In the context of the elections, an unexpectedly old-fashioned feeling is palpable in the actions of new parties and new people. Back in the days of the Popular Front of Latvia, when Latvia was experiencing its first competitive elections in a long time, some candidates were accused of being overly fond of criticising their opponents, forgetting their own capabilities and planned work. This summer, that 90s style has returned and unexpectedly blossomed in unprecedented splendour. Are uncritical tendencies towards confrontation characteristic only of politics, and what do we really think about the Latvian national economy in this regard?
Pauls Rēvelis (PR): How do you view the dichotomy frequently used in the media and on social networks in recent years – forest owner, forester, forestry sector representative – versus nature guardian (friend) or environmental activist? For example, a forest owner wants to do something, but abstract 'friends of nature' object. Year after year, listeners or readers are being deliberately conditioned to believe that those who work in the forest, in the fields, or in the marshes are at odds with nature, whereas somewhere out there in the ether exist “true friends of nature” (who often only leave the city centre once a week).
Māris Liopa (ML): This style and mode of expression is flawed and deeply wrong at its core, yet it accurately illustrates the trends that, unfortunately, appear more and more often in various reports, messages, and publications. The deliberate and habitual use of specific phrases, claims, or statements already happens “automatically,” without thinking about what they mean or what they might imply. Whether this is accidental, intentional, or a combination of both is not entirely clear, but there is a distinct desire to choose a wide variety of topics (not just about forestry or agriculture) and reasons (and opportunities) to set societal groups against each other. If we read or listen – cyclists against motorists, rural dwellers against city dwellers, teachers against pupils, medics against patients, politicians against everyone else, etc. The situation is becoming increasingly unpleasant because Latvian society, remembering the recent past – Covid-19, or looking at our immediate surroundings – the war in Ukraine, is already quite anxious and weary of arguments, as well as sufficiently divided over a wide variety of opinions and positions (to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, Ukraine or Russia, expensive or cheap, walking or driving, managing or idling, talking or doing, deciding or consulting endlessly, etc.). Of course, the proximity of the elections adds its share to these arguments, which, hopefully, will bring a certain respite after 1 October. The arguments over who is better will end, making way for discussions about the best composition of the government.
Is there a logical justification for pitting foresters or forest owners against an “abstract” friend of nature who has nothing to do with the forest or the property? I have always objected to sugar-coated or beautifully sounding names or titles, but what exactly is a “friend of nature”? What does it mean? Is it a person's conviction, does this person just really like being called that, or... For example, I am certainly a friend of nature; my property contains a certain area that I call a “habitat” that no one touches.
Regardless of how much someone might want to object, a self-respecting forest owner and harvester is one of the truest friends of nature, sensibly managing and utilising the resources we have available in Latvia – our forests. The forests help our country and help us to live.
Speaking of “environmental activists,” one must remember the old story about “experts,” a role that can be adopted by anyone who expresses an opinion that is acceptable to the questioner or desirable and pleasing to a certain part of society. We can evaluate the State President in many different ways, but the explanation he once gave regarding the use of the word “expert” still seems the most appropriate to me: “An expert in their field is a person who has achieved something and can demonstrate it, is known and recognised in their field, and is acknowledged by other representatives of this sector as a recognised authority. Three things! If this person (the expert) says something, we can rely on what they say; we do not have to verify what has been said.”
As I mentioned, it is not clear who exactly “environmental activists” are. I suspect this term is also used for people who desire an acute decline in Latvia's national economy, the poverty of Latvia's residents, thickets, candles or wood splints instead of electricity, and business – “always and forever only in the neighbouring parish” (if it can’t be avoided), but ideally – in a neighbouring country. These people have either never had contact with business or responsibility for employees, or it was a very long time ago, and they have not the slightest idea where and how the state earns its money. In Latvia's current economic situation, is it smart, far-sighted, and statesmanlike to praise such people so conspicuously often? Certainly not!
