Towards the end of the year, it happens that many people want to hear what you have to say. The main thing is not to repeat yourself!
I am often asked: what has been good about the current year? Following my innate tendency to be as self-critical as possible, I would rather change that to thinking about what we could have done better. Regarding the forestry sector, I believe its work with the public should be critically evaluated. Due to administrative reasons, many activities (often rushed ones) take place, as we can see, over just a few months at the end of the year. Yet, at the beginning and middle of the year, there was a "noticeable" silence. In my view, the reliance of forestry sector participants on the activities and donations of the joint-stock company "Latvijas valsts meži" alone is far too great. Conversely, in a segment of the public, the understanding and belief system regarding forest and forestry issues is practically dreadful, which, in my opinion, should be considered a major threat to us! Moreover, certain people now frequently build political careers at the expense of disparaging the forest industry! Not through productive and nationally important action, but through nonsensical barking at an industry significant to the national economy and the state. As soon as you start to substantiate your point of view to such a person, they don't like it and... what happens? Your supposedly reasonable opponent changes their behaviour and starts to resemble a wounded piglet – they literally "throw themselves at you". It is pointless, but… it seems they have no other choice, as they have no other arguments.
The example I have described shows that the information backdrop concerning forestry must undoubtedly be consistent and stable throughout the entire year. The "mass" of negative context is enormous, and I see that, little by little, even the highest levels of bureaucracy are starting to look at us with caution. "Colleagues, what are you doing there?" "Why are you harvesting so much?" Forgive me, but "we" harvest approximately 1.3% of forest land area per year, while stands that meet the criteria for final felling in forests where it is permitted occupy more than 1 million hectares, or almost a third, and this area has a tendency to increase.
When the President of Latvia, Egils Levits, visited us at "Silava" this year, we calculated in good time how many trees we have in Latvia: 6,843,977,334 (-/+ 1.42%; uncertainty +/- 97,000,000). The calculation was carried out using National Forest Monitoring data. If 30 million trees are planted in state forests each year, that is, and also seems, like a great many. But the scale of the uncertainty in the tree count alone in Latvia is 3 times larger! In Latvia, 4 times fewer trees are felled in final harvestings than are planted.
At the forest science institute "Silava", alongside traditional forest monitoring, we have been carrying out biodiversity monitoring for the second year. We spent several years (nearly 8) preparing for it beforehand until we could confidently set about this work in accordance with our understanding of genetic, species, and ecosystem (landscape) diversity. The reason for the delay was a certain doubt within the public administration as to whether our data would be accepted in those circles that consider biodiversity in Latvia to be in a state of crisis. But now, monitoring has begun. As part of it, there are many activities, for example, explaining how purposeful forest regeneration affects or does not affect genetic diversity, by comparing it with the offspring of seed plantations in regenerated forests and self-seeded stands. We look at species diversity, involving botanists in forest monitoring descriptions. We have also turned our attention to landscape diversity and in-depth monitoring of various other structures significant to biodiversity. It is too early to judge the results, as in any monitoring process, the first cycle is always static, while dynamics follow later.
I believe that the sector should definitely be more diligent in gathering adequate information about the avifauna. Why? Forest birds are a component of the forest ecosystem! We should definitely be more interested in them! Since the bird index is purposefully included in the National Development Plan, it is interesting to see where and in what way the forest sector will obtain data on forest birds. I think the contribution of forest scientists will be very useful in this regard.
It would be very good if monitoring as a process were strictly defined in the country as the competence of scientific institutions, and not handled at a national level by various interest groups and commercial associations.
"Silava" has a great deal of experience with monitoring various "non-wood" components of forest ecosystems. Brown bear monitoring has been initiated – in the process, colleagues from the forest fauna and hunting division study the genetic material of bears collected at sites where the animals have been active. If this monitoring were under the wing of some aggressive association rather than scientists, we would most likely hear the result that timber harvesting should be banned throughout Northern Vidzeme in the winter because "bears are sleeping, after all, and must not be disturbed!" Why? Various excuses can be found, for example, "There should be more bears in Latvia, because the Estonians have more of them." Scientifically based studies do not generate such ideas – the bears are there, they live among us, and their numbers are increasing… Monitoring will have a result; we will know what is happening with the bears in Latvia, how many we have, etc.
It is necessary to look at every species broadly – not just in some parish, district, or hunting ground, but at least in the country as a whole. I would be happy to see some scientific data on the status and trends of forest bird populations that prove why forestry should be banned for a quarter of the year in Latvia.
Recently, in an interview, I was asked about the impact of Covid-19 on the forest. I replied that a sufficiently large part of the public is now heading into the forest more often because there are not many opportunities to go elsewhere. I hope that, for this reason, more and more people will begin to understand what is happening in the forest – a felling site is not the end of the world, but the start of something new.