An interview with Jānis Rozītis, Head of the Forest Programme at the association “Pasaules Dabas fonds”

What is Pasaules Dabas fonds in Latvia? I assume that people often link the name to the international organization WWF, whose symbol is the cute panda.

Pasaules Dabas fonds has been operating in Latvia since 1991. Over time, our status has varied. Since 2005, we have been an associate partner of the international organization WWF. We are not WWF Latvia; we are Pasaules Dabas fonds in Latvia, in cooperation with WWF! We have a cooperation agreement, we have a common goal, and in our work, we follow the core values and organizational structure of the WWF – that is, what we do, who we work with, which business sectors we cooperate with or not, and which programmes we participate in. Cooperation with WWF is also an opportunity to provide information to the Latvian public about various current global issues. For example, the 2019 hot topic – forest fires in the Amazon basin or Siberia, or the current fires in Australia – our colleagues in those countries provide information and summaries of the current situation.

Are there any business sectors in Latvia that you do not work with?

Pasaules Dabas fonds has assigned a "three-colour system" to businesses: black, grey, and green. In any case, we do not work with arms manufacturers and traders, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry that use animals in experiments, nuclear power production companies, or the fossil fuel sector. The grey colour (or grey list) is assigned, for example, to airlines and the chemical industry. However, of course, when assessing the existing differences and peculiarities in each country, as well as the conduct of companies, it is possible to cooperate in certain areas! For example, alcohol producers. Evaluating the situation, it is possible to organise educational events together with an alcohol producer. Therefore, I would like to emphasise: “grey list” sectors need to be evaluated separately within each country or region!

You are a frequent guest on Latvijas Radio 1. Listening to it, even in the background, one gets the impression of a stable trinity of Latvian environmental organisations – Pasaules Dabas fonds (PDF Latvijā), Latvijas Dabas fonds (LDF), and the Latvian Ornithological Society (LOB). How did this trio come about? Have you noticed this yourselves?

The initial projects and initiatives (early 1990s) were joint, but over time, different groups of specialists went their own way. I don't think there was ever a specific plan regarding the number of organisations, but rather it was about the spheres that needed to be covered. PDF Latvijā cooperated with the Nordic countries and, since 1991, also focused on forestry issues; LDF brings together biologists for the protection of biological diversity, while LOB – as we can see from the name – has focused more on birds and the protection of their habitats.

The year 1991 and the year 2020. What has changed in Latvia's forests?

I started working at PDF Latvijā in 1998. I can see that the understanding and the culture of dialogue have changed. At one time, there was a desire within PDF Latvijā to “move away” from the classic nature conservation method – the creation of protected areas – towards the implementation of nature conservation measures in the forest management process. Consequently, the idea was that protected nature areas in Latvia could remain small (in terms of proportion) – only for maintaining specific biological processes and for specific purposes. Over 20 years, I assume that the contribution of nature conservation measures to forestry has been insufficient, and forest management may have been more intensive than we had predicted. In other words, my colleagues once foresaw the direction of nature conservation measures, but they did not predict how intensive timber resource extraction would be and whether the “greening” of forestry would be sufficient for balanced forest management. Now, a new discussion is needed, as is a change (a reset) of forest management plans and strategies. If in the mid-90s the discussion was more of a “thinkers' conversation” about what forest management in Latvia should be, now discussions are taking place in various audiences about what it should be. The conversations are supplemented by international requirements and market demands, which create external pressure to think differently.

A different approach with small protected areas. Lately, however, it is strongly emphasised in public discussions that we have too few protected areas and that we are not being compared very fairly with other countries… Is there a plan to increase the area of protected territories because “It’s needed!”? …and that’s that!

I believe that the increase in protected areas in Latvia is happening based on scientific information, not out of a whim! In my opinion, everything is grounded in necessity and a scientific perspective on the conservation of biodiversity. This is not a hobby! I assume that the issue will become even more relevant; I feel this when looking at the results of various international initiatives, following political discussions, and reading documents that have been produced. I think the share of protected areas in the European Union will increase. How, how much, and to what extent in each country – that I do not know. But it is clear that the “background” against which we view the state of wildlife in the world is quite critical! This is shown by reports from scientists, nature specialists, and governments alike. We can argue about where on the globe there are more problems. Since 1970, the WWF and the Zoological Society of London have been monitoring populations of species; the curves and trends are visible. I am not talking about South America or Africa, but Europe. Of course, in our case, the downward curve is smaller, but that does not mean that Latvia or Europe are ideal. I would like to dispel suspicions of a conspiracy: if intergovernmental reports talk about a total of around 15,000 studies, it is unlikely that every single one has been influenced by certain interests. Such claims are not serious!

