A conversation with Egils Levits, President of Latvia, by Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia (LMSP), and Pauls Rēvelis, www.zemeunvalsts.lv editor

You are my first guests at Riga Castle. As someone who supports environmental, natural, and green ideas, this is pleasing to me, because the forest is undoubtedly linked to Latvia's development, jobs, and contribution to the national GDP. Looking at the data and maps, we can see that forest areas in Latvia have grown significantly compared to the pre-war years. These figures are very, very pleasing!

Is a forest and land owner in Latvia capable of managing their property without unnecessary and specific instructions?

I think that Latvians have always managed their own land, even during the years of occupation, when it was not truly possible. Latvians do not need specific instructions on how to manage their property!

In Finland, a forest owner is allowed to act relatively freely and decide for themselves what to do and how to do it… To what extent should state institutions be allowed to intervene and regulate the management of private property?

There are general rules to ensure that the management of one's property does not conflict with the public interest. One such area of public interest is environmental conservation – ensuring forest regeneration and, for instance, preventing a situation where almost everything is clear-cut at once. That should be regulated. But – within the framework of these rules – the forest or land owner knows best what they want to do and how.

In recent years, the words “society” and “nation” have been used rather loosely. Often, a person speaks about themselves but does not say “I think,” instead saying “the people think”… Who should be allowed to speak about the views of society or the nation?

Within the framework of parliamentary democracy, the interests of society are represented by the relevant institutions. First, there is the body of citizens, which is entitled to adopt laws through a national referendum (a tool we have not yet used). Then there is the Saeima (the legislature), elected by the body of citizens, and then the Government (the executive power), which is appointed by that same Saeima. And, simultaneously, there is civil society, which represents various interest groups. One of these groups is forest and land owners. All of this together forms society!

Latvia has more than 130,000 forest owners!

Hearing this figure, one could say that the proportion of forest owners in the total population of Latvia far exceeds that of other countries. Latvia has many small properties, whereas elsewhere we see the so-called consolidation of land – large estates and few owners.

Owners are prepared to share their property in the public interest, for example, by designating it a nature reserve. What about fair compensation for this?

The principle is one: if a property is given up or used in the public interest, the Constitution provides for “appropriate compensation.” What exactly (in numerical terms) constitutes “appropriate” is ultimately determined by the courts. Various aspects are taken into account – the significance of the property restriction for the owner, its current and future value, how important the imposed restriction is for the public, etc. If a restriction is not overly essential for the public (this sometimes happens), then its rules should be “lighter” (less strict). One cannot state a general formula; each case must be looked at individually.

In your interviews, you have emphasized the desire to balance the interests of different groups in society. Do you plan to build a strong team of analysts?

The number of staff in the institution of the President of Latvia is limited. However, the President can initiate various forums where problems are viewed from different sides through dialogue and discussion. Of course, I will have an economic advisor. In terms of analysis, agricultural and forestry issues are the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. The President of Latvia creates a dialogue to find a balance, for example, between the interests of the owner and those of society.

For there to be balance, one needs agreement, understanding, compromise, and so on. People are often unable to reach an agreement within a single household, parish, or municipality… Reaching an agreement is difficult. Do you have an idea on how to prevent the negotiation process from becoming infinite?

If the President of Latvia participates in a discussion, they listen to the viewpoints and thoughts and then come forward with their own proposal: what they believe the compromise should be and what kind of agreement is necessary. Whether this idea is accepted or not is another matter! The President's task could be to suggest this compromise or idea and to show the way.

Often, logical contradictions appear in discussions, and it would then be my duty to point them out! For example, when talking about labour shortages in one sector or another, one should first think about those people who have left Latvia. Diaspora policy is a new policy for us, one we are not experienced in. The Diaspora Law was only passed last year, and it is certainly in the public interest. For people to return, an environment must be created where there is a desire to return and where life is secure.

You will be President when Latvia marks the 30th anniversary of May 4, 1990. What has changed in thirty years?

Everything! Everything has changed!

Back then, it was uplifting, enthusiastic, and brave! It was not clear whether we would win! In 1990, I was not allowed to enter Latvia and was sent away! It was a matter of balancing on a knife-edge, and it is a miracle that the three of us are sitting here talking! The dream of a free and independent Latvia has been fulfilled, but establishing the state alone is not enough to make everything right! The state must be “tended to” all the time! Today, we undoubtedly have different problems than we did in 1990, and I would like to have these problems we have today, but I do not want the problems we had in 1990! We will always talk about them and solve various problems – it will be constant. A miracle happened in 1990, and that is the foundation of our state. But foundations alone are not enough! I believe that it is always possible to resolve issues democratically and reasonably!

You have mentioned this before: the undeservedly low self-confidence of Latvians…

The problem is deep. I fully agree with that! It is a mentality that has been formed this way over decades and perhaps longer…

We have been the masters of our own land since 1918. Before that, we had to fight for our place under the sun. As a nation, we are young; our formation began in the second half of the 19th century. Independence came hard-won; during the years of occupation, the locals retreated into a shell to preserve their essence! If this preservation had not happened, I doubt we would have started the fight for the restoration of the state in the late 1980s. As soon as the opportunity appeared, we grabbed it by the hand, by the “collar,” and… we used it and won! The action back then (in 1990) was tactically and strategically correct! Self-confidence and stabilization have moved forward, but the desired level has not yet been reached. In Latvia, more attention must be paid to stability compared to nations whose fate has not been so tragic and difficult. In the future, it will also be my duty to strengthen national self-confidence!

