A conversation with Dr. silv. Jurģis Jansons, Director of the Latvian State Forest Research Institute "Silava"
On 23 August of this year, the portal ventasbalss.lv published a letter from ten retired (former) foresters, in which the foresters expressed their concern, in a reproachful tone, regarding the state of the forests and current forest management policy*
I must apologise, but I am not a diligent reader of the portal “ventasbalss.lv” – my life's path rarely takes me further than Talsi. I became acquainted with the publication at the suggestion of three colleagues from the sector who had read it. I must say, its content was not “new” to me – I had previously read the material that my colleagues, as “old foresters”, had received with an invitation to sign and send it to the President of Latvia. Both materials are quite identical, but with differing nuances.
Which ones?
The “old foresters'” letter to the President lacks precise references to personalities; more specifically, I am not mentioned personally, and there are noticeably fewer references to the scientific institute I represent. I have no doubt that when preparing the “ventasbalss.lv” publication, the foresters might have polished the text carefully – like a diamond. But since there are also respected people among the signatories of the letter whom I know personally and consider my life mentors, I will easily find out whether the foresters had seen and read the letter before publication. However, what I find out will remain for my own knowledge and conviction only.
In your opinion, has an “editor” worked on the “ventasbalss.lv” article?
That is a plausible version. Moreover, an “editor” who lacks the sense of measure or restraint characteristic of a true artist – wanting to make the letter even more vivid and “effective”, the basis for all the concerns is revealed in the final paragraph. The letter has been used as yet another accolade for the nature conservation business, which in our day we know as “nature census” and the like. If the old foresters do not know what forest resource monitoring is, which has been taking place in Latvia for the sixteenth year already, I am surprised that they know so well what a “nature census” is and what it is intended to achieve.
What else do you find important in connection with the letter? What would be important to your colleagues in the sector?
The most dangerous trend I observe is the desire of “editors” (or an “editor”) to deliberately pit people in the forest sector against each other or even turn them into enemies. First of all, the state and private forest sectors. The thesis that the state should not regulate private forest owners appears twice in the letter. This is the first time I have encountered such an intonation in my information space. Currently, discussions about changes to regulations are very active, and the anger of the nature saviours is directed most directly at plans that affect private forestry specifically. But here, lo and behold, there are sudden other “bad guys” – “Latvijas valsts meži” and “Silava”, effectively “depriving” private owners of the justification to participate in discussions about sector matters. The unity of the forest sector has always seemed extremely sympathetic and important to me; it is in complete contrast to the atmosphere prevailing, for example, in the science sector!
The second trend we encounter is this “old foresters'” card being played. Most likely, a counter-reaction (or at least a reaction) from other “old foresters” is expected, sinking into a meaningless discussion and weakening the forestry community in the public space. For quite some time, we have been observing how emotional, socially important categories appear in polemics directed against the sector – birds, old people, and also the children mentioned in the “ventasbalss.lv” headline. Let us see what we can expect in the future.
The third trend is as old as the world and known at least since the early Middle Ages – it is the creation of disbelief in scientists and the intelligentsia in general. However, in those times, people who dared to question the “generally known and obvious”, saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun, often fared much more harshly than we do.
As a forest scientist, is this your first encounter with the “green business”?
I have not had any direct contact and never will, except for cases where my name is used in various blogs, anonymous comments, and malicious letters! But I have been following the anthology of this business for many years. In 1999, I was sent on a business trip to Chile – an international congress on planted forests and forest plantation issues was taking place there. In the congress, one could not help but notice a group of obviously well-off, part-indigenous type people who used attractive technologies and behaved in a peculiar way. At the time, I did not understand what was happening… Passionate shouting, insults, attacks. Sitting opposite them were southern hemisphere foresters – grey-haired and white-haired men who were constantly justifying the necessity of planted forests – namely – the number of people in the world is increasing, the demand for timber and its products is growing, and targeted tree growing is the only opportunity to protect tropical forests from being cut down. I saw the results of these foresters' work – in Chile, eucalyptus stands grow in 7 years, and pine – in 14. Back then, I counted the measuring rods myself and calculated that a pine 40 cm in diameter is 40 years old! The Chilean foresters explained that with them, a pine produces three height increments in a year! Back then I did not understand, “why those ‘’greens’’ were acting up and why they were behaving like that”, but now it is clear to me – it is just business! By attacking a sector and trying to belittle it, it is possible to earn good money! Other colleagues have already tried to calculate the fruits of this “business” in our country, where the forest sector has ended up on the agenda.