Often in discussions, especially recently, one can hear strange words about scientists: “I don’t believe you because…” The answer is often similar. For example, in Latvia, ornithologists disagree with their own colleagues or look for reasons to disagree with forest scientists. Often, scientific discussions turn into a detective-worthy squabble: who is willing to believe whom. What should be done about this?

We are currently in a period where every reader or seeker of knowledge who has the desire or will to obtain information must be a critical thinker! Since I myself speak and present to forest owners quite often, I frequently repeat and emphasise: “There is no black-and-white situation! Think, read, analyse what you have read! Look at different sources of information!”

It is clear that the wealth of information is great, and there are far too many different opinions! Latvia is a small country, and we lack discussions within the scientific community. We have scientists who work together and implement projects; we have scientific institutes that express their vision. But we do not have a scientific opposition and, of course, no time and skills to conduct studies ourselves. To find out the various opinions expressed by ornithologists, fishery experts, forest managers, and landscape architects, I think it is not enough to rely on what has been studied and achieved in Latvia alone – one must look and read about what has been achieved elsewhere. For example, I try to look at, read, and follow international studies, which are often several hundred pages long, including trying to find and enter discussion forums or platforms where colleagues or competitors of the researchers talk about these results. Studies require in-depth engagement and also careful research by the interested party, because documents are one thing, but there must be clarity about what is behind them (the meaning behind), what can be expected, and how to react to the results seen.

How can critical thinking be broadened? Information filters – I will believe this, I won’t believe that – are often very narrow. People who are “passionate about an idea” do not hide the fact that one source is enough, regardless of its accuracy or bias.

There is so much information! People are interested, confused, and – yes – short, concrete information is also necessary, because people do not want to read pages of long studies! I think that if someone truly wants to have a serious conversation about biodiversity or forest management methods, or the climate, they must delve into the issue and dedicate time to it! One source will not be enough, because… I will not speak of malice, but in our day and age, there is a desire to say: “I, the author of the article, am the only true and genuine source of accurate information!” I would invite people to “put the picture together” and understand: what they want to tell us and how! For example, when talking about forest management, we – PDF Latvijā – will certainly emphasise the preservation of biodiversity quality! Specifically, how it is possible to maintain a high-quality forest environment while managing the forest. We explain how to do it! Forest economists will say: “No! This kind of management is not as profitable!”

If a forest or landowner wants to balance their options – they will like our offer; if they want to manage as quickly and intensively as possible and have faster cash flow, they may choose another model. Our task is to explain all the options so that the owner is prepared to choose the best and most appropriate one!

What about gentle forestry and the sun-loving pine? In many places in Latvia, unfortunately, one can see bad examples where pine does not regenerate naturally due to certain requirements!

Everyone who has studied forestry knows about the pine and the conditions necessary for its growth. The question is a different one! Clear-felling, “non-clear-felling”, “this or that” clear-felling: these definitions are only a human invention! A process or thing is named, definitions are created, and sometimes we fail to see past them… What does “non-clear-felling” mean and which felling are we talking about? Selection, progressive, or “continuous-cover forestry” are different methods! If we are talking about pine forests, we must understand which areas we are talking about and exactly how to work in those areas! One conversation will be about a nature park, another – about the coast. Also important is the purpose of the area: landscape, recreational zone, the need to maintain biological diversity, or other. If we clear-fell a hectare, two, or three and do so in protected areas, it will not meet the area's purpose! Consequently, the conversation about protected areas becomes more complicated! We must find a way of acting: for example, “we do nothing and assume that nothing will happen to the forest”. If we “do something”, there is a method that “imitates” natural processes: fire! It is not easy to accept this in society, but foresters who follow industry trends know and understand the importance of fire in the forest. Or there are other forestry methods to discuss! I emphasise: we are talking about areas important in terms of biological diversity!

If we are talking about the coast, the pine has a different meaning there. The coastal zone is a specific forest corridor that can be used in landscape ecology. There, it might be possible to work in larger areas, with larger openings, if it is necessary to ensure the regeneration of the pine specifically. The direction of the conversation about these areas changed recently – until then, we had been talking about management methods for pine regeneration, but in 2017 the idea emerged – the pine does regenerate, but not as promisingly and with such increments as after clear-felling.

