A conversation with Rudīte Martišauska, Mg. silv. ing., Mg. envir. sc., a retired forester

Regarding business and the recently discussed wind parks in the Tukums and Dobele regions, I would like to add this: there is no certainty that the construction of the park will not increase electricity costs in the future. The developers are preparing to build it, and as far as is known, they will eventually sell the park to someone else. If it is the Latvian state: I have no objections! There are concerns (unresolved questions): what will happen to this wind park once it has been built?

How a change of opinion happened in Tukums – from “Yes!” to “No!” within one parliamentary term!???

The council leadership changed, the coalition changed, and the opinion changed. Currently, the developer has taken the matter to court. We shall see.

Is antipathy towards entrepreneurs a Latvian trend?

I believe the projects submitted by entrepreneurs should be evaluated on an individual basis. Every location and every project has its differences. There are also “cloud-castle projects”. Competition must also be taken into account: if an entrepreneur is competing with someone, it is clear that the competitor may have objections and may organise “Against!” campaigns. Here, one must certainly be able to distinguish between what is a genuine “Against!” from residents and what is an “Against!” driven by someone’s interests. For example, in the situation in Riga regarding the former velodrome (which they want to turn into a park), one can discern the interests of a specific entrepreneur.

A different situation can be seen in Kandava around the karting track, where the residents are “For!”, but one specific individual, who has the skills and understanding of how to prepare protests and objections, opposes it. Yes, it is true that one person can be against it and a specific project can be dragged out in time, legal proceedings, and the like!

One cannot claim that “everyone is against everything”!

What is the current situation with the forests belonging to the Latvian state? You used to work for the State Forest Service…

Yes, indeed! I worked in the same workplace for 40 years. I saw how the forest changed in a specific territory (the Tukums forest district), I experienced the change in technology and the development of the forest sector: horses were replaced by tractors, and tractors by “harvesters”; there was great resistance at one time to technological corridors in clearings, and after independence – to the construction of roads.

But ultimately, time shows whether the decisions made were correct. What was suitable in the days when logging was done by hand and trees were hauled by horse no longer applies when powerful and heavy machinery has entered the forest. In “off-road” conditions, it would cause much greater damage to the forest, and there is no forest fragmentation either, as animals move about freely and birds fly over the roads.

Right now, I can proudly head to the forest that “was mine”; the concerns were in vain, the forest is being renewed, maintained, and is growing for the future. We are equal competitors to the Scandinavians, the Germans, and others.

The multi-year smear campaign against Latvian forestry… You are very active against this, supporting the sector on social networks!

I have been on social networks since 2002, and among other things, I have spoken about the forest and given advice to conversation partners on its management. I can say that in 18 years I have not seen anyone else representing the forest sector on social networks as actively. Even on “Twitter”, only recently have there been two of us forest enthusiasts... This means that the sector does not communicate with a certain part of the public! Simply – it doesn’t! It is pleasing that the Forest Owners' Association has started to become more active recently.

If we talk about the successfully and well-managed “Latvijas valsts meži”, there is little to no messaging from them on the web either. There is “Mamma daba” and “Cūkmens”. Broader information is lacking. Furthermore, not everyone associates mammadaba.lv with “Latvijas valsts meži”. We, those working in the sector and those of us who are former employees who follow the news, know the matters and processes, we understand them, and we do our work to the best of our conscience, but we mistakenly think that is enough. No, the public knows little about the work of a forester! ...actually, very little or nothing at all...

Attacks on the sector… I consider this question naive. The amount of funding (measured in many millions of euros) that has been spent on nature conservation by so-called “green” non-governmental organisations since 1990 is very, very large. Huge! I have studied environmental management at the University of Latvia, and my studies have helped me to better know, understand, and delve into these issues. They have helped me to better understand the so-called “green” movement. The cash flows in these projects are powerful; it is racketeering against the forest: “Give us money, and we will stay silent!” Of course, it only seems that way, because money is needed constantly. Life goes on, after all.

These “green” organisations work very closely together and are interconnected. NGO projects, mutual training, etc. If we talk about the so-called “bird projects”: where is the science in them? Seminars and education are not science! Politically, unfortunately, these actions are accepted, and various prohibitions are created by other motives. It is big politics and big money. This “cooperation” of the “green” NGOs also creates attacks on the sector and is implemented quite successfully, which can be seen well on social networks. If there is any “reproach” towards them, there is an immediate “linking up” of various “green” NGOs: “They are beating our people!”

