Your property is located relatively close to the county centre – Dobele, and in our conversations, you have mentioned that the path to acquiring it was not straightforward.

Latvia is in a peculiar situation – if you want to buy an apartment in the city and you need to borrow, say, 100,000 euros – please – no problem! Expect a 5% down payment and everything goes ahead. As soon as you decide to buy a property in the countryside – two out of four banks will immediately refuse, because a property more than 5 km outside the city is not 'interesting' to them. That was the case two years ago. What is going on? If you are a young person without large savings but you want to receive support or a loan from a bank and you want to live in a rural parish, you might not have any options.

Why is that? Is city property considered more valuable than rural property, especially in a situation where the counties are lacking people?

Real estate located in a city is easier to sell. If something happens to the borrower, the bank undoubtedly has greater and better opportunities to sell the property located in the city. There is, after all, a possibility that at some point the borrower may become insolvent. The bank does not need this property, it does not have to maintain it; in a city, everything is simpler because there is demand.

C19 certainly changed this situation, as we saw that within at least a 100 km radius of Riga, 'virtually everything' was bought or rented. People invested resources, moved out of apartments, and many no longer want to return to the capital.

That is noticeable if we look at the population changes in cities, especially Riga, in recent years or walk around the capital's centre.

I think my aforementioned 100 km around Riga is a reasonably accurate calculation; the most important thing is that the daily distance is 'commutable'. Before the C19 restrictions, I used to go to the capital three or four days a week; this situation and the daily commuting seemed normal enough to me. Now I have become accustomed to working here on-site, which is possible, and now, so to speak, I sort and evaluate which meetings are strategically important and require my presence, and which are weekly problem-solving issues that can be attended remotely.

It is good in every respect – time, money and petrol are saved... To a certain extent, it is green...

Exactly, because I have a computer, and it is a great opportunity to spend time closer to family, loved ones and home.

You can invest more time in the property...

Yes, but if you think that in the breaks between work I can go out and mow the grass or dig a flower bed or rake leaves, that is not exactly how it is. During intensive work periods, such breaks become shorter and shorter, and sometimes you see – the grass is growing outside the window and you finally have to find the time to mow it, or the leaves are turning red and you have to grab a rake where needed. You are closer to your housework, but you do not always get to do it.

Returning to the first question – I think there is still no real, practical interest in having people return to the regions. The interest is talked about, it sounds good in words, but the actions are yet to come.

I think the leadership of the regions (counties) would want that...

The situation should and could be influenced by the state, which is not really happening at the moment. I want to add that we have Altum, and at one time I also thought it would be possible to buy rural property through this organisation. But! For one of the buildings on the property, the previous owners built a wall 'the wrong way' – this means a new inventory, which costs quite a bit. In the countryside, not everything is always as it 'should be on paper', and if that is the case, difficulties arise from Altum.

The previous owners were almost finished with all the construction work, but the owner suddenly passed away, and farming came to an end – the family moved away and occasionally came back only to mow the grass.

As far as I have been told, quite a few people wanted to see and buy this place, including well-known politicians. What happened? 'The house is not habitable – we won't buy it!' The place is beautiful, charming, but...

It is not very easy or simple for me here, but I fully enjoy the surroundings, I see how everything develops year after year. Where clumps of willows once flourished, birches are now growing; where a half-collapsed barn was once simply bulldozed away, potatoes are now growing in place of the rubbish.

Concluding the topic of my property, I do not see great and serious state-level support for the desire of Latvians to live in the regions. They talk about it beautifully, but in life, everything is different.

Admittedly, specific policy directions need to change – support, 'not nitpicking', proportionality of requirements and a goal – if a person wants to live in a specific place, this desire should not be 'scared off'.

Of course, I also understand the banks' policy of protecting their capital, but not far from us is Finland, where support for young families in buying a home is quite substantial.

Finland is a good example, but if we want to live like in Finland, we must increase both the country's overall prosperity and the wealth of almost every member of society to be able to afford something like that. In Latvia, there is a desire to live like in Finland while doing and achieving much less. The forest industry is a good example – we certainly know a few (very important – a few) people who would be 'happy' if the forest industry 'stopped'. The most important thing is forgotten – if these few dance, what will the rest do?

I think I will not exaggerate by saying that not just a few, but quite a few people would be happy if there were no forest industry. I will add – they would not be happy because they felt they had protected or increased natural values, but because their green business would flourish.

I have my own personal view and assessment of how, unfortunately, nature conservation works – based on business organised and started by others, not on nature conservation goals. The latter should be the primary ones, but... Currently, nature conservation in Latvia is focused on loud shouting and screaming. With the most important thing – cooperation – lacking, one cannot hope for a good result.