P.R.: If you are socially active in a certain field (civil, environmental, various rights), knowledge is not always required. Of course, it is the 21st century with social networks, but before listening to someone, it is very rare for the speaker's knowledge or understanding of the relevant field to be evaluated. We hear or read what is said, we agree or object, but often it remains unclear how knowledgeable and competent the speaker is and whether they understand what they are talking about, or are simply repeating learned phrases.
M.L.: Of course, knowledge is always important. We have already experienced the “era of headlines,” which “flowed smoothly” into the age of short messages, and now we have arrived at “clip-style” thinking.
Speaking of the forestry sector, it only takes someone to deliberately throw a hopeful clip onto the web (social networks): “Everything is bad, they are cutting everything down!”, and enough people will “get hooked” on it.
I still do not understand how no responsible institution has noticed the fact that a “tropical forest situation” is being deliberately and intentionally sought out and slowly introduced into the consciousness of the people in Latvia.
What do I mean by that? In the tropical region, large (even huge) areas of forest are being irreversibly cut down, with plantations for agricultural purposes or something else being established in their place. In Latvia, after harvesting, the forest regenerates or is replanted. Activists and industry “critics” deliberately pretend not to notice this and do not mention it. In this regard, I fully agree with what Artūrs Bukonts said*: “We explain and we do, but we have quite large problems getting heard and, what is most unpleasant, specifically in public media. If there is anyone, it is the public media whose agreement with and sinking into the ‘everything is bad’ rhetoric I cannot forgive. Public media should analyse, look, and inform quite clearly and dryly. It was (and is) specifically Latvian Radio, Latvian Television, and the portal lsm.lv that most emphasised not the fact that the felling diameter had been reduced, but spoke in headlines that ‘they will cut down younger forests’. That is unforgivable!”
It should be noted that not so long ago, in connection with the media, there was talk of both increasing funding and its occasional shortage; at the same time, strange as it may be, it is precisely the public media that are deliberately and purposefully acting so that there is less money in the state budget.
By saying this, neither I nor my industry colleagues want to say that everything in the sector and the Latvian national economy is praiseworthy or “honey-coated.” But the fact that when talking about forests, fields, or marshes, the public media are only interested in one side's opinion, and, for the most part, only the bad, is obvious.
Strengthening the national economy also means the well-being of Latvia's inhabitants, which, it seems, is a secondary issue for activists. Benefit is also gained today from a resource that regenerates, and precisely today, because it will be even more necessary in the coming winter. Currently (also in the context of the elections), Latvia's public space is full of tendentious nonsense... For example, the consistently used three-word phrase “felling of younger forests.” Forests are cut down where land use is planned to be changed, for example, the forest will be cut for RailBaltica or it has already been cut for the needs of the Ķekava bypass. Forestry in Latvia is sustainable, internationally certified, and forests are renewed by planting or by regenerating naturally. Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, Latvian society has been purposefully and deliberately “fed” nonsense through the media for quite some time. I will not hesitate to compare the situation to how the Russian propaganda machine has worked for many years (drop by drop) in connection with Ukraine.
P.R.: How to change this? The public media has always emphasised its independence; every even the smallest error in communication with public media representatives is perceived very sharply, without even delving into the essence of the problem.
M.L.: One can emphasise many things, but the Latvian public media does not look or sound independent. If we talk about the forestry, agriculture, and peat sectors, the public media should independently see the interests behind the disparagement of these sectors. People work, manage resources, and provide benefits to the state, which, by the way, very much needs the income. In terms of the state budget and spending, we quite often hear complaints about how far ahead the neighbouring countries have “gone” in one issue or another, while we ourselves generate restrictions, bans, and complicate everything as much as possible.