Speaking of politics… People known in society do not want to be associated with this or delve into it. The lack of transparency in the flow of money, compared to the requirements for a forest owner or farmer, is depressing.

For example, how did the creation of the Ķemeri National Park happen back in the day? That too was an opportunity to acquire money and create a project! A number of economic forests were turned into a National Park – whether that was justified or not. One only has to observe how the economic forest, grown, maintained, and cherished by foresters, collapses as it turns into beaver swamps, reed fields, and insect breeding grounds.

In the Nature Conservation Agency, then and now, there were officials who received and receive low salaries, and there are people involved in projects who are satisfied with the situation. Officials declare their income to the State Revenue Service, but those employed in projects do not have to do so. It is a state institution, not a private limited company! For example, the recent project in Ķemeri (in the Ķemeri National Park), where they logged around 300 hectares in what was effectively a clear-cut, calling it “clearing the swamp of overgrowth”. There was no outrage from the “green” NGOs on social media! Silence! Because it was a “project for our own”, in which a significant amount of money was invested! So – by describing and naming anything as “valuable for nature”, as in this case, clear-cutting and logging are “correct”!

The world is not big. While communicating with colleagues, we found out that in the Gauja National Park, near Cēsis, “something is being cut” by the roadside. I asked on social networks: “What is going on there! Check it!” It turns out that “deforestation” is taking place there, and the area no longer legally is (or counts as) forest. Since the forest in the Gauja National Park “doesn't count”, no activities are limited. The Nature Conservation Agency is not worried about the logging of former ecological trees and young growth during the birds' nesting season. There you go! Yet every spring, “ornithologists” write long, lamentable texts about birds dying during logging work in economic forests, because forest owners must definitely be restricted!

I recall a similar situation from my work experience right here in the Ķemeri National Park. More than one owner was not allowed to tidy up their property with the excuse that “you cannot cut bushes”. Time passed, and they realised in the Ķemeri National Park that the natural meadows had also become overgrown in this way; this, however, allowed them to start cleaning and clearing work. But! If one calls it: “helping nature”, one can do a lot of things… Overall, however, it looks very bad and ugly!

Furthermore, the Nature Conservation Agency does not make money! The forest sector earns the money. In Latvia, there are quite a lot of people working in state institutions who do not understand or know how the state earns money!

When I worked at the State Forest Service, I always remembered that the entrepreneur was the one paying my salary from their taxes. The forest owner harvests their mature forest; that is a resource that fills the state budget.

Foresters see the forest in a completely different way, if one might put it this way – “they look at the forest from a different side”. The greatest excitement and uplift have always been, and still are, in the spring when trees are planted. A forester sees the future in these plantations. Perhaps it is not understandable to everyone, but when in the forest, a true professional feels – whether it will live or die.

For example, right near Engure, where selective cutting has been carried out, the forest is old; it is slowly dying. The pine is sun-loving, and in those forests, due to various conservation requirements, 10-15 years have already been lost, which have been stolen from future generations. In such a long time, the young growth would have thickened quite significantly. In fact, those who come up with such requirements find “against whom” to take a stand and, at the expense of this “against”, write new projects and get money for new projects.

While working at the State Forest Service, it was necessary to get to know and understand people. There are people of the scientist type and people “who have a good overview of the field”. In environmental management, one cannot work if they view matters and issues narrowly. If you “don't have an overview of the field”, you cannot work! It is possible that foresters could use the ornithological knowledge of Viesturs Ķerus (although he is not even a Nature Conservation Agency expert), but without a professional forestry education, one should not be allowed to create or influence forest policy. The same goes for Lelde Eņģele, whose botanical knowledge is certainly deep and thorough, but whose vision in forest matters is very narrow. The forest is an ecosystem where every intervention can irreversibly disrupt the entire system. Recently, on social networks, we discussed the developments taking place in economic forests (which are both necessary and justified) and the work in the Gauja National Park. There was a negative attitude towards work in the forest and a complete justification for “helping nature” for economic activity in the Gauja National Park. So, if we give something the right name, we can act and do anything! What kind of knowledge about the forest is that?

