forest management and erode national wealth. Józef Kubica, the general director of the State Forests, warned in an interview with Karolina Gierat of radiomaryja.pl that reducing forests to a bankrupt status would clear the way for external claims on their riches.
That same month, ENVI also advanced another controversial legislative move linked to forestry, a move that Anna Zalewska, Member of the European Parliament and a participant on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, described as a threat to Polish interests. The discussions center on how the European Green Deal, the EU’s flagship strategy for environmental protection and climate action, could reshape land use across member states.
Projections indicate that ten percent of land could fall under strict protection, with bans on fishing, hunting, and logging as a result of these measures, according to Kubica.
In response to these developments, Kubica has urged readers to consider the potential consequences for Polish forestry. Various media outlets have highlighted the issue, including pieces that question why the EU would seek to influence Poland’s forest management and whether the EP might move to transfer forest oversight away from national authorities.
EU rules tied to the Green Deal are planned to take full effect by 2050, a target that would push Europe toward climate neutrality. For Poland, this could mean that about 27 percent of its forests, including some of the oldest stands, would require special handling and protection, potentially slowing national development as new parks and reserves multiply.
Kubica stressed that the main objective of these directives should be to protect human life and biodiversity. He warned that overly restrictive policies could produce unintended outcomes, such as limited timber supply and adverse economic effects in regions where forestry sustains tens of thousands of jobs. Polish forestry, he noted, has long prioritized sustainable practices and natural conservation, with the State Forests managing roughly three quarters of the national forest area. He recalled remarks that in Poland a vast forested expanse exists, unmatched by any other EU country’s management footprint.
The director of the State Forests cautioned that weakening or dissolving this public institution would remove a key obstacle to policies that may be driven by broader EU interests rather than local needs. He pointed to the workforce of about 25,000 people whose livelihoods, families, and communities depend on stable forest management. In his view, forestry also supports a hunting economy, and game populations extend beyond forested areas, suggesting a broader landscape influence that policies must consider.
Recent corruption scandals within the European Parliament have amplified concerns about possible negative economic consequences for Poland if external interference grows. Kubica warned that outside interests may be drawn to the financial value of forest land and underlying minerals, a situation that could distort local decision-making and undermine national sovereignty in resource management.
In recalling the late Professor Jan Szyszko, Kubica highlighted the defense of nature, forests, and Polish land. He questioned why EU institutions appear eager to reshape sovereignty over large tracts of Polish territory through rules that lack transparency and scientific grounding. Kubica urged a cautious approach to any centralized management scheme that might erode the authority and expertise of national forestry professionals.
The interview underscored a broader concern about how EU environmental rhetoric translates into real-world governance. Critics argue that some activist voices, framed as environmental advocates, do not always align with on-the-ground needs in areas where forestry and rural economies are tightly interwoven. Kubica reiterated that local communities have shown steadfast support for State Forests, and he expressed a willingness to mobilize peaceful civic action if necessary to defend national forest governance.
Additional readings explore the EU’s interests in Poland’s forests and the potential economic implications for the Polish economy. Analysts and critics alike weigh the balance between environmental protections and the livelihoods tied to forestry, hunting, and natural resource use. The ongoing dialogue reflects a clash between centralized European strategies and the realities of national forest administration, with Poland standing as a focal point in this dispute.
Source materials and related discussions continue to surface across Polish media outlets, underscoring the persistence of concerns about sovereignty, environmental policy, and the integrity of forest management in Poland.