ForestryBrief Professional #7 🌳💰

ForestryBrief Professional is back. And it's still free.

Last year, I have published 6 Professional issues behind a paywall — including the 4-part Carbon Credit Investigation that mapped every euro between corporate buyer and forest floor. Those tools and analyses are still there and honestly they are one of the most valuable content ForestryBrief has ever produced. But the numbers did not move significantly. So I decided to remove the paywalls.

Starting today, Professional continues - still free - for all subscribers. Here's why: the intelligence in these pages is too important to gatekeep. European forestry needs better information, not more paywalls.

What changes: Professional publishes monthly on Fridays, rotating through four pillars:

🗣️ Communication — How forestry talks to the world. Why it's failing. What works. (This month)

💰 Investment — Forest money. Who's buying, who's selling, who's getting scammed. Original analysis you won't find elsewhere.

🌍 Transatlantic — The Atlantic is smaller than you think. US trade policy, tariff impacts, EU regulations and Canadian market shifts that land on your doorstep.

📋 Deep Dive — Regulation, certification, carbon, technology, fire, natural capital. The policies reshaping European forestry, decoded.

What stays the same: Verified facts only. No speculation. No fluff. Every claim sourced.

Today's issue launches the Communication pillar with an uncomfortable question: How did the renewable, carbon-storing sector lose a perception battle to fossil fuels?

Let's get into it.

Adapted and expanded from my October 2025 piece for Fordaq. Republished for ForestryBrief Professional readers.

In 1996, the public ranked the forestry industry as more environmentally damaging than oil, gas, coal, and mining. We — the renewable, carbon-storing sector — lost a perception battle to fossil fuels.

Here's what makes this worse: we operate in what I call the "open factory." Unlike steel mills, chemical plants, or dairy farms, forests are open to the public. Anyone can walk through them. Form opinions. Feel emotions. Take photos. Every weekend, millions of people visit our "industrial area" without permission, without understanding what they're seeing.

A concrete factory can hide behind gates. We can't. Our work is visible, emotional, and constantly judged by people who don't understand forest management.

And for 30 years, we did nothing to explain it to them.

Most of us remember the 1990s and 2000s. We watched Greenpeace campaigns. We saw contracts cancelled. We implemented certifications. We improved practices. We managed forests better than ever in human history. And public opinion got worse.

This isn't about blaming anyone. It's about understanding what happened — so we stop making the same mistake. Because right now, EUDR implementation is costing us millions, driven by the same public distrust we failed to address decades ago.

1992: Rio Earth Summit put forests on the global agenda. Environmental consciousness went mainstream. Public attitudes shifted. Yet most companies kept doing business as usual. We were managing sustainably. Replanting. Following regulations. We assumed that would be enough.

1993: Clayoquot Sound (BC, Canada) became a battleground. Over 800 arrests blocking logging operations — one of the largest acts of civil disobedience in Canadian history. Media called it "the War in the Woods." Industry response? Technical explanations about sustainable yield. Press releases about replanting rates. Greenpeace showed up with boats and journalists. We showed up with forestry science. Guess which made better television.

1996: The wake-up call we ignored. Public perception surveys showed forestry was seen as more damaging than oil, gas, coal, mining, and hydro-electric industries. We were planting more trees than we cut. Our product stored carbon. We were renewable. The public thought we were worse than coal.

2006–2013: The decade that changed everything. Greenpeace launched coordinated market campaigns targeting consumer brands, not governments. McDonald's publicly committed to deforestation-free soy after Greenpeace's Amazon campaign. Nestlé backed down within a few weeks during the Kit Kat palm oil campaign. Major food companies including Unilever, Kraft, and Burger King suspended contracts with palm oil suppliers linked to deforestation.

Your company might have been affected. Or you lost a customer who was.

What was the industry doing? More certifications. More technical reports. More trade association meetings. We kept perfecting forestry while losing every single narrative battle.

Love them or hate them, Greenpeace ran a masterclass in strategic communication.

They Hired Journalists, We Hired Foresters

Greenpeace was founded in 1971 by journalists and ecologists. Communication was their core competency from day one. By the mid-1980s they had millions of supporters, celebrity endorsements from Sting and Elton John, professional PR staff, multi-million dollar budgets. How many companies at your last trade association meeting have dedicated PR staff? That gap explains everything.

