The Forest Certification Council of Latvia's position on professional forest management
If it were possible to turn into something tangible (police officers' and firefighters' wages, the upkeep of schools, railway track, road repairs, say) the greater part of the objections to business development that we have heard over the past 10-15 years, there would be far fewer sighs while the state budget was being drawn up, and people in Latvia would hear the phrase “there is no money” far less often.
One of the more unpleasant realities of recent years in Latvia is the awareness that there is not enough money for a great many things that are badly needed. The shortage of funding is talked about often enough and, strange as it may seem, those who previously did all they could to leave the state and its people with less money take an active part in those conversations too, and want funding themselves. “There isn't enough money for everything” has, sadly, become a cornerstone of short-sightedness and a lack of knowledge which, incidentally, runs counter to the state's official policy.
Such thoughts come to mind as one looks once again at the question raised this week by people who are interested but cannot quite be called competent, concerning the forest management principles of the joint-stock company “Latvijas valsts meži”. This time the subject is Zemgale and the Pokaiņi forest. In the by now familiar style, representatives of the public media have turned their attention to colleagues in the sector, setting professionals and scientists, who base what they say on facts and reality, against activists in their report — activists who can say whatever they like and whatever comes into their heads. Let us add that a passionate activist and a pragmatic scientist will often look strikingly different on a TV screen, and the viewer will hardly always give preference to the reasoned explanation... Activists on social media have also rounded on Professor Juris Urtāns, a respected researcher of hillforts, because the professor did not say what they wanted him to say — and, more than that, the professor is being told what he ought to do...
It will probably come as a surprise to few in the forestry sector that a willing ear for all manner of nonsense and foolishness about the sector and its professionals can always be found at one of the public media outlets. That is not state policy — is it really what the public is demanding?
In this connection we might also recall the old joke about the man who, for a good fee, offers to disrupt the work of any state institution.
As “Latvijas valsts meži” explains in an official press statement: “...the publicly voiced claims that the forest management work carried out by LVM in the Pokaiņi forest may have been unlawful or may have destroyed cultural and historical monuments are not true. All the work was carried out in accordance with the legislation, having first obtained permission from the State Forest Service. Nor are there any places in this area that have been given the status of a state-protected monument, which would recognise the site as sacred and impose additional restrictions on the management of the area.”
What is more, let us not forget that Latvia has a Forest Law, and the requirements and conditions it sets out are strict enough (even too strict).
On behalf of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia (LMSP)
Māris Liopa, Chairman of LMSP