“The letter from the old, white-haired foresters”… Do you think the forest sector's attention towards seniors is sufficient? Perhaps they really lack information about the sector and current developments within it?
Those who say that retired foresters receive too little attention are right! We have not thought about how to change this trend. My personal opinion is: a great failure in this regard was the inability or even unwillingness to develop the idea of a forest museum. Not a museum as a physical building with piles of historical materials and objects, but a museum as an idea, as a way to unite the history and present of the sector, simultaneously being a place for the communication of interests and people. At the moment when the “productive part” of the forest sector, or the resource holders, got involved in the forest museum initiative, I thought the “process would take off”. But, apparently, nothing! I don't know what was missing! In any case, when we, on behalf of the forest research institute, send invitations to many dozens of organisations to come and participate in our events, we do not have a single address where we could send invitations to our seniors. Perhaps this initiative must come from the seniors themselves? Perhaps an association called “Zelta čiekuri” (Golden Cones) should be established, in which (at least initially) those forest sector seniors who have received public recognition for their life's work would unite.
How correct are the references in the letter to pre-war Latvia and the old days? One often wants to invoke what R. Blaumanis wrote: “Phooey! Why talk about old times!”
I will try to answer step by step. In my opinion, the look back into history, which permeates the “ventasbalss.lv” article, should be viewed in at least two parts.
In the article, there is little or no mention of those things where the contribution of previous forestry systems is particularly essential and significant. First, I want to mention the long-used approach to thinning, which, by the way, “came” directly from “Silava”. The older the stands, the more cautiously we carry out thinnings! This model is aimed at higher forest value precisely at the moment of the final felling, and that forest owner is rich who has such high-value stands in their property. It is a pity that in modern-day Latvia, there is debate about the increase in the volume of final felling and the requirement to purposefully regenerate young stands, while with so-called thinnings, one is legally allowed to extract resources and, at the time of final felling, “turn” them into regrettable, sparse remnants!
As a significant contribution, forest hydrotechnical reclamation should be mentioned, even though the decision taken in the 80s to stop forest reclamation in the Latvian SSR was very strange. Most likely, this decision was based on a lack of capital construction resources, but it took away at least a whole decade for the improvement of moisture-degraded Latvian forests.
And, of course, the huge role of forest breeding must be emphasised. During the time of Minister Leons Vītols, forest scientists managed to address the forest sector and gain support for the restoration of Latvian excellent tree species populations that had been cut but not replanted over many centuries, by going into the forest, looking for the remains of excellent stands, and on that basis, creating the forest breeding system used in modern-day Latvia as well.
The policy of “sparing” the forest implemented in the final decades of the USSR is also to be evaluated positively, including the sending of imprecise data to Moscow regarding the state of the forests. I doubt whether it was done by forest rangers or surveyors on the ground; it was done by the wise management of the Latvian forest sector, perhaps unconsciously saving timber resources for the economy of a free Latvia! These people must definitely be mentioned with a kind word!
Paradoxically, in the “old foresters'” article, we read in a positive tone about those trends of the Latvian SSR era that should be evaluated critically. Today, in Latvian state forests, 30-40-year-old pine stands occupy about 3.5% of the pine forest area, but they should be at least 7-8%. The chronic unwillingness in the times of A. Voss to normalise the number of animals so that it would be possible to regenerate and grow pines, and their replacement with spruces, should, however, be worth mentioning, because it has a long-term, unfixable impact.