The root of Latvia's national economy and state development problems can be found right here – in Latvian offices and corridors, not abroad. For example, the issue of tree felling diameters that was topical this summer has long been solved in our neighbouring countries. As is well known, Estonian forests are still green, with owners feeling freer. In Latvia, someone has decided to build something like a state-reserve and turn Latvian citizens into sightseeing objects for wealthy foreigners. How to evaluate this? On one hand, it is an absolute disregard for the common good of society, for a large part of society that works and earns. If someone says that Latvia lacks nature protection areas, they are a shameless liar. We are a very green country, however much someone may dislike it. If a person in Latvia feels not too “green,” let them go (by bicycle, to be “green”) and look at the greenery in those countries from where various strange environmental initiatives come and where the urban public is used to “heading out into the green.”
Part of Latvian society, including media workers, is unable to distinguish reality from artificiality, or from affectation, or “compulsory correctness.” If they cannot do that and if it is not happening, I, for example, have reasonable suspicions that it is not ignorance but deliberate sabotage. I have experienced more than one unpleasant situation – I am called or written to, asking for an explanation, it is received, it looks like the person has understood, but... a few hours pass and the recipient of the explanation is confidently spouting complete nonsense. Here I see direct and clear parallels with the geopolitical situation. To the east of us is a large country where it is impossible to explain very much to its many millions of inhabitants. It is something almost coded and unchangeable.
P.R.: Step by step, drop by drop, word by word, story by story. If something is diligently and ceaselessly proclaimed every day, it is no wonder that over time, part of society accepts what is explained, however correct it may be, as a fact. Surveys show that trust in the media is not quite what it was in the late 80s, yet it is clear that in connection with certain news or certain content, the authenticity of the message is not questioned.
M.L.: I can only agree. One thing, though – the sectors must take responsibility for this, because it has been said many times that “one shouldn't pour oil on the fire, one shouldn't argue, one shouldn't be so harsh.” If you do not respond to lies and nonsense sharply and loudly enough, someone might get the impression that there really is “something wrong,” “they wouldn't talk without a reason,” etc. The criticism or outright disparagement of the forestry sector and other sectors is accepted as everyday. This shows the success of the “drippers.”
It is hard to say how far the supporters of “everything is bad” want to go and what they want to achieve. The most extreme “activist” representatives believe that, for example, property rights to land or forest should not be allowed at all (this would be the radical communist wing of activists), others are simply ignorant – they work elsewhere, are not oriented in the issues, and do not understand how anything should be sawed, mowed, or dug. Of course, it is again a question of these people's knowledge and education, in which the media have also played a hand in a bad sense. The leitmotif is well felt.
P.R.: As is well known, the main speakers on forests and fields in public media are those who are not connected to these things in practice, namely, “activists.”
M.L.: A “friend of nature” will certainly find a connection to the forest, because “I have been in a forest once,” or an ornithologist has a biology education, etc. By that logic, a postman is also connected to the forestry sector, because wood is used in the manufacturing of newspapers and envelopes, or the postman’s route in their daily work leads through the forest. Lo and behold, we already have some experts!
P.R.: The European Green Deal is looked at in many different discussions from its “most beautiful” side. Entrepreneurs, in turn, are worried that the good, ear-pleasing idea is step by step being overgrown with piles of documents and requirements, under which nothing green will survive...
M.L.: The leitmotif and message of the Green Deal is very clear, correct, and well-intentioned. As we know, there are problems with biological diversity, the cleanliness of rivers and lakes, waste, etc., in more than one country, region, or place. I definitely want to divide this issue – a good message and the right direction is one thing, but – quite a few people have seen an opportunity in the Green Deal to make good money, moreover, to earn at others' expense, without doing anything and without producing, for example, “games” with CO2 sequestration, supported sectors, taxonomy, etc. The well-intentioned process is overgrown with quite complex structures that we can show and explain only in specific presentations. If everything starts with leitmotifs and ideas, later it transforms into guidelines and directives, or regulations, which are already mandatory. If once, upon hearing about the Green Deal, we rejoiced that everything would be fine in Latvia because there is no polluting industry, plenty of forests, etc., currently it already looks like a problem, because the “actual greenness” imposes much more obligations and burdens. Scientists from the Forest Science Institute “Silava” have told us more than once about the differing calculation systems in Finland, Sweden, and here; furthermore, a major problem is our own first reference prepared in 2004, or the so-called reference figures, which put Latvia in a very disadvantageous situation. This is bureaucratic mathematics, which has little to do with greenness. The situation is quite complex; on such an error-prone road paved with incompetence, we could turn from a CO2 “absorbing” country into a CO2 emitter.
