An interview with Madars Kalniņš, a forest owner in Northern Vidzeme

The further you are from major centres where real life happens, the better! Is that the right way to put it?

Life away from Riga is undoubtedly more natural! It is less influenced by world events because everything is simpler – closer to the land, nature, and the person. There is not much that is superfluous or expendable. Global storms and events have less impact on people.

The people of Rūjiena were quite visible elsewhere in Latvia during the regional reform. A video created to defend the municipality was circulating online.

For forest owners, the regional reform does not actually provide anything. For me personally, it will be simpler, as I will receive tax calculations from one municipality and pay to one municipality. The only thing I notice and feel is that this reform will push power and government structures even further away from people, and it seems that rural areas will become even more sparse, as people will want to live closer to the regional centre. No reform has really given much of anything to the fringes. One has to reckon with that!

Is a drift towards Valmiera already expected in the current Rūjiena municipality? There are no big, visible problems with business and jobs…

Business is one thing. I wouldn't say I'm very worried about the changes in the municipality because I see them as a reality. The future of any settlement outside or further from the centre (the regional centre) depends on how many young families remain there. Any centralisation or optimisation consistently leads to another optimisation or merger, such as schools or kindergartens, which makes locals think and deliberate – where to live now? Is it good enough here, where I live now? Is it profitable for me? This is a situation that must be reckoned with.

The strong Vidzeme region, which has been praised a lot and even envied…

It has formed historically. Rūjiena was also a district centre at one time. But, looking even further back: the Latvian army was founded near Rūjiena, and the houses purchased during the first land reform in 1819 were also located in the Rūjiena area. The people who started it all passed on their strength and traditions. Any place and its development are determined by the people who live in that particular place. The more capable and active the people are, the more pronouncedly everything will happen!

Forests. Latvia and Estonia

I am more involved with Estonia in terms of timber trade, but… I don't know if I can be objective, as the Estonian border is 10 km from my home. The possibilities for selling timber are determined by distance.

What I know about Estonia (I can't say I know a great deal): our neighbours have a simpler process for obtaining logging permits, their plot plans and maps are publicly available, the tax regime is worse (higher taxes), and timber prices are less volatile compared to ours, which I can explain by a certain influence from Finland (many joint ventures with the Finns operate in Estonia). In our country, if prices rise sharply, they fall just as sharply; in Estonia, this is undoubtedly less pronounced. Cooperation with the Estonians has always been correct; one never has to worry about unfair or sloppy treatment.

I would say that for me in the border area, it is advantageous to look, evaluate, and operate in both the Latvian and Estonian markets.

Rumour has it that so-called "environmental organisations" in Estonia are fiercer

I won't be very competent to speak on that, but I know that some time ago the Estonians managed to change the tree cutting diameters (in Latvia, they are officially sitting in a drawer somewhere). As far as I know, in both the neighbouring country and Finland, quite a few people are facing the same problems we are – more and more people want to live in the city and "protect nature"; they want to sit in a wooden chair and at the same time don't want a tree to be cut down to make such a chair. People are gradually losing their understanding of what is happening; they are being detached from reality. However, I don't see a big problem there, as it seems it has always been this way.

The problem is a situation where certain individuals want to nationalise or take away this property at someone else's expense, without taking the resource owner into account, and without agreeing or communicating with them. Here we arrive at a paradoxical situation where it is more profitable for the owner of the natural values located on their property not to show or hide them, and sometimes even to destroy them. Why? So that someone else doesn't take this property away from them and lets them work there! In Latvia, unfortunately, a situation has not been created that would allow the owner to work in peace, be nature-friendly, and be happy because they have a natural value in some corner of a pine forest or wooded meadow to be proud of. That would be right, but it is not the case!

If society wants a natural value or a specific place (a habitat) to remain untouched, it is necessary to agree: "Say, this is important to us, and we will compensate the owner, instead of just punishing them!" The biggest fear or a wish for a bad neighbour in our area is: "May an eagle land on your property!" Is this a wish that activists consider correct?

There are also restrictions in my forests. When I bought the property, I could manage it; now the forest has grown and I am completely restricted from acting. This might be a different case, as the restriction is partially compensated for me (of course, the question is: how adequate one considers the compensation – 120 euros per hectare – for a mature pine forest). I have the Dzērves marsh reserve on my properties, which is strange because the neighbouring property does not have such a restriction (the marsh is located on several properties). I'm not complaining, let it be! However, no one is interested in whether this is fair to me, the forest owner.

