An interview with Žanis Bacāns, Sodra Latvia

It is well-known and often discussed that the economic situation varies across Latvian regions. What about forest management?

The company I work for has quite a lot of properties throughout Latvia. Forest management is influenced by both human resources and differences in mentality between the western and eastern parts of Latvia. I can say that, at the moment, work teams from Kurzeme are often going to work in the forests of Latgale.

What are these differences linked to – history, the economy, traditions, or…?

There is a fair amount of historical legacy, if you can put it that way. Language skills and the lack thereof remain relevant. Education problems. Personally, I would not want to say it this way, but there are regions where all processes and development are more rapid, faster.

I recently heard the view in an interview that there are quite a lot of unmaintained, even neglected, forests in the border areas of Estonia and Russia, which would be an excellent place to create protected areas.

I haven't thought about such things, but it wouldn't be right to force something or create it artificially. If natural values are in a certain territory – in Kurzeme or Sēlija – we cannot “move” them to the border area, even if that would seem “more convenient”. If natural values are found further away from populated areas, further from economic activity, that is normal; lower attendance is possible, and the usual “life” of the territory is not disturbed. For economic territories, places that are accessible or not far to drive to are undoubtedly better. Evaluating and looking at it mathematically, it wouldn't be bad if we protected natural values in a more remote place, but – will they be there? You can choose a place, far from people's daily routines, but we are unlikely to “invite” protected species to grow or settle in this remote place.

It is true that forests in the Russian border area are less cared for and less managed, but – it must be said – for the most part, these are former agricultural lands that have become overgrown due to various circumstances. Forests closer to roads and populated areas are undoubtedly “looked after” more and better (more professionally). Here, of course, the issue of depopulation must be mentioned, because it is not just in Latgale that people have a desire to move closer to cities or to them. The countryside is becoming emptier. That’s how it is!

Another important thing to mention is education and knowledge. There are many forest owners in Latvia. As long as the owner of a specific plot is busy with other things and lives in Riga or outside Latvia – forests will be unmanaged and unkempt. It happens that a person hasn't visited their property even once! Some people who want to manage their property acquire knowledge or skills themselves, or at least sign a contract for the management of their forest with a cooperative or a professional manager, but a certain proportion of owners do not want to do anything, do not want to manage – they are waiting for the moment to fell and – finished!

By waiting and doing nothing, forest quality undoubtedly drops, and the planned income may not be large enough…

Definitely, no doubt about it! From an economic point of view, not maintaining it is wrong! If a forest property is not managed, its value decreases, and the income will be lower. The owner will gain less timber during the forest's life cycle (these are decades!!!!) and this timber will be of lower quality and consequently of lower value.

What would be the explanation for this? Is the feeling of “I am an ‘owner’” enough for the proprietor?

It depends on the standard of living, which in Latvia, unfortunately, is not particularly high. But despite this, there are people in Latvia who are content with just the feeling (and that’s it!) of being a forest owner! Even without doing anything in the forest, he feels good! There are people for whom that is completely enough! For the forestry sector, of course, this may “bring” some “losses”… I won't say anything new – we are different, and every person's personal wishes must be respected. If he does not want to manage the forest or his priorities are natural values – so be it…

Of course, perhaps other circumstances play a role here – laziness, ignorance, misunderstanding. If the owner does not understand natural processes and is unable to evaluate the surrounding events, does not see, does not calculate the pros and cons… Often, our decisions may not please someone. If we cut down the forest and try to shorten the forest's life cycle, nature lovers may not like it, because we do not encourage the presence or retention of older trees in the forest, we reduce the possibility of habitat formation. If we do nothing and only keep the forest for nature, the state – all of us – loses large sums of money. The forestry sector is one from which everyone in Latvia benefits! Those who have jobs, those who have income, those who have taxes, those who have timber!

There were times when those who did not experience the Swedish times in the territory of Latvia spoke of the “good Swedish times”. Working in a Swedish company, you have the opportunity to compare. In conversations, it is visible and audible that Latvian foresters are proud of the sector, experience, and management.

The path of development for Latvia and Sweden has been different (again, it must be said – historically). The Swedes have not experienced the Soviet era; in the last century, no significant warfare has taken place in their territory; their forestry thinking and democracy are much more mature. If I may say so – in Sweden, trust has been formed slowly and historically between the state administration system and forest owners. In Latvia, that (trust) is lacking! I assume that with us the process is moving, moving slowly, and sooner or later we will arrive at the same result. It takes time! And due to various reasons, we haven't had this time. “We need to grow up!” We need to believe that by giving the forest owner more freedom to manage their forest, they will not “harm their property”. In Latvia, there is still a belief that “if they are allowed to cut when they want, as they do in Scandinavia, the Latvians will cut everything and sell it”. Absurd and wrong, but such an opinion is still voiced. And also from the legislator's side, which is very unfortunate.

Regarding the aforementioned trust. How does it manifest?