In Latvia, much is done deliberately to allocate used resources to others. What do I mean by that? If forests are not managed in a certain territory, but nature reserves are created instead, that does not at all mean that natural values will be preserved there after, for example, 10, 20 or 35 years. Of course, everything is changeable, but the respective place, the respective plot will no longer be maintained in the way and condition it is in now. Natural values have been created and maintained by our forestry.

If we slow down or ban forestry, after 10 years – what a surprise (!!!!) – it will be concluded that biodiversity has decreased. Oh well, what to do?! We already have experience with biological meadows, where at one time they did not allow farming, until they concluded that herds, mowing and what not were needed. If you do not talk to the landowner but simply forbid things, while at the same time looking for finances so that the prohibitor themselves could farm 'greenly' on someone else's property, that is not smart.

This is how nature conservation works in Latvia from my point of view.

Publicly, however, it is described differently – 'scary people are operating in forests, fields and swamps, while voluntary hobbyists are worried'. It is often felt that in some people's minds, the beautiful image of 'Imants Ziedonis and the liberators of giant trees', which was a voluntary initiative at the time, has somehow become embedded.

You know the story well of what differentiates a rat from a hamster. Both are rodents and neither is particularly loved in their natural habitats. Where is the difference? In public relations – the hamster's are better managed.

People are moving away from nature and natural processes; they do not understand that the wood required for a bed or a stool must be cut down; some do not even want to know; exactly the same situation is with food – a person goes to the store, buys milk and meat, without thinking about where it all came from.

To a city dweller, farming often seems bad and unacceptable, but it is work, it is a livelihood, and that is precisely how we can sustain life in the regions. Moreover, there are still many unknowns – if there were a series of questions in the summer, nothing has become any clearer – what will happen with electricity prices, what and how will happen with wood pellets and their prices, what will happen with wood availability, etc. I have a potato patch by my house, I have wood heating, but I also need to be secure and know what to do if something happens.

Cabinet Regulations on tree felling. Since Midsummer, public media and activists have continued to howl about the young forests being cut down, which they mention out of place and everywhere. Driving through Latvia, you still do not see queues of loggers. Where have they disappeared to? Everything has not been cut down, let the radio also talk and warn about that.

It is pitiful that this is the way to achieve a reasonable decision on forestry, as it is in Finland, Sweden or Estonia, where the forest owner has much greater opportunities and freedom.

I like reasonable decisions, but to a certain extent, I do not like that they have to be adopted by referring to the war. It is absurd. Such a Cabinet decision should have been made long ago. Regarding the irony contained in your question – the forest owner will certainly not be the one who will run to the forest first to fell or cut. Forest owners have been more active this summer, but not because of the Regulations – the price of timber is high enough. The forest owner looks more at the situation and income, rather than what I can or cannot do now. The times when anyone would be waiting to be able to cut something down are over. Of course, one-day businessmen are and will be – they exist everywhere in the world, but they cannot be used as a benchmark for evaluating the sector.

If many people constantly have the sophisticated saying on their lips: 'People are different!', this should also be taken into account when criticising a sector, namely, not everyone is the same, nor do they act the same, nor do they think the same.

Having worked in the sector for six years now, I know that forest management principles have changed. The days when someone quickly sold a forest to buy a rusty Mercedes are long gone. Those are the 90s, and it seems it should be reminded that more than two decades have passed since then. That phase has ended. The forest is now capital.

With the start of the war in Ukraine, colleagues sent me a few recordings from the neighbouring country's TV channels for insight. A few news clips were enough. If you put this together with some films made in Russia, where seemingly by chance (outside the plot, 'just like that') something negative about Latvia, or a Latvian, or a Lithuanian, or Europe appears or is heard, you conclude that the 'drop by drop' (word by word, step by step, etc.) principle works. When these 'drops' have done their job, one can move on to larger volumes.

Recently, listening to and reading information dedicated to the sector in public media (LR, LTV, lsm.lv), I ask what is happening in these broadcasting organisations against the forest, rural and peat sectors. In the basics, you see the same thing there.

That is true, the sector feels it, and of course, I see it too! People from LR1 are very clearly biased against us, and we have pointed out more than once that in independent journalism, turning people against something word by word would not be reasonable work.

As soon as the Cabinet Regulations were adopted, we heard only one side's opinion – namely – the Latvian Ornithological Society or the World Wide Fund for Nature in Latvia and activists who uncritically accept what these two organisations express, who are not affected by these Regulations in any way, but whose objections the public media and social network users blast further uncritically, without thinking and without analysing. I deliberately listened to LR1 to hear what was going on there. What can we conclude? I suspect that someone or some people work at LR who have very close ties to so-called environmental organisations and for whom another opinion is not needed. Unfortunately, that is how it happens. We also see well who these people are, but...

