zemeunvalsts.lv editorial introduction
The story of Mārcis Sniedziņš is well known to people in the forestry sector. Unfortunately. It happens that, in a wider circle of people, someone mentions a fact or event that those present know about and immediately join the conversation. When speaking about Mārcis' experience, the interlocutors mostly become serious, a little sad, and a bitterness or awkward silence creeps into the conversation for a moment.
First – you have very limited opportunities to help. Second – the problems are systemic, with a clearly visible desire – not to solve them at all or to pretend that nothing has happened. Third – quite a few people are aware of a series of very grim state injustices, the resolution of which requires sharp and decisive intervention. As a vivid example, one can cite the not-so-recent events involving the apartment of artist Aivars Vilipsons, where, if one may say so, energetic action worked, knocking (thundering) even at closed doors and the minds fortified by the letter of the law, as well as the quick reaction of Saeima deputies and, naturally, the involvement of the media. Mārcis is supported by his family and his own, but... Obvious malpractice by various institutions, as we see in the article, is ignored; moreover, we at zemeunvalsts.lv have written about and witnessed that “environmental activists”“are very interested in the non-resolution of Mārcis' situation”*, whose direct responsibility in these events is not exactly clear.
Several years ago, in preparation for the European Parliament elections, buses and “vans” drove along the roads and lanes of Zemgale, with the portrait of a potential parliamentarian on the doors or sides... “People are the most important!” At least on a state level, it does not look like it – in words, yes, but in deeds, it has not even reached the backwater. Why complain about a lack of people, finances, or manual labour if we officially and actively drive away the doers, leaving only empty talkers?
State policy must be based on human needs and rights
Latvia experienced its largest waves of emigration in the early 1990s and also after the economic recession from 2008 to 2011. Each year, the number of people who leave the country is equivalent to the population of a small town, and perhaps we are facing a third wave of emigration that will differ from the others in its cause.
The very fact that more than ten thousand people leave a country annually where there are no natural cataclysms, disasters, or the horrors of war is worth the serious question “why?”. There is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of people have been lost who would have been both consumers and buyers of goods and services, as well as creators of value – manual labour has been lost. Re-emigration is taking place, and people are returning, but far fewer than those who leave, so thousands of “whys?” should be on the agenda every year. One must realise and accept the question, attempting to seek an answer. Moving from the general to the specific is risky because each time it contains conflict and resentment, which must be separated in order to see only the systemic risks and absurdities that apply to everyone.
Emigration changes direction
The first wave of emigration in the early 1990s reduced the population of Latvia by 170,000 people within five years. The reasons – the withdrawal of the USSR army, the collapse of Soviet-era industry. This direction of emigration was to the east and, on the whole, could be considered a gain rather than a loss for Latvia. The 2008 crisis can conditionally be considered the beginning of the second wave of emigration, when more than 135,000 residents left the country within four years, heading west. The vast majority of these people can be called economic refugees who lost their jobs in Latvia and were unable to meet their debt obligations. Since 2017, the number of people emigrating from Latvia has gradually declined, stopping at 10,000 people per year. It should be added that the Central Statistical Bureau currently conducts the census not directly, but by using institutions and appropriate methodology. Given that there is a free movement of labour within the European Union, no special permits are required to go and work, for example, in the Netherlands or Germany. From this, it can be concluded that it is not really possible to account for everyone who has left, and the true picture is revealed at the moment when a person has already settled abroad permanently.
The reason – work and remuneration
30 years ago, there was reason to rejoice that the occupiers were leaving this land. Conversely, after 2000, it became clear that most people went west for economic reasons. Politicians are becoming increasingly active in their rhetoric about re-emigration, but they are not the ones who pay salaries. The state can provide support measures, offer housing, kindergartens, schools, and medicine, boasting that everything is better (or cheaper) for us, but the most essential aspect remains jobs with at least decent remuneration that is compatible with the average EU earnings. To have work and good wages, the business environment in the country is important, as is the speed and efficiency of decision-making related to the needs of entrepreneurs. Of course, tax policy also matters. So far, politicians only encourage entrepreneurs to reduce risks associated with the liquidation of existing jobs as a result of state decisions, rather than creating something new. However, there is a group of citizens in Latvia who were not in a hurry to leave the country either in crises or in the “fat years”. Namely, people who have property, their own corner of land and forest. Landowners are one of the foundations of any country; the first specific story of the initiative group Who cares? will be about one of them.
An individual story of leaving
After many years of long and unsuccessful litigation over the fact that a micro-reserve in the forest “appeared” suddenly and with retroactive effect, land manager Mārcis Sniedziņš from Kurzeme decided to leave Latvia with his family. Why? We are trying to find the answer to this specific question in the new section of Who cares? called “This is how a person lives”, the author of whose idea is the founder of the initiative group, Edgars Kots. He, along with the Chairman of the Land Use Committee of the Latvian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, Māris Liopa, also participated in the discussion.
