Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, and Pauls Rēvelis, editor of zemeunvalsts.lv, speak with Andis Malējs
Restrictions have been eased, but it must be emphasised: it is very pleasant to talk in person, without using online tools
Remote working, which is still widespread, has many advantages. For example, if our company needs a quick solution to operational issues, remote communication tools help: by using MS Teams, all those involved can “connect” quickly, and the matter is resolved. If necessary, we can touch base again in an hour.
Our company has both “office” and “forest” people; the latter are usually on the move, and it is possible to join a short meeting or discussion from the forest. If one compares this with the situation before the pandemic: excuses were often made, such as “I don't have time! I can't! I'm working in the forest, I have to look for workers, etc.” To meet, you had to travel, for example to Riga, which took up most of the day... Now: you are at work and... suddenly you are participating in a meeting. The efficiency of finding solutions is on another level, which perhaps does not benefit our already hectic pace of life. If we were busy before, now, with many things happening faster, we have become even busier because we can get more done. If any of our cooperative members want something, you cannot use being busy as an excuse, because there is an excellent opportunity to talk while on the road. Of course, if very serious issues need to be discussed, you have to meet in person!
To some extent, this situation is also quite convenient for the bureaucracy, which can push many issues forward or choose not to... Decisions, however, affect practically everyone. There are some concerns about the coming year and the upcoming Saeima elections, and what they will bring
Sometimes one can only guess at the results... I am truly afraid of some potential candidates getting into the Saeima! Meeting one or the other right here in Cēsis, in the course of conversation I have remarked: “Sorry, you are a good and sensible person, but I cannot vote for you, because in Riga the leader of your political group is...”
Of course, one should not and cannot rely on a single person alone, just because they are personally known, on a list that says: “I am nice, good, and different from those in Riga”
The situation and developments must always be looked at more broadly: one can find very good things in the slogans and programmes of every political force running in the elections. All respect, it is good and bold! But there are undoubtedly things I cannot agree with and will not agree with. That is all!
The recent local government elections in Cēsis went quite calmly...
Yes, indeed! There was some anxiety beforehand, but Jānis Rozenbergs, the Mayor of Cēsis, and his team have proven themselves through their work; this will already be his third term as mayor. In my view, the regional reform was good and necessary, because Cēsis is an excellent, yet small city, and now there will be an opportunity to act on a larger scale in the bigger Cēsis Municipality. I have had occasion to go to a few events with Jānis Rozenbergs, and I know that he always has a list of people he definitely needs to meet and topics he definitely needs to discuss in the respective place.
Speaking of what was said previously: the city development of Cēsis in no way associates with the – “New Unity” – most visible representatives of that political force in Riga.
If we talk about national-level political issues, I have not heard much about them from Jānis Rozenbergs. I think a centrist party's approach to economic matters gives a municipality a certain benefit. If a person has a plan and long-term ideas that could be implemented, I see nothing wrong if, as parties fall apart—which often happens in Latvia—this same person chooses another party that continues the work.
In a small town, where for the most part people know each other, what has been achieved is also clearly visible
I agree; in Cēsis they also think about not letting “bad things” stick to the city and the administration. For example, I think the last street that will be asphalted or paved in the city will be the street by the mayor's house, that is clear! It will not be like elsewhere!
The forests on the Vidzeme side are managed by quite large companies
If you look at forest maps, the volume of forests managed by various large companies is increasing. I work at the “Mežsaimnieks” cooperative also because I take a negative view of the sale of private forests to large owners. My goal, while working at the cooperative, is for the private forest owner to keep the forest for themselves, for their family, and for their descendants, so that the “property continues”. In the current cycle of global development, where urbanisation plays a major role, maintaining and looking after one's forest while living in the city is quite complicated. For example, if you live in Kuldīga but the property is near Dagda, you cannot look after it or be “on site” regularly. The solution is a unifying organisation that can help and support the owner in such a situation. That is my goal in working for the cooperative.
Speaking of cooperation, the Swedes and Finns have gone further and been more successful in this regard
That is both a good example and a good question. The decision regarding the direction and development of the cooperative is important. The owners of the cooperative are its members; as in a normal company, the owner must earn a profit. In our case, the system works in such a way that less is left for development because the owner receives more.
