An interview with Juris Buškevics (Board Member of "Rīgas meži")
How does the capital city, the centre of the country, affect the operations of "Rīgas meži"?
Our work at "Rīgas meži" is subject to the structure of the property—the forests themselves—and much depends on where the forest is located. If we are talking about forest stands within the administrative boundaries of Riga, the tasks are specific; for example, we cannot organise clear-cutting within the city territory (it is prohibited by law). There are about 4,500 hectares of forest in the city, which would be excellent for many European cities, but considering Latvia's overall forest cover, it is nothing extraordinary for us. Outside of Riga, there is significantly more forest area belonging to the city—in total, we manage more than 62,000 hectares. Managing, monitoring, and protecting these forests requires both financial and human resources from us. We must provide for both the daily needs of the forest and its development. Forestry is not a conservative industry; it is evolving both technologically and in terms of changing public expectations regarding forest use. We need highly educated employees, specifically in forestry. This is not an easy issue to resolve, given the situation in the labour market.
Riga residents are very active in using recreational areas in the forests belonging to Riga, which requires specific methods of work and significant funds for the daily upkeep (cleaning) of the forests. We do not just maintain the forest and the stands. Personally, I find it awkward to have forest rangers in the 21st century working as waste management managers within the territory of Riga. Riga’s city forests are heavily burdened by human presence (the anthropogenic factor), and unfortunately, members of the public have very different understandings of what a forest actually is. For a segment of society, it is a dumping ground for unwanted goods and waste. Over the years, we have not managed to significantly reduce the amount of waste left or dumped in the forests. We place waste containers in some places, and remove them in others. In the forests adjacent to private housing estates, a pattern of waste accumulation is noticeable: owners do not want to pay for waste removal and disposal, and they choose the forest as a place to dump it. Near apartment buildings, there are usually containers available, so there are fewer problems. However, we see state-level myopia: restrictions on accepting various types of waste. Where does this waste end up? In the bins of apartment buildings or in the city and suburban forests! The volume of waste we hand over to landfills for a fee amounts to about 3,000 tonnes per year. This is a large financial burden, adding to the expenses for waste collection. There are European countries where people are symbolically paid to take waste to a landfill. It works in reverse for us. People are administratively forced to sign contracts, but a heavy-handed policing approach is not always effective.
Is this attitude towards the environment and one's place in it caused by laziness, thriftiness, or other motives?
The problem is complex. The waste management system in the country could be more progressive. Even if only for the benefit of the public, a clean forest should always be a priority. At the moment, the environmental SOS app is very active, although it sometimes creates and shows strange situations. For example, an entry: "Yesterday I walked through Anniņmuiža forest and dropped a piece of paper. I'm walking today, and the paper is still there!" The psychology is—I am a member of society, I pay taxes, I am allowed to litter because I have paid for the cleaning. There is another factor. How long have we been living in a relatively compressed environment, in large cities where people live in close proximity? Will it be much more than 100 years? After World War II, a more rapid increase in the urban population began. People come to live in the city from environments where they did not have waste problems or they were not relevant—there was packaging that decomposed in a short time in the environment, they threw it in pits, and it quickly disappeared. In the city, the attitude is different, and the person, in terms of upbringing, does not understand this and continues to act as before. Views are persistent, but waste, its composition, danger, and decomposition time are changing.
We are also trying to do something administratively, learning from the state forest manager. For instance, we are placing barriers on forest roads. Of course, the forests are publicly accessible, but given the experience and even last year's dry summer, we decided to restrict traffic on forest management roads.
You mentioned the need for educated specialists. How are they doing at the moment? Is there a choice?
I was lucky enough to be taught by professors who received their forestry education in pre-war Latvia, for example, Professor Lange. The sensitivity and depth of these educators in the matters they had to pass on to students were exceptional. We felt it too—you couldn't go to Professor Lange's dendrology lecture and sleep. His brilliant erudition was immediately noticeable—posture, voice, way of presenting. We learned during the lectures—not in the library or elsewhere! It helped us develop as specialists. Later, when I was invited to work at the faculty, I tried to copy both the posture and the way of teaching of my instructors, as well as the attitude towards the work. My subject was forest inventory—after graduating from the faculty, my students could immediately go into practical work without additional training or preparation. It was important to restore the student society "Šalkone"; it is excellent that students socialise and are able to show organisational and oratorical skills, which gives a lot for practical life. I am no longer a lecturer; I no longer have direct contact with students, but upon meeting them or the faculty graduates of recent years, some phrases and situations I've heard are alarming. For example, a young engineer, a logging specialist, says he has no knowledge of a "Harvester". In logging, this forest combine, a forest machine, is the absolute foundation! Something has been missed in the training; it has not been possible to get to know the machinery or learn how to operate it. There are "holes" in education that prevent one from immediately competing in the labour market. That is sad! I think this specific circumstance is the difference between the faculty graduates of the 80s-90s and the current ones—at that time, graduates could immediately compete in the labour market. Today, that is lacking!
