An interview with Andris Ramoliņš, entrepreneur and forest owner

How does a Latvian entrepreneur feel in a free, independent country?

In a free Latvia, a Latvian entrepreneur feels… Well, the Latvian bureaucracy has been confused for many years about who is working for whom. It is not that entrepreneurs work to support the bureaucracy, but rather the exact opposite – officials are supposed to support business. That is not happening! For example, on a Friday in April, the State Revenue Service (VID) EDS system showed a tax overpayment of approximately 28,000 EUR in one column for the company, yet when printing out the certificate ourselves, a tax debt of 106,000 EUR appeared instead of the overpayment. Since there is no local VID office in Tukums, the entrepreneur had to drive to Riga on a Friday because the certificate was needed that very day. We waited, stood in a long queue, and on top of that, I was told that with 238 employees, I am not a 'large' taxpayer, and they could not provide me with out-of-turn service. Eventually, after various rather vocal and pleading expressions, I received the certificate, accompanied by the very dissatisfied facial expression of the VID employee. This story characterises the business environment in Latvia. Officials are not held accountable for such situations, which they have created themselves. In 2018, my company received two final and non-appealable court rulings, which concluded that the VID had acted illegally when seizing the company's vehicles. These are the methods used when dealing with entrepreneurs. I do not believe the VID 'works' like this only with us, not at all! The system as a whole is geared towards a repressive approach, penalties, and an indifferent attitude. It is palpable!

You are an entrepreneur who owns important resources – forest and land. There is an impression that in Latvia, access to resources is being restricted step by step.

Over the years, we have expanded our forest and agricultural land holdings. Recently… we had reached an agreement with a farmer regarding the cultivation and agricultural use of two areas, but… we received two letters from the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) stating that these territories were 'special meadows' or grasslands. Currently, we are no longer allowed to release these areas to the farmer as arable land, and in my opinion, the situation is becoming absurd – these lands are only valuable if they are managed, if someone works on them and cultivates them – if both agricultural and forest lands are in circulation and economic activity is taking place on them. In recent years, our company has also faced all sorts of bans arising from the results of the 'nature census'. Currently, we are informed about these bans, but the status of the territory (or the ban itself) is not clear. There are territories where a ban is set immediately; there are others where they announce that, for example, they contain protected lakes or something else, named in professional jargon that means absolutely nothing to the owner.

Last year, we asked the DAP to allow us to participate in the inspection of all our properties, together with a specialist. The answer was: “We cannot provide that!” They should be doing it! However, some experts work in the evenings, others on weekends, and so on. If I approach the state administration, I have to accept their rules, and I do accept them. I would like to see the same in reverse. If the DAP approaches me, the owner, we can agree within the company which employee will be at which section on which day to meet the expert sent by the DAP. Let both of them carry out the inspection. We approached the DAP with an official application, stating that we want and demand to be present on our slightly more than 100 properties, and we insist on it! We are awaiting an official response. A verbal response was given…

What should the Nature Conservation Agency be dealing with? Currently, it looks like its main duty is inventing and distributing restrictions.

Over the last few years, several people have approached me with bitter stories. One said: “A man who worked in the public sector retired a year and a half ago. He had inherited a forest some time ago and told his children that, upon retirement, this forest would be his pension fund. As I mentioned, a year and a half ago, this forest owner approached us; our logging foreman went to inspect the plot on the ground and met a 'nature census taker' there. What a coincidence! The census taker says to our foreman: “I just found a Lesser Spotted Eagle’s nest, here are the coordinates, drive away, no logging will happen here!” Unfortunately, the census taker’s words materialised into actions, and a ban has been placed on the plot.” The forest is a good stand of spruce, birch, and black alder – high-value trees. Unfortunately, everything is now going to waste. The ban also affected several neighbours’ properties.

The story is not about objecting to nature values. But – look at how unintelligibly it is being done! 9.5 million EUR were allocated for counting nature values. I believe this money should have been redistributed in favour of compensation for landowners, and in such an amount (9.5 million value), it is possible to introduce new bans, protected habitats, and territories. Otherwise, these activities are directed against local residents and local landowners. Properties are being sold, trees are being rapidly cut down, and – step by step – they are ending up or starting to concentrate in the hands of foreign owners who will never sell them to local people. Latvians do not have, and it is doubtful whether they will have sufficient resources in the near future, to purchase such properties. Foreigners understand well that forest in Latvia is a great value; it is a slow but completely secure investment. Forests are not affected as much by the need to harvest every year, nor by the drought or wetness that has been observed in recent years.

Forest owners who know well which winged or other neighbours live on their land believe and practically demonstrate that an eagle, buzzard, or falcon lives quite well with humans. People manage the forest, birds nest, there is enough for everyone.

I do not believe there is a scientific basis for the restrictions. They are not discussed. Owners are not informed. I would gladly know how exactly the measurable 'quiet zone' required for a Lesser Spotted Eagle is determined. You can see that the prohibited territories around nests are of different sizes in different places. It looks like the 'decision-maker' glances at a map and decides – the ban will be here, and it will be this big! I think no one would object if there were one or two hectares of territory around the nest with large trees, where to build a nest or create a spare one. In my opinion, the bird’s main concern is that its nest and brood are safe! And it is not humans who eat eggs or attack the chicks!

Does the DAP indicate in their letters specific justification and explanation for why a habitat is necessary in the respective plot? That (justification) would be verifiable! Or at least it should be checked.