They Told Stories, We Published Data

Remember the orangutans at Nestlé's shareholder meeting? Nestlé backed down within a few weeks of the Kit Kat palm oil campaign. What was your industry association publishing that month? Probably a technical bulletin on sustainable yield.

Which one does the public remember?

Greenpeace understood: People don't make decisions based on data. They make decisions based on stories and emotions. We gave them FSC labels. They gave them baby orangutans. We lost.

They Coordinated Pressure, We Responded Individually

Greenpeace ran multi-channel campaigns: street protests, shareholder meetings, consumer boycotts, social media, investor pressure — all coordinated, all simultaneous. When they targeted a company, pressure came from everywhere. Industry response? Individual companies issued statements. Trade associations sent letters. Uncoordinated. Reactive. Defensive. We brought technical reports to a media war.

We Assumed Being Right Was Enough

We are managing forests sustainably. Replanting more than we harvested. European forest area is increasing. We assumed these facts would defend themselves. They didn't. Framing matters as much as facts. We had truth. We never framed it effectively. Environmental groups did.

We Didn't Explain What People Don't Understand

Here's the fundamental problem: People think forests are static. Where there's forest, it's been there forever. Cut it, and it won't grow back.

But we know about succession. Forests evolve and die in natural cycles. It's just too slow for human perception. We also have legal obligations to replant. We know this. The public doesn't.

And there's another contradiction nobody explains: People love wood furniture. They also love birdsong and green forests. But they don't connect these dots — that getting wood requires harvesting. We never told them. We assumed they understood.

We Let Engineers Do PR

Most people making communication decisions in forestry weren't trained in communications. We're foresters, engineers, biologists. We understand growth rates and sustainable yield. Those skills don't translate to public relations.

Greenpeace hired professional communicators. We promoted technical experts to communication roles. They didn't figure it out.

We Had No Coordinated Response

Forestry is thousands of small and medium operators. Coordination is hard. Getting everyone to fund central PR is harder. Greenpeace was a coordinated global network. One message. One strategy. In a PR war, fragmentation loses every time.

We Thought Products Spoke for Themselves

Wood is everywhere. Everyone uses it daily. It is present from cradle to coffin. We assumed this meant people understood where it came from and how forests were managed. They didn't. In my experience, most people have no idea that European forest area has been expanding rather than shrinking. That wood is renewable. That forestry is regulated. That we replant more than we cut.

Environmental groups filled that communication vacuum: Logging destroys forests. Period.

EUDR: The Price of Lost Trust

The EU Deforestation Regulation reflects decades of public distrust. It demands geolocation data with a level of precision that can be technically difficult to obtain under dense forest canopy. GPS signals degrade significantly beneath tree cover — a technical reality every forester knows but policymakers overlooked.

The regulation treats legal European forestry operations with the same scrutiny as illegal tropical logging. Why? Because three decades of environmental campaigns created a perception that forests will disappear without strict oversight and that the greatest enemy of the forest is the forester.

Compliance costs vary widely and fall heaviest on smallholders, who are often least able to afford them. Small forest owners are considering not harvesting rather than dealing with the complexity. This is what lost public trust looks like in regulatory form.

Every Regulation Is a Perception Tax

Look at recent forestry regulations. Harvest restrictions. Protected areas. Certification requirements. What drives these? Public pressure from environmental groups who won the narrative 30 years ago. We're not paying for bad forestry. We're paying for bad public relations.

The Greenwashing Trap

When Canadian forestry finally launched modern PR — "Forestry For The Future" — it was denounced as greenwashing and propaganda by several NGOs and environmental journalists. That's what happens when you try PR after 30 years of silence. You're fighting entrenched distrust. The time to do PR was 1995. We're trying in 2025. The deficit is enormous.

Accept the Reality

We face a 30-year trust deficit. It cannot be closed with a few campaigns. Greenpeace spent three decades building their narrative. Changing it takes time. Some damage may be permanent. A generation grew up believing forestry destroys forests. Changing that is generational work.