I definitely associate the reorganisation of the forest system that took place back then with a lack of professionalism. Management theory states that one person can lead 12-13 employees (optimally – 7-8) for management to be effective and achieve the goal. At one time, in the forest districts, there were “on average” these 12 employees. When the order for the reorganisation of the State Forest Service was issued, a battle began between the regional forest offices and the forest districts. The forest districts had become established, and the regional offices somehow “seemed” superfluous. A rotation took place, and the forest districts were liquidated. The management principle was disrupted; with the best of intentions, one chief forester cannot qualitatively oversee and ensure the flow of information for five times as many people. Previously, in one forest district, there was more or less uniform interpretation of laws; now, every forester interprets them according to the extent of their knowledge and access to information.

After the reorganisation, I have helped relatives and friends in many places in Latvia with advice from time to time, and I see that the management system has not been successful. The approach is varied; these are the consequences of the reorganisation: there is ignorance, subjectivism, insecurity, and an inability to make decisions. A concrete example: EU fund money. I meet an acquaintance, an entrepreneur, who does not want to maintain young growth and get European money. Why? There are many deer in that area, the forester doesn't know the regulations, and insists on thinning too much, even though in such a case the stand could be left thicker. The entrepreneur chooses not to clarify the situation, but to maintain it gradually and at their own expense.

What must change?

Nothing can be turned back. History usually does not return (perhaps it repeats itself).

It is currently difficult to understand and track what kind of understanding and approach exists in which forest district. If one uses the word “capacity”, it is lacking for the understanding of matters on a national scale – much depends on: who is doing what where, and who understands what and how. One cannot say that there is no control; there is, and it is quite harsh. Remote control has its downsides, the service provision time of the State Forest Service is “lengthening”, foresters are afraid to make decisions immediately, even though they could, and this causes losses to forest owners.

Possibly… Suspicions…

A state institution does not want people to speak badly of its work. Surely there will be someone who does something incorrectly, but because of this “someone”, problems arise for everyone.

For example, the recent dispute over the Cabinet Regulations (on tree felling). These regulations are actually disadvantageous for me. If I want to cut a stand “based on diameter”, I can legally do that right now; it’s just that I don't need to plant, and I have to leave fewer ecological trees. At the same time, the State Forest Service does not say that the change in regulations is a fight against potential corruption and the unfair use of knowledge.

How to silence the nonsense that a forest owner cannot coexist with a bird without a ban? They can!

In 2006, Līga Meņģele-Stillere, head of the Legal Department of the State Forest Service, wrote her doctoral thesis on “Contradictions between property rights to the forest and the right to live in a favourable environment”. That was relatively a long time ago; back then, the “ornithologists” (I don't want to write it without brackets, that would be unfair to real scientists) had not yet gotten up to speed on finding ever new bird species and inventing bans for economic forests. I assume that the doctoral thesis is full of optimism about the possibilities of cooperation between the parties involved. The thesis examines contractual relationships in environmental law; the work could serve as a basis for developing another approach in forest environmental protection. Various options are possible. One – compensation for loss, another – a contract with the owner for cooperation. There are owners who do not harvest their forests, and the bird lives there in peace. It cannot be assumed that “everyone cuts or harvests everything”. There are people who will not ask for compensation. A normal approach is needed, normal cooperation with the owner, not a hidden confiscation of property.

Nature conservation is not a campaign! Since the 90s, when nature conservation projects began, vigorous (fragmentary) intervention in nature has been taking place within their framework, regardless of the situation as a whole. For example, I do not understand why a forest cannot be harvested 10 m from a swamp, but 300 ha can be harvested in a swamp!? Where is the proportionality? How much of what do we need? Rivers are polluted; they no longer flow to the sea but are becoming swampy from litter, while the Baltic Sea is becoming more and more polluted because it does not receive enough clean water. Many things are being grabbed because a lucrative project has been beautifully written.

For example, at one event, we were talking about the black stork. By the way, it was discussed that we have plenty of them. But – they still need to be protected because the protection of the black stork, just like the lesser spotted eagle, provides bread for certain “ornithologists” and those involved in the projects. They “feed” off the black stork, off owls, off eagles, off hazel grouse, and they will surely reach sparrows.

The more unjustified bans there are, the greater the burden on economic forests will be! Those funds have to be taken from somewhere to feed the children, their parents, and their grandparents.