It is a letter with Latin names and codes. The worst part is not the lack of understanding, but the feeling: you are being cheated. You feel hopeless because a state institution acting in the name of the state declares: “It will be taken away from you!” In the civilised world, if they take something – they pay for it. With us, there is a “kind of nationalisation” taking place. They strip me of the right to manage my own property, and what is more – I still have to pay taxes on that (untouchable) property! I am expected to be a careful manager so that, God forbid, the nest does not fall down in the wind or a storm! That is completely wrong, and they should start acting from the other side. You are given money, do not do this and that…

A typical response from a state institution is: “There is only so much money available!” How to achieve a reasonable balance!

We stand for reasonableness! Both by informing the public on 'Kurzemes Radio' and through interviews. I want to inform the public about what is happening! Standing by silently is unacceptable! I do not agree that Latvians should be allowed to drive Latvians away! I believe that everyone is the master of their own land, and we are capable of managing it ourselves. I know more than one example where people, offended by specific state officials and the attitude of the institutions they represent, have left. And – they will not be coming back! The responsible state institutions, or those who call themselves responsible, have swollen in their arrogance to such an extent that they do not notice they are supposed to be working for the benefit of the people. Over time, I have purchased both forest plots and logging rights, and I know well why people sell them and what this or that forest was intended for in the owner's plans. It is not true that a person sells a forest only when it is possible to get the highest price. A person sells a forest when they need to sell! People get sick, a daughter or son starts studying, children move to Riga and need an apartment – these are events from life, from people’s stories. At the moment when 'nature census takers' and observers start walking on territories that do not belong to them and taking inventory, I invite them to think about the people from whom they are taking away the opportunity to live quite prosperously. Families and kin have worked and saved, invested, and the savings are taken by a robber who gives nothing in return. It is a tragedy to treat a significant part of Latvian society this way.

The market for land, including forest land, is quite active. The question is – the usual and normal one – price! Of course, it is not like 20 years ago when the 'classic' thing was to buy a forest, cut it down, and make a profit! That has not been the case for a long time! The question is: how healthy or sustainable is the person or company, and are they ready for an investment in the future. I am also offered to sell my forest properties, all of them in one go. Last year there were three such offers. I know that my colleagues often 'slip up'; they sell their forests. That is understandable, because sometimes the fight against windmills becomes tiring. In your daily life, you own something, but in a moment, you might not. Legally, you will own something that, in reality, will not be worth a penny. This reason has led entrepreneurs to sell their 500 or 700 hectares. The younger generation of the family has told the owner that they will not work in the forests, the price at the time is quite acceptable, so… People are afraid that 'they will come and take it away'.

What is real and what is 'staged' greenness or green thinking?

Every self-respecting forester plants trees every spring. In the autumn, we often supplement the plantings because some of the spring plants have died, withered, or been gnawed – a thing everyone understands. To say that in the forests, they only cut… Over time, I have purchased more than one clear-cut area where I planted the new saplings myself; I am waiting for the new harvest, I am tending to this young growth!

Our company has two people who deal only with forest regeneration; they also evaluate – where and what to plant. If we see that aspen will regenerate naturally, we regenerate aspen. For the last four years, our absolute priority has been birch. Of course, there will be pine in the plan, and we also plant other conifers.

Does the aspen not get eaten by your four-legged neighbours?

We have plenty of 'horned' ones. I have been working in the forest and the industry for 20 years. If you compare, 20 years ago it was different. The number of hunters has decreased, the food base for the horned ones has increased, and there are more favourable conditions for overwintering and survival. On top of that, the State Forest Service is lagging behind the real situation in issuing hunting licences. In many hunting collectives, they say: all licences have been used up. We see a number of problems – one could be the inventory – it is not known how many deer, elk, and roe deer we actually have. In the wild, it is clear – there are too many of them!

We do not specifically protect the aspens from uninvited guests; the areas are very fragmented, and there can be no talk of special means for protecting the plots, so we try to reach an agreement with the hunters.

There is talk of a reform of the State Forest Service (VMD)…

There are isolated places where information leaks happen, which is now being talked about more loudly, but that is not a problem of the entire service! It is not! Overall, the VMD would need a certain amount of modernisation. For example, it would be important for me to have systems aligned, because we have purchased LVM Geo, but we cannot perform the forest inventory ourselves, even though a certified surveyor works at our company. The VMD system was introduced recently, but it is already outdated.

Experience shows that foresters are very competent, especially the older ones. The VMD definitely has overly low salaries; I believe that the service could double the fee for issuing a felling permit. That would be one way to obtain additional funds. The Forest Service is necessary, it must not be liquidated; of course, as I mentioned, the 'black sheep' must be caught, which, as we know, are present in many large collectives. Due to the aforementioned salaries, the VMD has problems with labour!

Some time ago you talked about an interesting project – the construction of an apartment building for Latvians who work abroad but wish or would like to return…

Unfortunately, this plan has stalled. It has been halted. The reason – residents protested and collected signatures against the building of the house. To me, that was and is incomprehensible because one of the grounds for the objections was: “We don’t know what kind of contingent will live there!” These would be people who will work, who will have jobs, who will pay taxes, whose children will go to schools and kindergartens. We were confused. The residents say: “Build it somewhere else.” The council was ready to look for a solution and offered other locations. Wait, wait! Where is the guarantee that in that 'other place' there won’t be other residents who will collect signatures for 'their protest'? Sad! What do we see? In Kuldīga, not a single new apartment building has been built in 28 years. If an entrepreneur comes, invests, and risks their own money, I believe: such plans should be granted national-level priority or at least municipal-level status. The project should move forward regardless of unfounded or other types of protests! Because – it happens – we face a situation: a thousand people are fine with it and like it, ten people do not like it and… that is all. The idea is stopped, look elsewhere… Unfortunately…