What Already Exists (And Why It's Not Enough Yet)

Good initiatives exist. The UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators Network, first established in Europe over 30 years ago, now brings together more than 200 people from some 40 countries. Forest pedagogy programs operate across Europe. Companies do excellent local outreach. But they're fragmented. Underfunded. Not coordinated at industry scale.

Learn from Unexpected Places

Think about what Elon Musk did with electric cars. He took something unsexy and marginalized — dorky electric vehicles nobody wanted — and made them aspirational. Cool. Something people are crazy about.

Can we do that with sustainable forest management? Make it not just acceptable, but actually desirable? Show the innovation, the technology, the environmental benefits in ways that inspire rather than defend?

Tesla didn't win by explaining battery chemistry. They won by making electric cars sexy.

Can forestry become sexy? Can sustainable management become aspirational?

What We Must Do Now

Individual companies: Invest in professional communications staff. Tell your sustainability story well. Be proactive, not defensive.

Trade associations: Coordinate industry-wide messaging. Fund professional PR campaigns. Train members in media relations. Create content for mass media, not just trade publications.

As an industry: Accept that this requires significant investment. Recognize coordination is essential. Be patient — this is long-term work. Learn from environmental groups. They won for a reason.

In the modern world, it's not enough to be someone — a forester, a forest's guardian, a sustainable manager. You must also be seen as one.

We operate in the open factory. Everyone walks through. Everyone judges. Everyone forms opinions. And we left those opinions to environmental groups who had better stories, better communicators, and better coordination.

Every EUDR form you fill out, every certification audit, every regulatory constraint — those exist because we lost a public relations battle in the 1990s and 2000s. We won the forestry. We lost the narrative.

The question isn't whether we should have invested in PR three decades ago. Obviously we should have. The question is: What are we doing about it now?

Because the next generation of foresters will judge us the same way we're judging the generation that went silent in the 1990s. The industry is watching. The public is watching. Environmental groups are still out there, still professional, still coordinated, still telling their story.

Are we going to tell ours?

(By the way, if you need help with telling your story, you can work with me to give you a hand with exactly that and many things more: ForestryBrief Services)

This article is a preview of something bigger. For a while now, I've been writing The Forestry Communication Playbook — a practical guide for forest professionals who know they need to communicate better but don't know where to start.

It covers everything from crisis communication (what to do when your harvest photo goes viral as "deforestation") to media relations, stakeholder engagement, social media, and building a communication strategy from scratch.

More details coming soon. If this article resonated, the Playbook is for you.

💰 Investment Pillar — March 2026

Pension funds want stable, inflation-resistant assets with environmental credentials. Forests tick every box. So why isn't the money flowing in?

Because forestry speaks in cubic metres and site indices. Investors speak in IRR and risk-adjusted returns. Nobody is translating.

Next month we map the European forest investment landscape: who's buying, what returns are realistic, where the communication gap costs the sector billions, and how the same trust deficit that gave us EUDR is keeping capital on the sidelines. Plus: how to tell a real forest investment opportunity from a fraud.

Until Tuesday’s EFP!

Wish you all the best: Peter

P.S. This article is adapted from my October 2025 piece for Fordaq, reaching their audience of 100,000+ forestry professionals. The response was overwhelming. If you work in forestry communication — or know someone who should — please forward this issue. The conversation needs to be bigger.

P.P.S. I'm building ForestryBrief Professional around what YOU need. Not what I think you need. Got 3 minutes? → Take the survey.

Every answer shapes what comes next.

🤝 Need help with forestry communication, intelligence, or due diligence? See what we offer → ForestryBrief Services

📩 Got this email forwarded to you? Subscribe to ForestryBrief here.

📚 Missed an issue? Browse the ForestryBrief archive

P.S. What’s the biggest challenge you’re facing in forestry right now?
Hit reply and let me know — I read every message personally.

P. P. S. Know a forest professional who’s drowning in EUDR complexity or missing out on timber market shifts? Forward this email to them!

Shauna Matkovich's Forest Invest Podcast is one of the best resources for understanding where forest finance is heading. If you are interested in Forest Investments, start there.

If you like FB be sure to subscribe to Boreal Tech Brief, a newsletter of my friend Axel covering tech in forestry with a Nordic angle: