Interview with Grigorijs Rozentāls, forest owner and Chairman of the Board of the forestry services cooperative society “Mežsaimnieks”

I think more than a few people would like to consider the administrative-territorial reform a historical matter, but it looks as though this history faces an uncertain and predictable sequel. How do the Suiti and the Curonians view this? The Constitutional Court has accepted the case for review.

Yes, indeed! I personally participated in preparing another application. Perhaps it didn't happen overly quickly, but we wanted to prepare it very thoroughly.

What saddened me about the reform? Latvia has “practical” development centres where money is invested and spent (where money is spent, development usually happens). The National Development Plan provides for two levels of political development centres – state cities and regional centres. Political centres were introduced so that in the distribution of European funds, some would get more (and, accordingly, others less). Looking at it as a whole, all of the above are development centres near which or around which (or in which) money is concentrated, which is invested and used for things needed by the residents.

The previous territorial reform, which also was not unanimously excellent, “created” a larger number of development centres and really helped them to develop, for example, Kandava, Auce, Aizpute, Rūjiena... If you drive through Latvia, you can see this situation perfectly: where there is a large municipality with smaller towns included, there is no development in these towns! Where small populated areas became municipal centres, there is development. Namely – the previous reform created development centres where economic activity takes place.

The 2020 reform reduced this number (of development centres), thus the development that began in 2009 will now predictably decrease. Since I live in the countryside myself, on a farmstead, and quite a lot of people in Latvia live similarly, the distance from a farmstead to a place where economic development happens will undoubtedly increase. The recently approved reform is “increasing” this, as a result of which the area of territories will increase, and both practically and theoretically, peripheries will appear. The National Development Plan even states: “here will be centres, here – peripheries”. We know that peripheries have never been a priority. Not for the Saeima, nor for the local government, because any reasonable politician usually directs finances where the voter lives. The voter lives in the centre. There are few voters in the peripheries. The area of peripheries in Latvia will increase. I do not know and do not understand how this will promote the even development of the country. I do not believe that such concentration will positively affect development in the country as a whole. As an economist, I see no reasons for this to happen.

The reform was actually about this: who will distribute the money found in the budgets of the municipalities being liquidated! In small Alsunga, which is the second smallest municipality in Latvia, that is 2 million; in the country as a whole, that will be a lot of money over which the fight is taking place. Everything else is just empty talk and “pulling the wool over our eyes”.

Briefly about the Suiti. During the course of the previous reform, the idea flickered for a moment to unite all the Suiti – an ancient Catholic community that has existed for centuries in Kurzeme, with its own identity, with its own togetherness – into a small municipality where the Suiti themselves would manage things. What happened? The 2009 reform divided the already small Suiti territory into three parts: “a piece here and there” for three municipalities. Yes, we were told, it will be better this way! It is more correct!??? This time (during this reform) we tried to talk about the Suiti again, we referred to the Estonians, where such territories are being created, and the Estonians, when creating events, use more logic. (In Estonia, there is a community similar to the Suiti: the Setos, who had their own municipality created with 4,000 residents)

We did not gain political favour; the matter was reviewed twice by the Saeima committee and rejected by a one-vote margin. The application to the Constitutional Court... It is important to us because we do not understand this or such a division.

In 1923, the Livonians tried to form their own municipality around Mazirbe; at that time, the government did not agree to it, and three municipalities were created on the Livonian Coast (also). In each municipality, the Livonians were kept apart... A similar experience befell the Curonian Kings (the ķoniņi), who (again!) were divided among three municipalities. We effectively have no Livonians, there are no kings, and us Suiti were also divided. Are we also to cease existing? We do not want to have others deciding for us tomorrow about the tax money we have paid, and have it decided by people who have no connection to or understanding of our community! We do not want to be a periphery where no investment is made, from which money is sucked out, and for which others see no prospects! We wish to preserve the “being” of the Suiti for future centuries. That is a real threat!

What are we doing? We distributed Suiti identity cards, we elected a Suiti parliament, whose representatives are acting both in the direction of the Constitutional Court and preparing a complaint to UNESCO. Regarding what? We are included in this organisation’s list of cultural values in “urgent need of safeguarding”. If UNESCO says: “You, the Suiti, are a world value”, in Latvia, the reform says – “You do not exist at all!” That does not add up.

How has 2020 affected work in the forest? The forest grows, it is maintained, in the spring and autumn many city dwellers rushed to the countryside and forests...

Business does not like risks. Although it is a continuous and constant risking, a searching for the optimal path. I must say, since the spring of 2019, when the high-price “bubble” ended, we have been living in something of a risk zone. That, however, was a time when we returned to timber prices that are normal for our region. This spring, Covid-19 increased the risk, because timber buyers did not know what to count on, they did not foresee the government-level decisions and their degree of radicalism. What does this mean? A chain reaction: the forest owner grows trees, the cooperative harvests and finds a buyer, the timber is used in manufacturing... If at the end of the chain someone has concerns about the demand for the product manufactured, about price changes, the “anxious person” starts to slow down. That creates a different situation at the other end of the chain – for the forest owner. Owners, understandably, react. Latvia’s approximately 3 million hectares of forest have different owners. Some, for whom price is not important, it does not affect their activity (large forest owners, who may have other priorities). And there are others, for whom price is very important; it affects them very seriously. I would like to say – 2/3 of Latvia's forest owners do not react to the price. We in the cooperative work with small forest owners who own 5 or 8, or 17 hectares of forest. For them, the price is very important! If the owner feels that this is not or might not be the right moment to “go into the forest and supply timber to someone”, he does not do it – consequently – timber volumes fall and the question arises – how to provide work for contractors, how to ensure the cash flow necessary for the company’s operation. Spring was full of such situations. In the summer, an understanding emerged of what had happened and what will happen (in the spring we did not really understand it) if another and after that yet another wave of the virus starts.

This understanding has reduced the risk in the chain I mentioned. There has been a price increase, and a change in the attitude of roundwood buyers towards contract terms has been experienced (they are becoming longer again). Solvency risks, however, are not predictable; there was a period when nothing was sold without advance payment.

The fancy word sustainability and the European “Green Deal”

In Latvia (and not only there), there is a serious and fundamental problem, which I understand as a green-thinking person who is convinced of sustainability, who in the 90s was an active member of VAK, and for whom environmental matters are very important.

Countries can be classified by their attitude towards private property. I am lucky to live on a property that has belonged to my family for 5 generations, which my great-great-grandfather bought out during the time of Tsarist Russia, saving kopeck by kopeck, rouble by rouble for 21 years. He wanted his own land! He did it because in Tsarist Russia they respected private property, giving him a book (land register) where it was written that he would manage it there for all time! Today, the normal, reasonable world that operates based on capitalist principles also operates on them: property rights are important and must be respected. Property is sacred! If there are any restrictions, they must be compensated. They must be reasonable and such that the owner agrees to, because it is his property! Who manages the forest? The owner or the state? We have lived for 50 years in the Soviet Union, where people's attitude towards private property was different.

One of the first decrees after the Bolshevik coup in 1917 was the decree on land, which prohibited private property. When Soviet tanks entered Latvia in 1940, one of the first changes was the banning of private property. Even now, forests in countries to the east of us are not private. There, people are used to the state representative deciding: how things should be and what should happen in the forest! We have “ended up” somewhere in the middle because – in Latvia, both systems can operate. Unlike in Russia and Belarus, we returned land to the owners. We incorporated an article into the Constitution that determines the state’s rights to manage private property. Of course, I am paraphrasing, but public interests are usually represented by the state. Land can be private, but the state has the right to act there. We are in the middle between Sweden and Finland, and Russia. In the forest, we have to get a state institution’s permission to cut down a tree. If a state institution decides that in our forest there is something more important than the owner, the state decides, and the owner, shrugging his shoulders, can say – I was unlucky. The owner has no veto rights. That is a problem! Both Swedes and Finns can work without such a conflict; just like the people of Russia and Belarus, we still have opposing things. Taxes are collected on the property while forbidding the owner to act. That is not good and is fundamentally wrong.

In order for the state to impose its opinion, it needs repressive organisations, whether it be the VMD or the DAP; it must spend huge funds for controllers to go and check whether you, the owner, are observing everything necessary on your property. On your property!

And here it is very sad regarding sustainability. Under normal circumstances, a person would be proud of any natural value on their property; today they are forced to either hide it or, in a worse case, destroy it, because the state may start managing their property tomorrow without their knowledge and permission.

Unfortunately, a system has been built in the country that justifies the creation of a police-style system, which in no way benefits nature!

The word “green” and its correct (understandable, clear) use...

Is it worth worrying about? People in politics hang different labels on themselves and each other – that is normal. In the early 90s, I joined the green movement because I felt – nature is important. Undoubtedly – one can earn money by being in such movements. But – as soon as you start earning money while losing the idea, interests and desires for more and more money arise, which is humanly understandable. What would be important? That as a result of all this, we respect the property rights upon which the normal so-called “Western society” is based. In Russia, there is a saying: “private property is relative” – today it is yours, tomorrow the state will take it from you. If that is the case, you live in high-risk conditions, because you do not know whether tomorrow “someone will lay a paw” on your work. We must ensure that nature protection measures do not come and are not introduced by force! Someone else cannot decide somewhere: “This will be in your forest”! That is not right! That is not sustainable!

For example, it is unlikely that in Sweden a service of “destruction of a large nest” would be available. Who needs that? The Swede is even paid for the existence of the nest. Is such a thing foreseeable in Russia? The forest and the nest belong to the state! In both cases, the solutions are nature-friendly. We have created an “anxious owner”: will my value in my forest be noticed or not? I have managed it in such a way that there is a value in my forest; I would gladly be proud of it, but if the state sees it, problems will start.

We have created a state service for destroying value. In order to be saved from the state! A paradox! The counting of nature created a wave of destruction of natural values in private forests. One can claim that it was not noticed, but that is ostrich policy – to pretend.