What can "Rīgas meži" surprise us with? If one were to ask—what is the most magnificent object in the managed territory?
Recently, a forest ranger from the city of Bonn visited us at "Rīgas meži". He is in charge of large forest areas, but they have a status similar to that of a park. In Germany, environmental advocates fight against the "artificial maintenance and upkeep" of forest plots; they want forest areas where no economic activity takes place. The plots there sometimes look quite terrible because, without maintenance, invasive shrub species appear, and the areas become overgrown. The public, however, demands a clean, beautiful, and transparent forest stand.
A few years ago, I became acquainted with a dissertation developed at the Faculty of Forest which was based on the results of a survey of Riga residents. About 40 different questions (proposals) had been prepared: "What would you like to see, introduce, or change in the city forests?" In first place, the residents of Riga mentioned wooden walkways—like footbridges, so that feet wouldn't sink into the sand... Next on the list was a desire for the forest stands to be free of bushes, as paths through thick bushes are not really safe, since you don't know what is hiding in the bushes, you can't see it.
We showed the Bonn ranger a lot—maintenance, selective logging—and in the end, he asked the same thing—show us something surprising. We asked—what kind—dendrological, forest species, cultural-historical—the sites of the Christmas Battles, the preservation of which we are very proud of? In the end, we took him to a forestry area and let him watch the animals for one evening while sitting in a hunting tower. He, as he put it himself, had never seen anything like it!
The way we balance forestry and natural values is a great art! In Germany—if you want forestry—there is no place for hunting, and vice versa. If the number of wild animals exceeds a certain figure (level), it affects the regeneration of the forest, and new stands are affected (damaged). We spend funds every day to ensure that this balance exists and is maintained! Therefore—mentioning the Bonn ranger again—if someone wants a surprise, they must spend several hours in the forest—they would see what is happening in nature. I am proud of the forest stands of Riga.
Management and nature conservation. How to combine them?
I think that a forester who has graduated from the Faculty of Forest is greener than green! No one needs to be convinced about nature conservation, the importance of the environment, or the protection of endangered species. I believe that graduates of the Faculty of Forest think similarly and can, without hesitation, get involved in processes that preserve nature.
In my third year, I had an internship in forest inventory. Nature conservation in the Soviet Union was in its infancy; many things happened "just for show"; Moscow decided, and from that point of view, economic profitability was important. At that time, a forest surveyor had great authority; in fact, he decided how the forest plot would be used in the future. And so, the surveyor and I go to a plot where we have to plan for logging in a spruce stand within the next 10 years. The surveyor says: "No! We will not write a clear-cutting order here." I was perplexed; in the faculty, they taught that a mature forest must be cut so that the economic cycle is more intensive. The surveyor leads me deeper into the stand, where a small spring flows out of the ground.
"Look! Isn't it beautiful here!"
It is beautiful! The surveyor used the opportunity to mark it as a specially protected territory—this plot remained for nature. He could just as easily not have noticed or pretended not to notice. He could have cut it, and no one would have been the wiser.
A second story. Several years later. We go with the surveyor into a mature spruce forest; the spruces are about 30 m tall, with branched trunks, a diameter of about 40 cm and more, with a stock close to 500 m3/ha. An excellent stand! The surveyor decided to preserve it. Why? "Look up—don't you feel like you're in a church..." I feel that I see an altar and I am in a church!
With these stories, I wanted to say: the people who worked in the 80s and for whom nature conservation regulations did not at all require the finding and determination of natural values, were able to appreciate them with their green education, heart, and mind. It was the norm!
At present, several forestry reforms have taken place, and there is a segment of society that tells us we are doing everything wrong. By clear-cutting, we are supposedly reducing natural values; by planning thinning, which ensures the development of the forest, we are disrupting accustomed things. Thinning is a forest development plan; we know that without maintenance, the forest will collapse, something else will grow in its place, the forest will not disappear, but—what it would be like—we know.