P.R.: Incorrect information and calculations are a topic that Latvian scientists have been worried about for quite a long time.
M.L.: Both the calculations and the methodology have been flawed. For example, finally (!!!!) mapping of Latvia's soils is taking place; currently available data show that there are not as many organic soils (which emit CO2) in Latvia as previously thought (I will emphasise – thought, not known!). The view of the real situation is already different, but – how to change it. I will say again – it is “assumed” that those figures (which are not correct) that were submitted to EU structures at the time are correct. It is easy to submit something perfunctorily prepared, flawed, and inaccurate, but very difficult to change it. This is one and, unfortunately, a very bad example. A similar situation was with the marshes.
P.R.: The Cabinet of Ministers decision** of 21 June, which the “activists” objected to just as loudly and incompetently, is called secret and unknown to anyone. That is not true, because its adoption was dragged out for 5 years (if not longer), and an interview with Krišjānis Kariņš is certainly to be found on the web, in which he mentions that the draft decision was in his drawer. An unpleasant decision is not a secret decision.
M.L.: The decision was “dragged out” for at least five years! One can understand the Prime Minister's actions in the relevant situation, because the hype and confrontation were constantly and tendentiously maintained. Activists have now latched onto a reason – the war and the solution to the consequences it caused. That is quite dishonest. By the way, we still haven't heard a clear position from some “activists” on the issue of Russian aggression. The situation is black and white – there is an aggressor; either you condemn it or you support it. If forestry organisations addressed European colleagues and structures in the very first days, there were environmental organisations that remained silent...
We are accused of having used the war to adopt these “terrible” Regulations. It is only normal if a person can use their own property and their own resource, which is growing. Forests that are harvested are renewed; moreover, the Latvian Forest Law is very strict, as is the control. A forest owner can decide very little, which is fundamentally not right! Property rights in Latvia are regularly ignored or violated, which, for example, could not be possible in Finland. The situation is very bad and unacceptable. Furthermore, we often mention Finland as a good example, say, in education, completely forgetting how forest owners feel and work in that country.
Speaking of “forest harvesting” – this phrase is killing, mendacious, and used with one thought – to sound more impressive and worse. The most disgusting thing is that this thought is regurgitated and regurgitated because it is simpler, one doesn't have to engage one's brain, and “it's just accepted.” The impression is deliberately created that something is constantly being destroyed. Who will stand up for forest destruction?
P.R.: Before the protest action at the Cabinet of Ministers, the playwright Jānis Balodis made a mistake, apparently confusing a mallard with a hazel grouse, or spoke without knowing. Afterwards, I noticed a very peculiar attitude on social networks – namely – that it is not good to laugh about this mistake, one should not quote it, etc. A similar attitude is observed in cases when socially active people speak about the “felling of all Latvian forests or trees.” Furthermore, a public media representative dedicated a broadcast to the issue of forestry professionals' attitude towards nonsense, in it actually indicating that “forestry people must not dislike false information dedicated to the sector.” It is clear that activism, however foolish and mistaken, and with severe consequences, etc., is to be supported, and ironising about activist mistakes is not desirable. One may say anything about the forestry sector and farmers, including blatant lies – it is even commendable. Furthermore, the loudly sounded text about hazel grouse nesting in trees was not corrected by ornithologists, nature fund people, or others, other than by those not always smart, but always ready-to-shriek folk.
M.L.: It is a strangeness that makes one think and analyse – where in a person “the scientist begins and the activist ends” or vice-versa. Speaking of education and knowledge, it is clear that the problems are long-standing, and you have no idea whether and what knowledge your children or relatives are gaining in school or university. Education has and will have a decisive role. In our country, unfortunately, it is under the yoke of continuous reforms, bureaucratisation, and experiments. Latvian children and young people deserve an even better education system than it is, for example, in the much-mentioned and praised Finland.