The general situation in Latvia makes me think: if the future attitude of those who make decisions does not change, what should the owner do? Should I only grow trees in straight rows, or leave old, large trees on the property as I would like? Do I want to risk this or not? Economic and productive forests must undoubtedly be separated from protected forests. If there is no absolute certainty that economic forests will never turn into protected ones, then... property is a risky business.

Managing up to a restriction and then… How is that?

City dwellers go to the forests to pick mushrooms or take a walk and usually choose to do so in managed forests. If a forest is unmanaged, it will be judged poorly: "Look, they don't care!" Private forests in Latvia are mostly managed; we have virtually no untouched forests. Natural values have also arisen or established themselves as a result of the professional activity of the forest owner (manager).

If a person stops managing a territory, a natural value can disappear, because after some time the conditions will change. It doesn't matter what we are talking about, but a natural value has had certain conditions which, undoubtedly, a restriction will change or take away. Whether it was a certain light regime or something else, it is also as a result of that that the natural value has arisen and been preserved!

At the moment, one person only wants to take, and the other wants to manage and preserve. Discussions are often aggressive; they lack the desire to cooperate and understand. Until an agreement (in any form) is reached regarding the amount of compensation and the budget required for it, the situation will not change. Of course, in words, no one objects that the owner of the land or forest should be compensated for restrictions, but... The decision and compensations must be realistic – corresponding to the situation in the forest.

Speaking of new European Union initiatives, I can agree that there must be certain areas of protected forests, natural forests, and reserves in the country, which is understandable. I will not comment on the percentage volume of protected areas, but one cannot allow, for example, such a situation: they design and build a road in state forests and... suddenly create a restriction at the end of the road. Unnecessary work, unnecessary expenses, lost income.

In Latvia, there must be understanding and consistency so that the number of restrictions and the amount of untouched areas do not increase. For example, it happens that a bird has not lived in an existing micro-reserve for years, the forest has changed, and perhaps no one will want to live there anymore...

Well-kept properties rarely come onto the market: how is it in the border area?

The border area is not an indicator of the well-kept state of the areas. Of course, the distance of the property to populated areas, access to the property, etc., matters. A well-kept property means the owner has an interest. Such properties will be sold relatively less often. It happens that properties are sold when generations change: inheriting a forest in the Krāslava area and living in Riga makes managing it quite difficult.

The border area and animals

We have significantly more forest animals than we used to, which has several reasons: hunting, counting, and the fact that their living space has become wider over time. At one time, there were many inhabited houses in the countryside, there were dogs in the houses, and there was activity and movement. Now that has decreased; many houses and populated places are empty or half-empty. The areas have become more open (more accessible), the animals have a good food base, suitable weather conditions, and the volume of forest areas has increased.

One must gradually get used to bears, especially in Northern Vidzeme! For us, a bear is already something like a moose or a deer. Foresters have also encountered a bear in my forests, and one can notice bear tracks in the ditches dug in the forests. I think that in every border parish, a bear has visited or is already living there in the last year. How many, I won't say. But there are plenty! Lynx have lived in our region at all times. It must be taken into account that the forest massifs in the border area are large and dense: from Mazsalaca to the sea, there is a continuous forest without roads.

What is hindering the sector, what could and should one definitely do without?

One can do without a lot of things! I would like legislative changes to be adopted according to their substance and necessity. There is more than one case: we take a group of deputies on an excursion to the forest, we explain, show, and tell them; they understand, there are no questions.

Time passes. A legislative initiative lands in offices in Riga. And that which they understood during the aforementioned trip, which they talked about, is no longer the same: "Pressure from one side, pressure from the other, a nudge from a third party." One cannot vote, another, for other reasons, does not want to, and in the end, nothing can be changed because… matters are not decided based on their substance.

Elections of various levels take place in Latvia every now and then. Before the elections, it seems nothing can be decided, then there are personal interests, and in the end, an entrepreneur cannot plan, build, and develop. Also, management issues in modern laws cannot be 200 years old. Many things in the forest happen more intensively… If I am made to grow timber that no one needs, I doubt it is reasonable and stimulating for the national economy. If we are talking about contemporary (modern) policy, it cannot be shaped by being guided by colours, the wind, or a fear of voters.
Photographs by Aiga Grasmane and zemeunvalsts.lv used