To a certain extent, a cooperative can be compared to the political party mentioned at the beginning of the conversation, whose members are and will be very different, with different goals and views. There are demands, there are unconstructive ideas that take up the time of cooperative staff, but every situation must be resolved.
The company recently underwent a change in management; in July, a competition was announced for three “Mežsaimnieks” board member positions...
Yes, the “Mežsaimnieks” board (and also the council) will need to be supplemented! The previous period of the company's operations was a development period, during which discussions took place on how to decide on finances and development. The board and the council discussed these. It was decided that one person on the board is not really good, and that the “several eyes” principle should apply. The discussions were extensive, a consultant was invited, and we concluded that several people are needed in the management. I allow that covering a large and extensive farm/enterprise for one person is not easy. I still have good relations with the previous Chairman of the “Mežsaimnieks” board, Grigorijs Rozentāls; after all, he hired me. Speaking of discussions regarding the future development of the cooperative, I believe that each side had their own truth. In the end, the majority view was democratically accepted, and now we are moving forward.
Is a new and different stage of development planned?
We are looking at operational efficiency; a financier is working in the interim board who pays more attention to operational profitability and cost optimisation. In this regard, our members are certainly winners. Our number of members is currently a little over 800. I estimate very roughly that 70% of members might need forest management, while about 30% want to get involved in various projects. As for member activity—if a cooperative member's forest property is small, it has been managed and now already renewed, the member's active work on the property begins from the time the stand reaches 15 years of age. Perhaps young stand maintenance is coming up, but there is a certain “peace period”. Some members are inactive for other objective reasons (similar to what I described earlier). The big plus of a forest: you can do nothing, but your forest grows. There are known moments in the forest's development cycle when attention is needed, but for the rest of the time, the forest grows and will continue to grow.
You do have to keep an eye on whether a restriction has quietly, quietly, secretly, secretly appeared on the property...
That is a heavy and painful topic! At one time it seemed we, the forest owners and forest managers, were on the “right side of the front”: we live and work in a green way, we promote a climate-neutral economy, which has now turned out to be... quite different.
I well remember the representatives of the VARAM [Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development] and the Nature Conservation Agency, who, at the Forest Conference in Ogre in 2019, said regarding habitat mapping: “Don't worry, there will be no restrictions or problems!” Those who were wiser laughed at what the state officials said, already sensing that their words were not true. The good-natured ones, like me, believed... What is happening this year? I see that restrictions and habitats are appearing like mushrooms after the rain. I will repeat: government officials officially told us that there would be no problems! Two lesser spotted eagles have settled on my forest properties, and there are various habitats. Yes, Europe needs this, but... why should I personally, with my commercial forest, have to pay for the needs of Western Europe?
There is no political will to solve this issue
News recently appeared that they want to further reduce the already small amount of compensation for the owner. If calculations “don't add up” now. The situation is solvable, but this solution does not exist. The eagle chose my property and that of my neighbours precisely as a result of our actions—we create openings in the forest without destroying feeding grounds. The eagle likes us. If we did nothing, which, by the way, is what is now being demanded of us, would the eagle be on our property? One thing is clear: by doing nothing, the forest would be completely different.
Another painful topic: we have managed the forest, it has been renewed. Young spruce trees are growing. In the spring, we could not perform agrotechnical maintenance in the micro-reserve buffer zone due to the thick snow cover, and in the summer we are not allowed to. I hope the spruce trees will survive this year and everything will be fine. Young stand maintenance is needed so that birches can grow, but... When to do it? There is a possibility that I will do the maintenance in the autumn; although I was taught that deciduous trees should be maintained in the spring. By the way, speaking of one eagle-inhabited nest: until the restriction was imposed, various activities took place in its vicinity every year—forest management, soil preparation, agrotechnical and young stand maintenance, agricultural activity—there were no problems. Now problems have arisen because someone found this eagle and decided that now, since the finder knows about this eagle, someone will disturb the bird.
The forest sector is large and strong, but against our arguments they put forward wolf cubs, chicks, lynx kittens, which are stronger arguments for a city dweller than scientific facts. What can you blame? If a city dweller buys meat at a store and doesn't think about where it came from? Before I started my forestry studies, I had a negative view of hunting. No justification, emotionally—it is not right. Why I thought that way back then, I don't remember. During my studies at the LLU [Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies] Forest Faculty, when Prof. Andrejs Dreimanis explained everything about hunting, an understanding arose. LLU was a good university in terms of professional education. Before that, I studied management sciences at the LU [University of Latvia] Faculty of Economics and Management, I obtained an academic education and... suddenly you end up in another world and you find it very interesting. My wealth of knowledge is quite broad; thanks to that, I like to look at the forest through an economic prism. Every activity in the forest must be financially justified.