Micro-reserve – like a bolt from the blue
The story of landowner Mārcis Sniedziņš began 10 years ago – in 2013, when a foreign compatriot who had recovered land through inheritance decided to sell their property, dividing it into agricultural and forestry land. “My company SIA MS Kārkli was ready to purchase the forest, and for a correct valuation, the owner ordered a forest inventory, which was carried out – on 19 April 2013, it was submitted to the local forest district of the State Forest Service (VMD). This document was accepted without any corrections or objections, as well as without any indications of any micro-reserve or protected area,” says M. Sniedziņš. He recalls that, taking into account the work of the forest surveyor, the transaction price with the owner was determined. “Having paid a substantial sum, MS Kārkli acquired the land with the forest and asked for a felling permit to be issued in accordance with the forest management plan. The Kandava division of the VMD Zemgale regional forest district also issued one on 3 June 2013 (with an expiry date of 31 December 2015),” notes M. Sniedziņš. He admits that forestry machinery had to be borrowed from elsewhere, so he had planned to start felling in the second half of June. “Like a bolt from the blue in the middle of summer, on 21 June, came the notice from that same VMD Kandava division about the revocation of the issued felling permit, because a black stork micro-reserve was allegedly registered in the relevant territory on 21 June 2010,” recounts M. Sniedziņš of the past events. He does not hide his surprise, because there is neither a black stork in the forest nor are any remains of its nest to be found. “How is it possible that the VMD accepts a forest inventory plan, issues a felling permit, and then announces that a micro-reserve was designated there three years ago?” M. Sniedziņš is puzzled.
Fought and lost
Mārcis Sniedziņš admits that if he had been informed about the micro-reserve at the beginning, he would not have bought the forest. A letter from the State Land Service shocked him even more, as it showed that the VMD had applied for the micro-reserve (encumbrance) only on 15 December 2013. SIA MS Kārkli was not satisfied with this situation and filed a complaint with the administrative court. “The court decided that the VMD was right, and the statute of limitations for administrative litigation expired – six years, when I started fighting for the recovery of material damages worth several hundred thousand, doing so through civil proceedings, but the further consideration of the case was refused because the person who carried out the forest inventory changed their position – admitted that they had not carried it out, even though the relevant document had been submitted to the VMD, and on top of that, 'one signature in the wrong place' was found, and the court terminated the case,” M. Sniedziņš says about the subsequent events. He admits that in order to cover losses and be able to litigate, he had to sell the capital shares of his company, and the planned family house has also remained unbuilt (unfinished). “Currently, an application has been submitted to the Prosecutor General; there is a request to initiate a criminal case regarding the activities of forest service officials as a group, because a micro-reserve was here, then it was not,” M. Sniedziņš explains the current situation.
People or “green” percentages?
Time will tell whether Mārcis Sniedziņš is a kind of exception, or whether he will be the “first swallow” in the new, third wave of emigration, when they will flee anywhere just to not be in a “green” Latvia. In Māris Liopa's view, restrictions on economic activity on private property will force many to pack their bags. There is an EU requirement that protected areas should cover a third of Latvia. In reality, it is currently only 18%, but 30% is required. There are two possible paths for the future – the first – a reasonable state policy appears in Latvia, based on human needs and rights. The second path – unconditional, literal implementation of EU requirements, without any sense! It is not important whether wild animals and birds are actually found in nature – they must definitely be in the “papers” because “Europe needs it that way”. Moreover, as M. Sniedziņš's story shows, everything can be changed and changed, and changed again to one's heart's content. In this version of the future, many will have to leave; perhaps some Latvians will modernise Kencis' prayer: “(..) I only ask for one thing, that you give the surveyor's master such a mind that he does not record any protected creature on my patch of forest. (..)” The rest is almost the same as in the Kaudzīte brothers' “The Times of the Surveyors”.
This is how a person lives
In a regular series of publications by the initiative group Who cares?, we analyse a wide variety of Latvia's economic data. From these, general conclusions can be drawn about the processes in the country, yet every personal choice remains in the shadow, as if insignificant, but it is precisely these choices that fundamentally determine the course of overall processes. In parallel with the analysis of large figures, we have decided to create a new column, “This is how a person lives”, in which we will seek concrete answers to the questions defined by general statistics.
The first story is about emigration, why a specific person chooses to leave, yet that is not the only concern. Education, healthcare, science and defence, construction and public procurement, law enforcement and police work. If you have life experience, a perspective, and even better – a solution or answer on how to change things, it is time to talk about it! One does not have to wait for the end of the struggle and the realisation that I am alone and it is meant to be. Our common future is our common choice, which cannot be made without a story about today. Namely, first of all, today must be realised in order to live tomorrow differently!
We are interested in and care about the problems revealed by general processes, but to get a story, there must be a person who is ready to speak openly and tell it. We invite you to share your stories, to write to us about your experience via email: kuramtasrup@dienasmediji.lv
Photographs taken during a visit to Mārcis Sniedziņš's property by zemeunvalsts.lv have been used
The video of the discussion can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEkS6x7-LMI
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/aizliedzot-mes-it-ka-rikojamies-bet-realas-politikas-nav-