It is a certain propaganda, which is told drop by drop for days, months and years. It will be no wonder if people who hear all this and are not in any way connected with the forest or the people who work in it, when asked – do they cut down young forests in Latvia – will answer – yes. Because they have heard nothing else. Of course, if you ask this same person what is a young and what is an old forest – they are unlikely to answer. But they will always be ready to object!

How to talk if you are not being listened to?

That is the result of propaganda; with constant regularity, the opinion is cultivated that forest management is bad, agriculture is bad, anyone who earns money is the bad guy, every producer is to be blamed, any way of making money through work is bad. Never mind that the critics and detractors are happy to consume the fruits of the labour of the people they disparage. In their narrow world, the critic sees nothing else. I do not understand how this could be changed and what should be done.

Representatives of the forest sector are constantly talking to the public, educating, explaining, etc.; moreover, if I may say so, I am the 'result' of one of these programmes, because my work path started precisely at the exhibition 'Meet – Wood!'

(The beginnings of the exhibition are linked to Mežaparks, later it continued in Tērvete. As students, my spouse and I both worked at this exhibition. As a student, I was often stunned by the fact that people could come to this exhibition with 'everything is bad' beliefs in their suitcase... When you talk, show and explain, the revelation comes – yes, for my quite nice furniture, wood is needed willy-nilly.)

As I already mentioned – I do not have ideas on how to change the situation; I suspect this can to some extent also be considered state policy because, for example, a part of society fundamentally does not understand how the state functions. In my opinion, very many people have no understanding of where money in the state comes from or how it is earned.

The Prime Minister added fuel to the fire this year, remarking that some mystical state supports our poor entrepreneurs, or explaining that a minister's successful cooperation with the sector in Latvia is not desirable.

I suspect the Prime Minister was aware of the relative proximity of the elections and concluded that he did not need strong competitors alongside him...

In my opinion, the fact that ministers cooperate well with the sectors they oversee is the only and correct way to achieve anything. During the 13th Saeima, we heard more than one request for a minister's resignation only because the cooperation with the sector had been absolutely terrible. Understandably, there are cases where hard-working people are considered competitors.

'We have more money than ever!' was another popular saying of the Prime Minister. Where does it come from?

The Prime Minister has been an entrepreneur, in the 90s he had to cooperate with him. Or, living in Brussels, receiving a lot of money for it, moving in refined political circles, does everything previously experienced get swept away along with the arrival of refinement in life?

I have another story and explanation for the long life of Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš's government: the Prime Minister was born and raised in America, has known capitalism, he has a different belief system or style. What has K. Kariņš been criticised for the most? Indecisiveness, procrastination, dragging things out, etc., acting 'at the last minute'. For example, the issue of wood diameters we looked at was put in a drawer, etc. The Prime Minister has always taken the safe path typical of the major capital owners of wealthy countries – namely – behind you is a team that reviews the issue, another team that reviews it, and you – the decision-maker – are at the end of the chain; the issue has reached you prepared and you can talk about it quite safely. In Latvia's case, one cannot act so slowly and thoroughly; our experience is different, and we need well-prepared but quick decisions. Yes, we must rely on science, experience, etc., but we cannot constantly procrastinate. The 'success story' of K. Kariņš's government is the non-adoption of decisions, for which he could be quite harshly criticised. He makes only 'safe' decisions.

Krišjānis Kariņš works more for the process, less for the result.

The result is certainly important, but the process is even more important, and even more important are safe decisions. In addition, politics is important... 'Jaunā Vienotība' entered the 13th Saeima as the last one. The party's task was to work in such a way that it would have significantly more per cent in the 14th Saeima, which means serious work with the public.

You have three daughters, land property and plans for at least the next 30 years. On a state scale, such far-reaching plans are lacking.

Let us remember what we talked about earlier. I think that is a certain problem of democracy – namely – the people we elect to parliament certainly have a plan, we vote for them as if for the long term, but they work in the short term. Why? In a few years, there are elections again. If all the work in the country collapsed, I doubt we would vote for these destroyers again, but... The elected person has to think that after some time, there will be voting again.

Long-term thinking is certainly in the economic sectors. For example, the 'Best Managed Forest' competition, where we go and get to know private forest owners. Of course, these are the best and brightest examples of how to think long-term.

State enterprises, for example, 'Latvijas valsts meži' have long-term and short-term strategies and models for decades and centuries. Are the sectors that have a broad and long-term vision able to transfer all this to state-level thinking?

I think not! In Finland, they can, here so far, no. In Finland, a civil servant also thinks in terms of the state, not just an entrepreneur or the head of a capital company.

In the summer, I listened to an interview with a Latvian woman elected to the German parliament. Our deputies do not talk about their country like that! Constructively, thoughtfully, not blaming anyone, but with a feeling of 'we know where we are going, we know what we are doing'. I will say – listening filled me with pure envy. We do not have such convincing visions, or we do not hear them.