Others will object to that... (the forest also has non-economic values)
True, every forest owner has their own goals, and the value of the forest follows from them. In my forest, there is the value that I define for it. Judging another's property with one's own yardstick is neither wise, nor correct, nor honest. Over time, in our family, we have increased our forest properties, given up many things, investing both in the forest and in its maintenance and development. Understandably, we also have naturally regenerated forests, but for the most part, we have renewed the forest by planting. I don't have a fancy car or a detached house, but I own my commercial forest! And I want this forest exactly as it is, and I also want the invested “to come back” one day.
Private property and the recent musings around it. For example, in the USA, the idea that something would happen on a property without the owner's consent would not be popular
By creating restrictions in private forests without adequate compensation, the forest owner is being legally robbed. As a forest owner, I want to operate in such a way that the forest stand is biologically more valuable, that a mixed forest is formed, that biodiversity benefits from it. But if at the same time this increases the risk that, as the years go by, someone will invent politically driven or “popular” restrictions, I am literally motivated to leave a monoculture in the stand. From an economic point of view, I will be fine. Will it be good for nature? The restriction system established in Latvia creates a situation where there is no joy for nature, the owner, or the environmental activist. Yes, at the moment I am forced to think in such absurd categories, and I don't like it! In my opinion, a very good system would be: to manage freely, and if a habitat is cultivated as a result of management, to be paid accordingly for it.
Ecosystem services are supposedly beyond monetary value... Is human knowledge sufficient in this regard?
I have three children; we talk a lot about environmental and forest matters. Once, during a school lecture, I told my son's classmates how forestry works and how it sequesters CO2; I emphasised that without the forest sector, there would be nothing.
If climate change is accepted as a fact, then in a country where every vacant patch of land overgrows with forest that captures CO2, forbidding work and management to promote this process is absurd! A restriction creates a decaying forest, which has reduced stocking density and releases the sequestered CO2 into the air.
How do cooperative members view the situation with restrictions?
Differently. Mostly, those whose properties have restrictions discuss and get involved in the conversations. Restrictions are not an overly important topic! But 800 people, of course, have very different views.
Speaking about this issue more broadly: there is no discussion between the forest sector and environmental activists. One side throws stones at the other and vice-versa... it cannot be considered a conversation. I would describe it as follows: those who need to talk feel strong and stable in their trenches and will not come out of them. Both sides express their position in as loud words as possible: if one has said something “strong”, the other must not lag behind. We, the industry, have the forest science institute “Silava” with data and studies that have a scientific basis, against which it is difficult to find arguments, but forest science is not taken into account.
What is the intention of a very “green” forest owner joining a cooperative that is economically oriented?
The intentions are various. Our members are also ornithologists who understand that there is protected forest and commercial forest, and they do not disturb each other. Of course, for “our” ornithologists, ornithology is a hobby, not a primary profession, and there is an understanding of forestry. I think it is quite easy to publicly express radically green views if one does not have a forest property oneself. If such a property appears, the thoughts of even a very convinced activist may change.
In the centre of Riga, more than one person is surprised: “How? Is it possible that a forest belongs to someone?”
As is known, there was no private property in Latvia for some time, and some understanding of it has been lost. Moreover, the city dweller often has a completely simplified understanding of rural or forest matters and work. The new “green communism” ideas worry me. Such winds are felt from young politicians who want to redistribute other people's properties. Discussions are taking place among young people about how good communism is theoretically, but the former one (which our parents and grandparents experienced) was not the “correct” one. The true essence of communism was recently well shown in the film “My Favourite War”. Personally, Western European liberal values are closer and more understandable to me, not the freedom-restricting ones that can be observed among our eastern neighbours.
Latvia in 2051...
Latvia, hopefully, will exist and prevail! .... Yes, this question should have been sent to me yesterday... I think people will understand the concept of private property much better. It will be clearer: everything belongs to someone. As a nation, we will be much more mature, open, and bold.