Forests cover 31 per cent or almost 2 million hectares (ha) of the Lithuanian territory. Still the forest sector accounts for only some 3 per cent of the country’s GDP. Lithuanian forests are characterized by a good variety of tree species, though pine, spruce and birch compose 80 per cent of the stands. The growing stock has more than doubled in the past few decades thanks to the strict control of fellings and expansion of forest areas. Today, the growing stock totals 371 million m3, with an average of 193 m3 per hectare, and annual increment of 6.3 m3 per hectare. Over recent years, felling amounted to some 5 million m3 annually. However, according to experts, an annual cut of 6.2 million m3 or more could be maintained in the next ten years.

The low intensity of forest management practices in Lithuania has resulted in relatively dense forest stands. Consequently, the felling generally yields large volumes of firewood. Fuelwood is often handled in the same way as e. g. pulpwood, which implies considerable costs and reduces the overall profitability of forest management. There are, therefore, good reasons to improve this practice. Better management, including new practices for fuel collection and handling, could con­tribute to the overall improvement of the economy of forestry activities.

There is a large need for measures such as precommercial and commercial thinning, particularly as the volumes from clear cutting seem to be increasing. In 2001, the total cutting reached 5.7 million m3, but Lithuania has enough wood resources and favorable age structure of stands to increase the wood supply significantly in the near future. If forest management practices are changed towards shorter rotation ages and more intensive precommercial and commercial thinning methods, significant expansion of the fuelwood supply can be achieved. In addition, improved economic use of abandoned agricultural land is possible. For a long time, former agricultural areas have been naturally afforested, mostly with nonindustrial species, but a better choice of species and new management practices can develop these areas for the production of woodfuel and industrial wood.

In Lithuania, fuelwood is mostly used for heating in households. Lately, biomass — based district heating systems have been developed. Sawmills have supplied most of the fuelwood used in district-heating plants, while the forest sector has played a minor role as supplier. Biofuel markets are still limited in the country, but are evolving, not least due to expanding import markets in other countries of the region, for example, Sweden. The structure of wood consumption is changing. Consumption of woodfuel increased more than twice in the household sector during the 1990s and is expected to increase further. The conversion of boilers, particularly for district heating, has been a major drive of this tendency.

The forest ownership structure has changed considerably after the restoration of independence in Lithuania in 1991. Since the beginning of the land reform, owner­ship rights were restored to more than 165000 forest owners, who now control approximately 531000 ha or 26 per cent of the total forest area. The process of forest restitution is still proceeding and it is expected that, after completion of the land reform, private owners will control about half of the total forest area. Private forests are usually small and the average area of a private forest holding is 4.4 ha.

Management of private forestland is a new phenomenon in Lithuania and so is forest owners’ associations. There are two separate private forest owners’ asso­ciations established in the country today but no more than one per cent of the private forest owners are members. The new forest owners need to comply with official policies for the sector but live under severe economic constraints. Associations can provide various services for members including information and consultancy, education in silviculture and forest management, and representation of the interests of private forest owners. Nevertheless, private forest owners are reluctant to join interest organizations because they do not seem to see the benefits. In particular, the idea of cooperatives do not seem very attractive to potential members.

The forest authorities in Lithuania have recently been restructured. At present, the Forest Department at the Ministry of Environment is the institution responsible for the Forest act and formulation of strategies, recommendations and guidelines to forest-related activities. Regional Forest Control Units under the State Environ­mental Inspection, which is subordinated to the Ministry of Environment, are responsible for implementation and extension of services, including compliance of rules and regulations under the legal act by public and private forest owners.

Another institution with a large influence on public-owned forests is the General Forest Enterprise. The institution is subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and is responsible for the management of forty-two commercial State Forest Enterprises. Forest Enterprise is the basic forest management unit responsible for the implementation of forest management plans in state forests. State Forest Enterprises are responsible for all forest activities related to regeneration, tending and protection of forests; forest utilization including harvesting operations, construction and reha­bilitation of production facilities and buildings; road construction and maintenance of land drainage systems; recreation and equipment; and all other forest-related activities. Forests that have been set aside for privatization under the land reform are not being managed at all at the moment, and felling is forbidden in these areas.

Though little has been done to assess the most appropriate instruments to enhance woodfuel production in Lithuania, and to evaluate fiscal and economic implications of such instruments, the country’s efforts to conform to policies and practices of the European Union could come as an advantage to bioenergy utiliza­tion. Yet, as further discussed in the last section, this is no guarantee and will depend on combined national efforts towards policy integration, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the focus put on the promotion of bioenergy options.