Speaking historically about national self-confidence, the insight regarding the seven centuries and slavery is incorrect and too primitive. It leaves a bad impression on self-confidence, which should be corrected. During the Livonian period, life in our territory – the territory of Latvia – was the same as it was elsewhere in Europe. The system, of course, was not today's democracy, but the culture and beliefs of that time were not foreign to our ancestors' ancestors. With all the contradictions and existing social layers, we were an integral part of Europe. The language of communication was German, while Latvians spoke their own language, which we have preserved, kept, and developed. To me, this shows that we are a resilient people! Resilience is often an important positive trait.

What would be needed for people, when using the word “state,” to say: “This is about me! The state – that is me too…”

Participation in building the state! The simplest thing every adult citizen can do is participate in elections. The figures show that the awareness of participating and contributing has not reached even half of the population! In my opinion, those who do not participate in elections should find it difficult to criticize, because… they have done nothing themselves. Of course, elections are the lowest level of participation. Next is civil society. The two of you I am talking to right now are representatives of civil society; you represent certain interests that have a place and must exist within the framework of the state's common interests. If such representation did not exist, the social group – forest owners, the forestry sector – would go unheard. I would also like to put in a good word for political parties. In Latvia, they unfortunately do not have a good reputation, but a democratic system cannot function without political parties. The more people get involved in parties, the better it is for our democracy and our common goals. A responsible person must think not only about themselves but also about their loved ones and society as a whole. This opportunity is given to everyone! In my opinion, a part of oneself must be invested in the further development of society and the state.

Our portal's name is deliberate – land and state – which are certainly concepts that are closely linked!

Correct! The saying: “I love my land, but I don't love the state!” is unacceptable and destructive; one should stand against it and object to it! Land and state go together and belong together! They cannot be separated!

You mentioned forming the President's team. What would you call an expert?

An expert in their field is a person who has achieved something and can show it, is known and recognized in their field, and is acknowledged by other representatives of that field as an authority. Three things!

If this person (the expert) says something, we can rely on what they say; we do not have to double-check their statements.

Speaking of political parties… Isn't the label “politician” given to people in Latvia too quickly? A person somehow ends up on an election list, is elected, and… They were a teacher or unemployed and now – a politician!

The word “politician” is to be viewed and understood in a very broad sense! I think those people who work in politics in an elected position, or try to work, are to be called politicians. Whether their success is greater or lesser, or whether their experience is extensive or not, is another question! Do politicians think about society or their personal gain – there are some who are not good – but they are all to be called politicians. Perhaps the classification could be simpler: good and not-so-good politicians, politicians with experience and authority, and those who have just started. This classification, in my opinion, would be more accurate, because we need to know which people currently in politics we can trust. If you have just started and are effectively a “blank slate,” with little experience, one must look carefully at what has been achieved! If a person is experienced, by looking at their previous actions, we can predict what they think and how they will act.

What do you think about so-called sectoral policy?

“Big” politics consists of many sectoral policies. By politics (as such), we consider engagement in solving societal problems. There is foreign policy, domestic policy, health policy, forest sector policy, etc. One of the reasons for the weakness of our parties is the lack of representatives for sectoral policies. For example, Party X, when talking about its health policy, expresses itself very generally – “Everyone should be healthy!” or something similar! The same happens when talking about other sectors – we hear nothing but general sentences… We can all agree with these statements, but that is not a basis for the formation and development of specific, precise policy! General expressions are not a basis for specific action! Policy always consists of concrete laws, and a law, in turn, is formulated in specific words. If we change the formulation, it will already be a different policy! Speaking of Latvia's political parties, as they strengthen over time, they will need experts (representatives) from various sectors who are oriented toward the policies of the respective sectors and who have delved into specific issues! That is what we currently lack! I would call that the competence of the parties.

In your opinion, are there older or not-so-old historical issues that are little touched upon or untouched in Latvia?

There are a number of such issues. Recent history, the time of occupation, and various forms of resistance. I was a student at Riga Secondary School No. 2. In the late 60s, we students arrived at school on November 18 in our festive clothes, in white shirts! The teachers who sympathized more with communist ideas understood, but could not do anything, because no one was forbidden from arriving at school in festive attire. I would like to say that this type of resistance was quite pronounced!

The occupation power and fear. How they managed to make fear an instrument of power, involving the same “snitch” system. The not-infrequent fear of openly speaking to another person if you did not know who they were! People retreated into themselves…

History should never be considered fully researched. As soon as we clarify one question, new ones arise in its place! History is an important part of a person's and a nation's sense of identity, in order to understand who we are and where we come from! It creates a certain stability in decisions today and in future visions! History is the premature today and the future.

In concluding our conversation: what would you say (wish) for the forestry sector and its people?

In the beginning, we talked about how forest areas in Latvia are increasing, which shows that the sector is independent and significant. I would gladly see that contribute to the “greenness” of Latvia, both literally and figuratively, namely, that we see the forests, they are right there, nearby, and Latvia is an environmentally and nature-friendly country. Forests are an important part of the country's economy, and it would be pleasing if more and more wood processing took place at an ever higher level – if Latvia exported more furniture and other products obtained from the deep processing of wood with even higher added value.