The second thing – the aspect of over-dense young stands, which found a large “place” in the foresters' letter. At one time, forest scientist Kaspars Bušs, whose 100th anniversary we will celebrate this year, paid great attention to this, but unfortunately remained unheard. When the LPSR Ministry of Forestry was deciding on the necessity of over-dense young stands, he said: “You can do that! Just don't forget to go there the next day and pull out every second plant!” Unfortunately, in those times, the forest sector did not understand or accept this “Silava” idea, but reinforced the Russian foresters' thought – an area is counted as a forest when the tree crowns close up. Researchers were found who investigated what should be done so that the tree crowns close up faster – more trees must be planted! Others tried to justify what benefit is expected from that – by becoming spindly and the green crown disappearing, the trees would “prune themselves” better, with the density of young stands, animals can be “weaned off” from eating, and wild boar like to live in dense young stands. The last argument is true! Unfortunately, the idea of over-dense young stands also took root in the forest education system, which is why we cannot blame people for this implanted conviction: wasting money, seedlings and especially – time, which is lost while growing and in the end not growing productive and valuable stands.
Have you thought about Kaspars Bušs' scientific legacy and its actualisation?
This year, at the Latvian Academy of Sciences, we plan to establish the Kaspars Bušs Prize in forest ecology and forestry, as well as to publish a short version of his collected works in “Silava”. At one time, Kaspars Bušs read a lot of available foreign literature and commented on the findings expressed therein with amazing precision. His comments have been preserved in a few copies in typescript; we will now publish them. What surprised me particularly – Kaspars Bušs was already actively and precisely speaking about the excellent hypocrisy of self-proclaimed nature friends and forestry fighters in the 70s and 80s – every word of his has a modern ring to it.
What are your thoughts on the number of forest animals currently?
Talking about the number of animals in an environment inhabited by humans, I found at least three honourable men among the signatories of the “old foresters'” letter, whose life's work to a large extent has been the care of multiplying forest animals. Currently, in a large part of Latvian forests, there are too many red deer, and the “old” idea – the more you plant, the less they will eat – is being “brought to light” again in the letter. There is a certain logic in this thought – by planting 7000 pines, there is a higher probability that some of them will not be eaten immediately. However, the remaining trees will still be gnawed, will be crippled, and the risk that they will still be eaten or debarked after a few years does not disappear! The trend of increasing animal numbers in modern-day Latvia is not news, and, in my opinion, hunters are already starting to perceive it as the norm. I myself worked as a hunting manager for quite a long time; lately, I have observed – if there are no deer in a drive hunt area, the hunters become grumpy. Recently, I visited a hunt in central Finland – at least 50 hunters participated in it with well-equipped and dressed dogs, computers, and GPS systems. Throughout the day, we saw two moose cows and three calves in the forest, two of which were hunted. We asked the Finns: is the number of animals not possibly higher with them? The Finnish answer was simple – of course it is, but we cannot afford it – in our country, the priority is forestry!
What do you think about the planned reduction in the number of regenerated trees?
If the state has an interest and resources to control the regeneration of the forest ecosystem, unequivocally – the fewer trees in a young stand, the better!!!! The principle established by K. Bušs – sparse forest in youth, dense forest in old age – has been proven! Unfortunately, we cannot take every person in Latvia by the hand and lead them into the forest so that they could see it for themselves. Attention in the forest should be focused on the “peripheries” of tree growing conditions – infertile and, on the contrary – very fertile forests, where there is a risk of forest transformation in sandy soils, heaths, or eutrophic grasslands, or even fens. The number of trees per hectare in a 2-3-metre-high young stand should not be greater than 2000. It should be even slightly less. We can show nearly 50-year-old, productive, and high-quality stands where initially 400 trees, or five times less, were planted.
In the “old foresters'” letter, “Silava” and I personally are reproached for promoting the thinning of young stands. Actually, the names are older – my teachers in this field were Georgs Gavrilovs, Jānis Bisenieks, and Pēteris Zālītis. Three men who started the matters of targeted thinning! We are the continuers. I remember how at the beginning of my career, Georgs and I went to the forest a lot. On the way to Eastern Vidzeme, in Bērzkrogs, he always liked to get out to smoke and drink coffee, and he always loved to show how right there, on the other side of the road, by a pond, a sparse birch young stand grows. Since 1991 – so now already for 28 years – we have been following and measuring how very sparse, sparse, and how – over-dense stands grow.
What is the impact of diameter reduction on the forest?