Back in 1993, a group of West German foresters came to the Faculty of Forest. For two weeks, they got acquainted with various objects, including cultural-historical ones. In conclusion, we talked about what they had seen, what their impressions and conclusions were... The head of the delegation said: "You Latvians do not need to be taught forestry". That is a high evaluation, because once upon a time, Germany was the cradle of forestry science.
You once mentioned the eagle-owl and the black stork in a conversation? What about these beauties in the territories of "Rīgas meži"?
Of course, we have black storks. My experience with this bird is interesting. During my hunting days, I was in other forests (state), driving along a newly built forest road, with drainage ditches along the edges, the path was wide, there was water in the ditches, and in the evening, from a distance, I noticed two black men who were busy inside the ditch. "I wonder what they are doing there," I thought. "In the ditch!" After driving closer, I realized they were not people but two black storks who liked the ditch as an excellent feeding place. The open road path helped them take off. Until then, I had not met a black stork so closely.
We are in a dual situation. We foresters are told: here and there is a black stork's nest. We like it, and we are happy! We are ready to sacrifice hectares of commercial forests so there can be a restricted area, and we will not disturb the storks! But—there must be an explanation of what happens if the stork does not return to the nest. A year, two, five pass, and we want to take action. We hear in response—the stork can return, and it can return after ten years! I need an explanation regarding the biological behaviour of the species—a nest has been set up, and we are waiting for 10 years—whether it will return or not! A similar situation was with the eagle-owl. No one questions the emotional values created by the eagle-owl and the importance of the bird in nature! The eagle-owl's nest was discovered 15 years ago, and these years the situation shows—the eagle-owl has not been seen in this territory and nest anymore! We proposed changing the protection regulations, we wrote a request to cancel the restricted area. An expert is invited, and it turns out that a valuable clubmoss has appeared in this area. But—I know very well that there are several other places in the same forest where this clubmoss grows! What do we do in such a situation? Do we include all territories where clubmoss grows in the restricted zone, or is the discovery of the clubmoss just a reason to maintain the former restricted area around the eagle-owl's nest... There is no sequence, no consistency, no explanation, distrust arises...
At present, the eagle-owl has been seen in the forests near Riga, but the nest has not been found. Every forester is very interested in whether there is a black stork, an eagle-owl, or a lesser spotted eagle. Every forester considers it a wealth and has no desire to hide or destroy all of it. If you are a forester, you treat natural values with reverence! If a nest is found while surveying felling areas, we call a specialist to identify it. We do not object to nests; we object to other things. For example, in the Katrīna forest district, there is a great variety of birds in the lovely deciduous forests. A three-toed woodpecker also lives there, which is often encountered in an area of 4,500 hectares. Its mating call is heard in many places. Unfortunately, the woodpecker's nest is found in a plot where a felling area prepared for production has just been handed over. It is incomprehensible because, right next to it, the woodpecker is both mating and can be found. Why was a micro-reserve introduced exactly in a freshly prepared felling area? We have worked, invested effort, and... We do not object to the protected species living there; we object to the practice—where we try to operate, this activity is stopped. We can share with natural values. We also carry out assessments ourselves—if a clear-cut is planned for a plot, we look at whether there are natural values in this plot. Visually—nests, burrows, springs, ant colonies. If nature lovers want to protect natural values, we are ready to ensure that they will always be noticed.
A new territory to look after and manage in the city—Lielie kapi...
The management of Lielie kapi has been entrusted to "Rīgas meži" since the spring of 2017! Of course, the garden and park department of the company is responsible for cemetery management. These are the people who look after Riga's parks and gardens. This was something new—we have been entrusted with the maintenance (supervision) of about 20 hectares of this type of park. Our experience is with gardens and parks. We do not have experience with sacral buildings, their restoration and upkeep; we do not have experience with the maintenance of burial sites. We work in Lielie kapi with the same intensity and understanding as in gardens and parks; it is very likely that from the outside, it looked quite brutal that we drove with a leaf collector, that we drove with mechanical sweepers, but pedestrian paths lead through the territory, and the people who set up the paths were not choosy in their arrangement. We received many reproaches. We asked for rules to be developed on how to work. We have not received the rules. We are subjected to reproaches that we are doing it wrong. There are no specialists who could say the right way! We do not consider Lielie kapi a burden, but it is clear that this territory cannot be maintained like just any garden or park!