An interview with Jānis Magaznieks, forest owner and head of the Joint Advisory Council of the Latvian Timber Buyers and Latvian Timber Sellers associations.

For many sectors, planning has been akin to guesswork both last year and this year. In your opinion, how does the uncertainty surrounding various and changing restrictions affect plans and planning?

I would like to say that our focus is not overly concentrated on various sales markets and the developments within them, which are quite important to the industry as a whole; rather, we are thinking more about organising the operating environment (the field of operations). Planning usually takes place over a three-year period, and we stick to these three years, coordinating our plans with our members. Short-term tasks appear on our agenda relatively rarely: we are contemporary, and we think and work in the long term.

Organising the operating environment and field: the conditional “field” is found between those who grow forests and trees and those who use them.

Yes, exactly – the operating environment or the field between buyers and sellers! We start operating in this long chain of processes from the moment the timber is harvested and brought to the roadside. Our work ends at the moment the timber has been measured at the processing site or port. But we look even further – to communication with logging machinery.

Recently, a popular word has been: balance. Is it held in high regard in your field of work?

Looking at it from the perspective of measurement, disputes happen everywhere and always. I would like to say proudly: we argue rarely enough in our work, and besides, the disputes do not have such consequences or resonance that one would need to worry that the parties involved could not understand each other in the future. Relationships are normal, and the reasons or matters to argue about are becoming fewer and fewer. In short – if there is nothing to argue about, then no one argues!

For example, a not-so-recent discussion point was tapering indicators. We reached an agreement on them at the end of 2018, and as early as 2019 and 2020 we were working, and are still working now, with data collected over at least a three-year period based on scientific calculations. Buyers and sellers have agreed on a procedure for how the tapering is to be recalculated each year. The issue has been removed from the agenda.

When I started working at the Associations, there were two main issues on the agenda – the aforementioned tapering, where there was no consensus, and the double bark thickness. The tapering issue, as I mentioned, has been resolved, and work is ongoing “on the bark”.

Discussions on issues regarding double bark thickness are closely linked to precision. From 2021, the volume of round timber is determined without bark (it is also included in legislation). Measurements, in turn, are carried out over the bark: whether done at the processing site or in the forest. A mathematical algorithm is needed, along with a proper understanding of how to “deduct” the bark volume from the total volume.

I assume that uncertainties arise as follows: in the forest, a harvester has felled trees, obtaining a certain volume X. At different timber processing sites, this X differs: harvester data shows one figure, while processors are already operating with another. This is the moment when those involved try to look for reasons for the differences: “it is measured incorrectly or badly there, that is not the right method or technique”, etc. However, the problem lies in the mathematical interpretation: if bark is calculated as a mathematical equation, the “harvester mathematics” and the “processing site mathematics” are not the same (the calculation methods differ). This needs to be explained, and we hope that soon – in the spring of 2021 – there will be a result and a scientifically grounded explanation of what to do in such situations. It is necessary to align certain figures with others so that the differences are not so large in every situation.

What helps in this work scientifically?

The experience gained at the Faculty of Forestry. Together with my colleague Mareks Millers, we began our scientific journey and have been working together in the field of round timber measurement.

At the beginning of last year, Prime Minister K. Kariņš mentioned that the diameter issues important to the industry were sitting in the bottom drawer…

From a measurement perspective, it is not important whether we are harvesting smaller or larger diameter trees, so the question of larger or smaller diameter is linked for me personally to the quality of round timber and the forest as a whole, especially in overmature spruce stands where risks of root rot increase. The practical side is very simple – we will measure whatever trees we are given.

Scandinavian influence and experience in Latvia, which is often spoken of in different senses: some emphasise the experience of neighbouring countries in forest management, while others fear excessive Scandinavian influence…

Finland is often viewed separately from Scandinavia, and not without reason. On the issue of bark, which we just spoke about, Finland is a unique country: it is the only one in the world where wood volume is determined over the bark. The Finns' neighbours (like us) “struggle” with bark; the Finns do not. Why? That is a good question. I have been to Finland, Sweden, and Norway, where I watched and compared the experience of foresters in those countries. The Finns have studied harvesters very deeply, and they build relationships between buyers and sellers using measurements obtained with the harvester. In other countries, these measurements are used only for planning and service payments.