Working as an adjunct professor at the university (LLU), I try to repeat to the young people three canons of Latvian forestry, which are precise and sacred! The first canon – the product of Latvian forestry is sawlogs. The other two canons determine pure stands in a mixed forest, as well as the orientation of forest growing towards maximally valuable stands at the time of final felling. Unfortunately, nowadays one must be worried about the viability of these canons – with “surveying” and “thinnings”, there exist technical possibilities both to change the dominant tree species and to increase the diameters of stands by cutting out the thinner trees, and to obtain “quick money” by cutting the thicker ones. In fact, a peculiar “left-wing consultant” business has arisen on how to arrive at a final felling if the owner needs it. I still support “Silava's” proposal – if the allowed final felling diameter is reduced, it should be forbidden to carry out the final felling on the day after the thinning, during which the diameter has been mechanically increased by cutting the thinner trees along the plot's diagonals. This initiative of ours is in contradiction with the “old foresters'” idea of not regulating private forestry at all. I am, unfortunately, not ready for such a radical proposal.
According to the data of the State Forest Service, forest owners choose to perform final felling by diameter in 13% of forest stands where it is available. Final felling by diameter in state forests is performed on an average of 37 ha per year, but in private forests – on an area at least 100 times larger.
The national forest monitoring system is reviewed and even denied in the letter. How would you comment on this?
I have nothing to add – if one denies the national forest monitoring, then nothing! There is no other precise source of information about the forest in Latvia and there will not be! And there shouldn't be... In 1999, I worked in the Forestry Department of the State Forest Service. The budget funding for the Forest Management Institute at that time was 1,000,000 of the lats of that time. For this money, forest management (including visual surveying) was carried out for one – Kuldīga – forest district! We can calculate how much the operative information flow would cost every 5 years with an uncertainty of less than 1%, also including all private forests and trees on agricultural lands. It is the forest owner's duty to the state to carry out forest inventory once every 20 years. This duty may also not be fulfilled by them. At such a pace, the information flow about Latvia as a whole would happen. If only there were no forest monitoring.
The way in which “consultants”, with the help of old foresters, attack forest monitoring is, in my opinion, a noteworthy phenomenon. Because: ignorance about Latvian forest resources would be a serious competitive advantage for some.
Perhaps it is not clear to people how one can determine the state of all Latvian forests with sample plots?
The use of sample plots in forestry is nothing new! For example, regeneration control in a cutting area is carried out in small circular sample plots, which are placed along the cutting area's diagonal. No one goes into the young stand and tries to count all the trees. In science, these sample plots are called a sample group, which represents the general population or the entire object being researched. In the case of monitoring, the general population is the territory of the Republic of Latvia, and the sample group – about 16,000 circular sample plots of 500 m2, which evenly cover the entire territory of Latvia. Every sample plot is surveyed in the field every 5 years; in every sample plot, all trees are remeasured for which the distance and azimuth from the centre of the sample plot have been determined. Every 5 years, the “fate” of every tree is “determined” – whether it was cut down, sawn, died in another way, or continued to grow. Out of 16,000 sample plots, about 12,000 involve forest or trees outside the forest, which are measured. One sample plot refers to about 400 ha of Latvian territory. No owner knows that a sample plot is located in their forest; this information is objective and does not depend on the owner's wish. Properties where sample plots “fall” are not made public.
What are your thoughts on the concern expressed in the letter: the forest management office and the forest ranger position have been liquidated?
In my opinion, the conversation is about concepts. In the times of the Latvian SSR, state forest resources were managed by the LPSR Ministry of Forestry and Forest Industry and its relative enterprises – forest management farms or MRS. Within the ministry system, a forest management enterprise also operated with two main functions – information acquisition about the forest and planning of economic activity. There was also a third function – control of previous economic activity. Nowadays, the state has transferred the forest management function to the enterprise “Latvijas valsts meži” with an important mandate – to earn money for the state. The enterprise has eight regions and its own planning process, which includes gathering information about the forest and planning economic activity. In my opinion, the concepts differ. Unlike in the LPSR times, in addition to the enterprise's internal control system, forestry is supervised by the State Forest Service.
Talking about the liquidated “forest ranger service” is not fair, because forest rangers are nowadays renamed as SFS foresters, expanding their competence and significantly increasing their qualifications.
Some figures are also mentioned in the article. Can you comment on any of them?