What is happening? The government talks about wind parks and solar panels but forgets the renewable resource right here at hand – wood. We do not produce solar panels in Latvia; by buying them, we strengthen someone else's economy and become consumers, and besides, solar energy does not 'arrive' in a 365/24/7 mode, and it is similar with wind energy. Why are new boiler houses for the use of our resource not being built with gusto?

The 'old' Saeima also passed the Interest Representation Law. The creators of the law strongly emphasised that the word 'lobby' had been removed from the law because Latvian residents have a negative impression of this term. For example, the loudest opponents of the forest sector use the other word very rarely, calling the forest sector's NGOs only 'lobbies'.

In our society, 'lobby' is like a swear word. Unfortunately. If we talk about the lobbying law, I think the wider public should see who goes to whom at least in a formal way. I emphasise – formal, because we are unlikely to find out about informal or unofficial channels, nor will anyone control them. We should know what deputies or civil servants do during working hours.

If you mean calling representatives of the forest sector lobbyists, for example, on Twitter, I think that is a way to slow down or denigrate a specific story or information. Calling someone a lobbyist, unfortunately, in our country means – 'This should not be taken into account!' 'This is bought' and the like.

At the same time, my feelings are twofold – on the one hand, you are sworn at for being a lobbyist, on the other – in problematic situations, people turn to you to find a solution.

Speaking further about the law, I will say that here it is not clearly defined that, for example, the Latvian Forest Owners' Association would be a lobby organisation. Basically, interest representation groups in Latvia are associations. By the way, we still have many people who do not find the words 'member, association, associating' particularly acceptable. I think that is also one of the reasons for this attitude towards lobbying.

Lobbying, by the way, is not just a Latvian issue alone; a similar situation is also in Brussels. In Latvia, environmental activists are stronger in the field of lobbying; we may not have shown enough attention to involving people in this policy cycle. In the long run, we may end up as losers. In addition – how many forest industry organisations do we have representing us? For example, in June, the discussion on hunting regulations began. Who participates? Two hunters' organisations, organisations representing forest owners and farmers, and more than 10 environmental organisations. Has anyone heard of all of them?

LTRK and LDDK. Why are they not listened to or not done so carefully enough?

We saw well what happened when Jānis Vitenbergs listened to entrepreneurs. I think both of the mentioned organisations are working successfully enough. Moreover, if you ask – what have the Latvian Forest Owners' Association, the Latvian Forest Industry Federation or the Forest Certification Council of Latvia done, one must answer: 'A lot!' If these organisations did not exist, there would be no forestry in Latvia! We know about the Green Deal and taxation, if there will be 10% – 30%... One must protect what must be protected, and farm where you can farm.

Someone must have come up with the idea of protecting percentages.

There is quite active discussion about this, for example, whether Latvia will have to protect 5% of the territory and if that will be enough, or if, for example, the Netherlands will have 0% and Latvia will undertake to take on the Netherlands' share. If we talk about the entire European Union, someone could indeed come up with the idea of turning Latvia, Finland and Sweden into a reservation so that the other union countries can continue to live in their usual way. A different matter is the eagerness of our civil servants to please.

We hear stories that in the old days locals (of course, not all) used to bow to Moscow, creating a foolish impression... Remembering 1905 and 1917, servility, however, is not a characteristic trait of a Latvian.

If we look historically, 50 years under the red heel left behind much that is bad. If the majority of the intelligentsia, good and skilled farmers were deported, leaving simpler people who for many years 'had been pressured', society has also changed. If for 50 years society has survived, trying to adapt and perhaps please, human nature has changed and even 30 years after it all vanished into nothingness, I think my generation of thirty-somethings will continue to change. Middle-aged people lack a firm stance and backbone. We see this well in documents being drafted at different levels. We see how strictly and insistently Poles stand up for their rights, who couldn't care less if they are sued or influenced in any other way. Do we act like that? If we look at the European Union – the old countries have their own interests, we have ours again.

The Latvian civil servant will obligingly clarify – 'Are we really protecting only 10%, we, dear Europe, can also do 20!' Part of society does not really understand what that means. To speak in analogies, a parallel is the story about the lesser spotted eagle project and restricted areas. As DAP representatives explain in meetings, about 30-40% of people do not react to warning letters (about determining micro-reserves on the property). I asked – why? 'Because they are satisfied and have no complaints.'

No, quite the opposite, the person does not understand what such a letter means for him! A sufficient number of people understand the essence of the letter (about determining a micro-reserve) at the moment when the State Forest Service (VMD) refuses a felling permit. Then it is too late. It is precisely the interest representation organisations that delve into and explain, because an ordinary person cannot really delve into the whole mass of documents.