P.R.: As is well known, in Finland, nature protection is based on an agreement between the state and the owner. The Finns have also settled the issue of compensation. Compensation is the right solution, but – where to get it. In Latvia, compensation is slowly turning into an everyday occurrence – during Covid-19, support was needed, war – support is needed, etc. At the state level, there is a visible problem that no activist is interested in,– if money is very, very necessary – who and how will earn it? Especially if we hear such a distinct desire to expand protected areas and expand them further. Are there enough earners in Latvia for the budget, for compensation, and for everything that stands idle***?
M.L.: The volume of protected areas cannot be grown limitlessly. I have always stood for the principle of communicating vessels, and in this regard, more than one environmental scientist (not an “activist,” but a scientist) agrees with me – namely – nature is changeable, and biological diversity and the situation also change. We have many areas where bans and protection are necessary, but there are areas where it is no longer necessary. It would be normal – here we impose, there we remove (a ban, the status of protected area, etc.). By unreasonably increasing protected areas, the load on commercial forests increases. One should finally get clear – what we have and what needs to be protected. Habitat mapping has concluded, four scenarios are still in effect, which have no socio-economic assessment. Habitats of European Union significance have been determined at 331,000 ha – how much do we need, what is happening, and who will compensate for all this, there are no answers. One should not forget about the crooked EU ideas about 10% and 30% protected areas. How will this affect Latvia's economy, what will our socio-economic benefit be? What is happening? We in Latvia cannot joke with this.
P.R.: Only this year have industry colleagues started to speak much louder about the representation of the sector in Latvian public media. The situation a little bit reminds one of the end of February and the beginning of March, as well as the following events this summer – for example – in Latvia existed and continues to exist many-known, for years unresolved problems with the flow of information and information in the Latvian language. One gets the impression that for us, serious actions, including thinking, begin if the initiative comes from the outside.
M.L.: As industry colleagues have mentioned, in Latvian public media for quite some time, a specific opinion has been heard, which drop by drop (similar to Russia regarding Ukraine, NATO, etc.) tells Latvian society how bad the forestry sector is, how “they cut down the forest near my summer house,” in what large volumes farmers use pesticides, etc. Such claims are gladly played along with by people known in society who, being in friendly relations with the relevant activists or listening to their teachers, worry and repeat what others have said, without delving into it themselves. At the same time, as I already mentioned, looking, for example, at what Saeima deputy candidates have expressed, there is much talk about supporting various initiatives, implementing them, etc. Where money will be taken to support all this is practically not talked about or it is done quietly... I will emphasise, no one from the forest or agriculture sector wants to hear syrupy stories and messages about themselves, but to insult people who provide work, earn money for everyone, and grow food for us, at a primitive level, is treacherous. If we are worried about those supporters of the aggressor state who crawled out of the trenches after 24 February, we have many friends of Ukraine living in Latvia who truly and from the heart support the struggle of the friendly country against the occupiers, but at the same time are ready to finish off the Latvian national economy. That is unacceptable!
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/problema-nav-nepieciesamiba-aizsargat-bet-paterina-intervija-ar-arturu-bukontu-latvijas-neatkarigo-mezizstradataju-asociacijas-un-latvijas-kokapstrades-uznemeju-un-eksportetaju-asociacijas-izpilddirektoru
** Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers 2012. year 18. December regulations No. 935 “Regulations on tree felling in the forest”
*** This issue is excellently explained in an interview by Andris Bite, President of the LDDK.
https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/nopietna-problema-ir-nacionala-kapitala-vaja-un-bezatbildiga-parvaldiba-saruna-ar-andri-biti-zivju-parstrades-uznemuma-karavela-lidzipasnieku-latvijas-darba-deveju-konfederacijas-prezidentu