Yes, some figures are mentioned in the article! 1937, there is talk of 59 people who for nearly the entire time of the Republic of Latvia inventoried forests and determined that Latvia has 1.4 million ha of forest, where 140 million m3 are accumulated, which annually regenerate 5 million m3. In the time period from 2014 to 2018, the total standing volume in forests in Latvia was on average 680 million m3, of which 367 million m3 – in state forests. Today we estimate the state forest area to be slightly larger – about 1.5 million ha. The average standing volume per hectare in pre-war Latvia was 100 m3/ha, now – 240 m3/ha, or 2.4 times more. At the same time, the volume of final felling in state forests, as determined by the Cabinet of Ministers, does not exceed 4.9 million m3 per year. The average standing volume in 80 and more years has increased about 2.4 times, the felling volume has remained the same as in the years of the first Republic! This means that the felling intensity in pre-war Latvia and later in Soviet Latvia, compared with the volume of forest timber resources, has been higher! If it follows from the letter that the forest has not changed since the times of the first Republic, the question is what the generation of retired foresters has achieved in their working years? Breeding, forestry, reclamation, yield increase – all this has given results! But the felling volume in state forests has remained as previously determined.
Taking into account the uncritical attitude towards sources of information prevailing in Latvia, it is possible that various figures and assertions from the “old foresters'” article will be used as “expert opinion” in public rhetoric or propaganda. In your opinion, would that be correct?
Of course, one must look critically! We can only recommend. In my opinion, Latvian society is thinking; unfortunately, individual erroneous cases or events create “strong background noise” and the feeling that there are much more of them. There are some untruths in the foresters' article. Perhaps there would be fewer of them if the authors of the article had been more careful.
In my opinion, in European democracy, it is not correct to call the Latvian government, which founded the enterprise "Latvijas valsts meži’’, a “small group of people interested in logging”, as it is done in the letter. It is not true that “Silava” determined the forest increment in LVM's first year of operation – LVM started work at the end of October 1999, but forest monitoring was established in 2004 and the first data were available in 2008. It is not true that in the first years of operation, 13-14 million m3 were cut in state forests. Perhaps such a volume was in all of Latvia, including thinnings.
Especially offensive to me and those “old foresters” with whom I have discussed the “ventasbalss.lv” publication is the assertion that “low-value young stands dominate” in state forests. In our opinion, a young stand is the result of a forester's work, the unofficial Latvian foresters' anthem ends with this sentiment! If we assume that a young stand is low-value, it is not true that they dominate – in state forests, pine young stands are only 19% of the entire pine forest area, even though normally this number should approach 40%!
Peculiar in the letter is the support for a forestry ban during the animal breeding season, most likely meaning birds by animals. Did works in the forests really not happen for ¼ of the year during the Soviet years, when the authors of the opinion were working? And, if they did happen, where and how did the new revelations arise?
Your professional activity is mentioned in the article – the position of chairman of the council at the enterprise ‘’Latvijas valsts meži’’. The "old foresters" see a conflict of interest.
These findings are not in the first version of the “old foresters'” letter; they will have been added by the “editor”. At the beginning of 2016, when councils were restored for state enterprises, participating in this process was a great act of daring. I have heard that besides me, there were only 10 other Latvian residents who prepared and submitted their vision to the nomination commission. It was a surprise to me that the other council members unanimously elected me as chairman of the council. At that moment, they seemed frivolous to me… But… so we have been working for more than three years already – unanimously, as is characteristic of our sector!
My agreement to run for the position of chairman of the council was indirectly influenced by another case – Ivars Kalviņš, director of the Institute of Organic Synthesis, was elected to the position of chairman of the council of the enterprise “Grindex”. In scientific circles, it tended to be presented as an excellent example of cooperation between science and a sector based on it. I have always held Mr Kalviņš in very high regard; he has also done much good for our institute. Now we have a second such example – in forest science. We are waiting for the third: there will be three cases, we will be able to say that cooperation between national science and the sector is a regularity! For now, we cannot yet.
* the article can be read:
https://www.ventasbalss.lv/zinas/sabiedriba/39603-civilizeta-sabiedriba-dzivot-uz-bernu-rekina-ir-amorali
Photos by Valdis Semjonovs, photo materials from the 2019 Forest Science Day, and from the zemeunvalsts.lv archive