I will add that the word “unique”, often used in and out of place, is very precise in the case of the Finns (very appropriate), because they are the only ones. And that is it. Our subsidiary VMF LATVIA, which has its roots in Sweden, acts as a third party in transactions between buyers and sellers. Work is currently underway on a standard for this cooperation model.

If we hear that Scandinavians are praised for forest issues, it is well-founded! When I studied in Sweden myself, we were trained in two forest management models: the Swedish model, based inter alia on economic calculations, and the German forestry model, where so-called “calculations” are relegated to the background. In Germany, it is more like “local-scale activity” (relatively speaking, in Latvia, this would be a niche sector). As people used to say: if, by applying the Swedish model, the forest owner is guaranteed to earn something in the long term, the German model “leaves the manager at zero”.

In Latvia, forests are green gold. For us, the economic aspect of the forest is very important. The Scandinavians are a good example of this – how they can cooperate with the so-called “greens” while managing efficiently. You can go mushroom picking in both Finland and Sweden, the forest areas are large, and furthermore, much larger clear-cut areas are permitted in Sweden than here. The Swedish and Finnish forests are still green, there is an economic justification for management, and there is a much longer history and experience. In Scandinavian work, you can clearly see the cyclical nature of forest management, which seems to be forgotten in Latvia. It is clear to the Scandinavians that after logging, there will soon be a new forest in the harvested areas. That is an axiom!

Concerns are occasionally voiced in discussions about Latvian forests ending up in Scandinavian ownership. Saying, “they are buying it up”!

One should be worried about the apathy of forest owners! Scandinavians use the opportunity to purchase the land and forests that enter the market (that are sold). Forests in Scandinavia and here are managed according to a unified practice. Usually, foreigners purchase abandoned, overgrown, or unmaintained areas where our own people have not seen potential for any economic activity. Such areas are cleaned up and managed, which is to be evaluated very positively in any case. Of course, there is a question: why can the locals not do this? But that should be asked of the sellers of those areas. Scandinavian work in Latvian forests will be long-term – the forest will remain, the land is in Latvian territory, they will not be taken anywhere or moved.

Latvia's misfortune – protecting by forbidding, not by cooperating...

With this model, a forest owner, upon seeing a potential threat of restricting economic activity, is forced to act accordingly, which could be very easily resolved by paying compensation proportional to economic losses.

Some will consider that a forest is poorly managed because micro-reserves are usually found in tended forests! How do you view the European Commission's initiative on percentages for certain protected territories?

Decisions must be reasonable, evaluating the strategic importance of the forest in the respective EU Member State. Looking at proportions or percentages, or figures… is not correct! One must understand – why something is being done, in whose interest it is being done, and what we will gain in the long term. From the perspective of the “Green Deal”: if additional restrictions or additional protected areas appear or are determined in Latvia, a compromise could be a reduction in diameter in commercial forests.

There is no shortage of various advisors for the forestry sector. If we talk about a logging ban, which would provide for the observance of “silence” during the bird nesting period, for up to 3 months, we think a great deal about various bird species and their protection, which, of course, must be done, but at the same time, are we not forgetting about the individuals of our own “species” (a significant number), whose work in logging is often the only contribution to supporting their families, especially in the regions?...

How does a forest owner view various public activities? What to do with the undeservedly created bad background for the industry?

I have also encountered this problem myself. Everything depends on the person – in our case – the forest owner. There are owners who understand what is decided in the country, follow the latest trends in the industry, and choose the best and most justified path in management. For example, where and how to get the highest quality planting material. There are forest owners who inherit forest land, log the forest, receive good money, and do not care about the forest at all. Forests in Latvia can regenerate and do regenerate naturally, of course, with deciduous trees. Such a story also creates the “bad background” for public opinion. One cannot base an opinion about other plots managed by proper owners on one unkempt, thicket-like forest plot. And here, space and opportunity appear for “sofa experts” who associate the forest with a park in the city centre and who will definitely recommend the best way of management and know everything about the development of the Latvian national economy. Why? That is a good question, which must definitely be asked of the “advisors” themselves!