What happens when people who know, talk about, plan, and evaluate the bioeconomy meet? Without a doubt, they look at and discuss things far more broadly than the usual few words exchanged on social media. Unfortunately, in everyday communication or the media, many questions that require deep study are touched upon superficially and in passing. For example, which trees should be grown—deciduous or conifers? How should trees be felled or harvested—one by one or many at once? Should all the bird nests in a forest be counted, or only some? What should be done with the nests? To whom should the wood be sold—our own or “not quite”? Whether to earn a lot this year and nothing next year, or to “keep our heads above water” for the next fifteen years? These are all business questions where we hear a lot of opinions.
I think it is necessary to look at all of the above from an existential point of view, because when so-called “big” issues arise, the “small” ones fade into the background. One could compare this to daily life—petty domestic squabbles or arguments are a normal occurrence, but encounters often happen... at funerals, where no such trifles matter anymore.
This year, a/s “Latvijas valsts meži” had a great opportunity to look at our work from the perspective of a sustainability report (we published our sustainability report this year). When you look at the indicators that point to sustainability, I would definitely call them existential: they speak of fair business. Business must not undermine human or environmental health, and it must be clearly understandable (to both entrepreneurs and those around them). In a state-owned enterprise, all this should be linked to even greater public involvement and the right to be well-informed. Business must contribute to prosperity—which, in turn, ensures both environmental and human health, provides a springboard for other sectors, and creates a firm foundation for the national economy. In my opinion, as a small and open economy, we in Latvia are in a very advantageous position. Why? In a small economy, it is relatively easy to calculate what each person contributes and also what each person takes away.
The sustainability report helped us strengthen our belief in the company’s strategy, as well as to refine and update it. Key words and concepts: we are careful, stable, and predictable stewards. These are things that alleviate poverty and hunger, as evaluated globally. Talking about hunger in Latvia would be blasphemous: I have grown up and heard stories from people who have experienced hunger themselves. In my generation's understanding, we have not experienced hunger, and I hope it stays that way. Housing, work, hunger, and poverty are issues that must be considered by many people living on Earth. Another question is: what is the environment in which we live and build prosperity, how do we influence it, how do we evaluate it, how are we capable of influencing the things we can, and how do we refrain from trying to influence those we cannot. This would be the big framework within which many issues should be viewed. Added to this is climate change and the carbon cycle, where forestry holds significant positions. Speaking of stability and predictability, the scale of land cultivation and production that “Latvijas valsts meži” carries out, proves we carry out, and plans to carry out, includes planting forests, harvesting forests, maintaining forests, and protecting forests. By supplying timber for further processing, tens of thousands of people who work in processing companies and provide services to “Latvijas valsts meži” are linked to our work.
“Stability and predictability while carefully managing a quarter of Latvia's land” is the “Latvijas valsts meži” strategy expressed in a few words. From there, we can talk about and mention all the small details, as I said at the beginning of the conversation.
There are many definitions of sustainability. In my opinion, prohibitions are at the complete opposite end to sustainability—if we look at the zero point—sustainability is to the right, and prohibitions are on the opposite side to the left. These are two completely opposite, even incompatible things. One of the definitions of sustainability “speaks” about not imposing burdens on future generations or not unnecessarily burdening the next generation in advance. This understanding is included in the “Latvijas valsts meži” strategy. For example, we plan more than 100 years ahead, ensuring that the proportions of tree species in the forests we manage will not change. We cannot say what wood processors will demand even 50 years from now, and we do not know what the climatic conditions will be for the company to earn the maximum profit. But we do not plant cherries or Douglas firs in place of our pines, spruces, and birches.
Regarding sustainability, wisdom is becoming increasingly relevant in society. Realistically, politics influences human life more or less, whether it is local or international. For example, in America, power deeply divided society because its promises were not based on knowledge. That is bad. One can look at smaller and more specific things in the same way, where decisions affect the ability of future generations to make their own choices. It is very important that decisions are based on carefully obtained, verified knowledge, not on emotions or the desire of certain social groups to hear and expect specific things. The “honey flows past the ears,” and everything seems fine for a short moment. Knowledge does not always provide grounds to say what someone (perhaps even we ourselves) would like to hear. This is a question of choosing the easy path or the difficult one: if you talk about difficult issues based on knowledge, it is more complicated to speak and explain compared to another speaker who is on the “crest of the wave” and just talks and talks.
We know the saying about prophets and the attitude toward them. I think that beauty and wisdom sometimes try to protect themselves from places where “political sausage” is being made, the contents of which we are not supposed to know. It is easy to scramble up a glass mountain or hide in the Strenči forest and assume: politics and its processes do not apply to me. That is certainly not the case!
Forestry is the big issue I mentioned; the management of half of Latvia's forests is a big issue. Decision-making is always an invitation to a conversation. If there is a conversation, there will be wisdom and knowledge. In the course of the conversation, we will surely arrive at some unknown question, when it will be necessary to judge whether the knowledge already exists or whether it should still be acquired or sought. Furthermore, conversation leads to alignment, to considered and sustainable decisions. There is an alternative to a short-term position of power: a conversation guided by reason. In forestry, I see three areas where conversation must take place: land management, environmental and development issues, and the economy. If these three areas talked to each other more and did so in a structured way, more resources could be devoted to creating value instead of fighting one another.