The rationale is simple – property and property value in the Scandinavian sense are on a different level or “shelf” than ours. Of course, this cannot be generalized, but those who value their forest or land highly and consider it a long-term investment think similarly to the Scandinavians (talking about Latvian forest owners). Those who hope to earn quickly think otherwise. Once, the “quick earn” style was quite widespread in Latvia; over the years, it has significantly decreased. I think there is no need to wait for other times, but to decide to trust forest owners right now! I am convinced that owners who do not hold their property in high regard have sold it or will sell it, whereas those who approach the matter seriously – organize it, increase its value, and think long-term.

Both industry and policy representatives mention an peculiar word more and more often – “normativization of life”. The tendency to describe everything in regulatory documents and to determine everything in laws is “rising to a high tide” in Latvia. How is it in Sweden? Is there trust and documents, and…

There are rules, regulations, and the “Forest Law”. In Sweden, however, it is much simpler! Laws for the forestry sector are made (written) simpler; they are, of course, interpretable – the same sentence can be read in different ways. People who want to work and manage their property are allowed to do so! Those who want to develop recreational or nature conservation opportunities on their property are also allowed to do so. In Sweden, state officials understand and support the forest owner's choice. With us in Latvia, the emphasis has been and is more on forced thinking (right or wrong – that is another question) and repressive regulatory documents: “You shall not do and think this, that, or the other!” It is important to “someone else” that the forest owner is prohibited from doing on his property what he would like to do or has done for generations. They want to force him to do something else or prohibit him from doing anything, using the slogan “The state needs it!” Such events could (or should) be understood if proper, appropriate compensation were provided for them. If your property is taken for the benefit of society, it is accepted in the world to pay appropriately for it. In Latvia, unfortunately, the compensation matter is completely disorganized! Theoretically, compensations exist; they are even set in laws to a certain extent, but – without assessing the specific value of the property. Compensations are “something unstable” because at any moment they can be lost or not paid out. It is commendable that in recent years politicians have found money for them, but no forest owner has the conviction that next year these same compensations will not be forgotten. If we recall the last economic crisis: money was eventually found, but the threats of not receiving it were quite high. Politicians often said: “It is not our priority – to compensate someone for something.”

Looking from your experience – what has surprised Swedish foresters in Latvia the most?

We are not something surprising or unknown to the Swedes! That is not the case! If it were, they wouldn't invest here. We are considered a understandable land, a understandable business environment; in their understanding, nothing extraordinary is happening in Latvia. Everyone in any country is annoyed by the constant changes in taxes and legislation, but overall, our investment environment is understandable and similar to the Scandinavian one. That is why many choose to invest and manage forest properties in the long term, knowing that the value of property in Latvia, thanks to high-quality forestry and also fertile soils, will only increase.

How do Swedish foresters get along with those who protect natural values?

In Scandinavia, there is no loud conflict; certain problems, as in many places in the world, are updated from time to time. Even in Scandinavia, there are things (in the field of nature conservation) that the forestry sector considers necessary to change. For example, the so-called “proportion of other species”. Operating economically, large coniferous forest masses have formed in Sweden over a long period, which are risky from the perspective of natural disasters. The Swedes are aware of this situation. There are problems with the so-called “dead wood” – by managing intensively in Swedish forests, almost every cubic meter is effectively used, and the area remains “excessively clean” in felling sites. We – in Latvia – have completely different conditions. Based on Silava data, ~23 m3 of timber is rotting in our forests, or hundreds of EUR per hectare. And we have no shortage of forests!!! From an economic point of view, it is madness, but even this figure is not enough for environmental representatives.

In Sweden, foresters and nature lovers are able to understand each other. Sufficiently united, they try to improve the operating environment so that it is good and profitable for both the economic sector and for preserving natural values.

In Latvia, many things happen differently – at the moment, an inexplicable and unjustified handing over of forest areas for nature conservation is observed, without evaluating the impact of such actions on the national economy. Without a full evaluation, nature conservation organizations have decided (determined) that it is necessary to protect (remove from economic circulation) significantly larger areas territorially in Latvia; how large they will be – no one knows. For such purposes, already now, up to 15,000 ha are additionally “allocated” annually, which the Latvian forest owner loses. The process is not understandable and not predictable. In my opinion, such huge changes should be noticeable and assessable by any citizen, even those not connected to the forestry sector, but at the moment there is a feeling that no one outside the sector cares about the impending changes.

Unfortunately, in the long term, it will significantly affect the entire national economy, for example, employment, income, taxes, and also the movement of residents. This is currently not being evaluated! Since the last global crisis, the economy has been on an upward trend. Maybe it looks to some politician that development is constant and will continue forever. But that is an illusion. The forestry sector has been able to improve its indicators thanks to investments made over the years, as well as by increasing productivity, but (again – but!!!!!) it will all stop sooner or later and a certain downturn may begin. And if, in addition, there is nowhere left to work because forests will be given over to environmental protection, every inhabitant of Latvia will feel it. We must think about this!