Nature conservation NGOs can suggest or inform about current issues, can try to change or supplement the established regulations, but the landowner must be involved in the process! Here and precisely here, compromises will be made: how to act, how to do better, etc.! On one hand, cooperation is absolutely necessary; on the other – and the world is beginning to talk about this (this is not a one, three, or five-year issue) – social constructs are being questioned more and more – property rights and community rights. Currently, climate and nature issues are quite topical, but it is unlikely that every owner will start thinking about how to help the climate or delve into biodiversity science. Nature conservation organisations or institutions alone cannot, and it is impossible for them to, protect biodiversity in Latvia or the world. I don't know what other colleagues – species and habitat specialists – think, but I understand that we cannot do it alone! We can, by referring to scientific information, talk about problems, highlight, or detail issues. Of course, money and time will be needed, but it must start with goodwill!

Speaking of bans, Daiga Vilkaste, Director of the Nature Protection Department at VARAM, mentioned that owners are ready for other types of protection. Why talk about the opposite?

I think that in the next five or ten years, without information, without conversations, without recommendations, it is unlikely that owners will start to take a deep interest in natural processes and opportunities to manage the land using nature-friendly methods themselves. In my opinion, the statement about the owners' “readiness” means “readiness for a conversation” about the possibilities. There is no experience in the world where forest owners proactively do more and protect nature voluntarily.

In Latvia, I also see another problem: not so long ago, 30 years ago or less, a landowner got their ancestors' land back, started managing it, and now someone officially determines: “You shall not manage!”

I consider compensation for restrictions on economic activity as a short-term solution for the next 10, maybe 15 years! People who receive the money will be happy… time will pass and they will say: “Listen! We need more!” There will be no money to “give more”!

There are people who do not need compensation or rest on the sofa! They need the opportunity to work and – on their own property!

Situations are different! Someone will agree immediately and consider nature to be the most important thing; another will agree and say – compensate me; yet another will say – I don't need anything, I want to work, and I will do something about nature issues anyway!

For an owner to understand and start operating in environment-friendly forestry, years will pass; the second or third climate generation is needed there!

What will be in the middle between these or those compensations and education? The forest owner or representatives of the natural resources business will have to be interested in biodiversity conservation – profit with the help of biodiversity. The world hasn't solved that! There are small, niche projects that do not solve the issue on a broader scale! Currently, a forest owner who works and earns from the forest is only willing to preserve biodiversity if it provides some benefit to their operation! Finding this interest is important! Discussions, compensations, or other financial investments, legal regulations – that is patching for a short period of time – decades!

Another thing that is talked about little: life in the countryside. What do people do or how do they act when they are suddenly hit with a ban instead of work and farming?

I have never once encountered a discussion that a protected area or the amount of them would reduce the number of jobs or working hours. The question, in my opinion, is different: what people did in protected areas before the ban and what they want to do or are allowed to do in the future. One thing is the reserve regime, which in private forests is about 2% and in the whole country about 7%. If we speak of work – I think finding it in the countryside is no problem!

The problem is in another sense: there is a person who works in the forest or on the field and gives work and money to the state and people, and there is a bureaucrat who often determines from an office: whether you will or will not give those values and work! In Latvia, management, or in short, work, is overly overregulated.

If we gave the landowner the opportunity: “do whatever you want with your property, work how you wish”, there would be great chaos in biodiversity conservation. People's understanding of biodiversity is different. This has a close connection with the socio-economic situation in the country, and the poorer a person is, the more their view of the need for material benefits and maximum use of property grows. As is known, there are people who buy properties in the countryside and actually don't care at all about the forest. Cutting down the forest? Work in the forest? That is hard and difficult… Of course, these people are quite well-off and don't see the need to do anything.

I am often asked, if we at PDF Latvijā believe that Latvia is not in the best situation in terms of biodiversity, which country is better. Countries are not compared; that wouldn't be correct…

Wait! Not so long ago, Latvijas Dabas fonds in a message compared the areas of protected territories – in Latvia so many %, in Croatia – so many. Such comparisons are heard often enough!

Perhaps we can compare two identical parameters. If we look at Natura 2000 territories, we will see one situation, but – I will emphasise – that is only one parameter! If we were to look at other – many and varied – parameters that determine the nature protection system, perhaps the situation would be different! We cannot compare something if we are not comparing completely identical parameters!!!! For example, there are countries where clear-felling is not allowed, but there are specific reasons why. It is not right to say that in one country they act this way, in another – differently, and conclude something superficially!

There are countries where forestry has little or no importance in the national economy!

That too.

By the way, there are more and more discussions about forest owners in Finland and Sweden, whose forest management methods people are not satisfied with (from a biodiversity point of view). Recently, such an opinion has been expressed by Scandinavian nature conservation specialists. This is not yet an official opinion, but the more actively the need for new methods is talked about in involving forest owners in biodiversity conservation in Finland and Sweden – countries we often praise and consider to be the right example.

(Explanation: figure 3 shows tyres in the Abava ancient valley)