Interview with Rudīte Martišauska, Mg. silv. ing., Mg. envir. sc., retired forester

In a conversation eight months ago, we spoke a lot about directness and the need to defend the industry. How and why has a situation arisen where, despite clearly seeing that the industry and those working within it are being falsely and cheaply maligned, colleagues in the industry either 'swallow' these remarks or try to live with them? 'We get hit, we smile or pretend.' Why is that?

This situation has arisen and developed over time. I haven't studied the reasons. When I started working in the industry in 1975, my colleagues were sturdy men who were not afraid of using direct, clear language. Then, gradually, little by little, the 'sturdy men' were replaced by younger ones whose sturdiness, if one can put it that way, 'faded'. Currently, it seems that the industry has gone underground to avoid having to fight 'eye to eye'. As I have said before, industry representatives must speak up and express themselves on social media; they cannot limit themselves to conversations only among colleagues. Everyone working in the industry must show themselves; no outsider can guess the values we defend or the knowledge we invest in the sustainability of the forest. One must engage in social media discussions rather than passively watching from the sidelines or ignoring them. One person cannot know everything! If the industry's brightest and most articulate minds used scientifically backed facts from their own or their colleagues' research in every discussion, I think the harsh (and often nonsensical) and sharp arguments would gradually disappear. It is quite clearly visible: as soon as you speak clearly and specifically, opponents lose or the conversation ends. That is a clear indicator! If there are no counter-arguments or people to voice them, the absurdities or even deliberate lies directed against the industry and those working in it will continue.

It has been observed: as soon as figures and specifics appear in an emotional discussion about logging, hunting, or a mistake made by an industry colleague, silence ensues and the speculators disappear. Therefore: there is nothing to say against a clear stance or understandable facts.

A very fresh experience: an industry representative stated last week that when a species multiplies, it (alone) does not create or generate biodiversity. The lesser spotted eagle was also mentioned in the conversation. I had the 'Atlas of Breeding Birds in Latvia 1980-1984' at hand; as soon as I quoted facts from it and mentioned the book, the until-then very actively debating ornithologists disappeared from the conversation. The atlas states that the lesser spotted eagle nests close to clearings, at forest edges, in places where there are wider meadows, pastures, and fields, and also that the number of breeding pairs in this period was about 200-300, whereas in the early 1970s, about 200 pairs nested in Latvia. How does that 'fit' with the aggressive protection of the lesser spotted eagle, the creation of micro-reserves, and the figure of 500? Yes, the lesser spotted eagle changes its nesting sites, but it is not bothered by the clearings where it feeds!

Here I certainly want to emphasise: the public figures among ornithologists who are heard 'everywhere they are invited' are actually degrading the scientific environment, because you cannot 'lump all ornithologists into one bag'! Not all of them are money-grabbers and windbags! Among ornithologists, there are plenty of professionals and excellent scientists who continue their professional and scientific work. Yes, it is not easy to understand and distinguish – who is who! It requires time and knowledge. But it must be done.

Researchers and scientific responsibility. Experts and scientific responsibility.

I believe that the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) to some extent 'produces' 'experts'. Specifically, the title of expert is being devalued. If an 'expert' is working on evaluating serious investment projects and only holds a bachelor's degree, forgive me... The part regarding ornithofauna in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the 'Dobele' and 'Pienava' wind farm construction projects in the Dobele and Tukums regions was based on the expertise of such an ornithologist/expert. An expert needs deeper knowledge, scientific works, and research. If those are lacking... such expertise and such an opinion are not credible.

Looking from the sidelines and listening to opinions, I often hear that, for example, bird migration routes are changed in documents as needed. That is to say, the bird migration route 'found in the documents' is across that part of the Ķemeri National Park where you will rarely see birds in nature. (Reading the environmental impact assessment, I see (read) that birds fly over a specific part of the Ķemeri National Park.) Riding as part of an environmental commission to look at trees marked for felling, we saw fields and meadows full of birds. So... The question is: how are these assessments created.

At the same time, the loudest ornithologist, whom parties, the government, and deputies listen to, is not (even) an expert!!!!

The State Audit Office recently evaluated the management of wolves and lynx, which was sharply objected to by hunters.

The State Audit Office (VK) acts and audits based on specific regulations and criteria. As is known, there is an opportunity to challenge and not agree with the audit reports of the VK, or to request corrections and additions. This must be done, because... the final conclusion of the VK does not always coincide with the one submitted for agreement. VK employees cannot know all the details, nor do they! For example, an auditor is unlikely to know the minutiae regarding wolves and lynx. Who will consult them, or will they be 'led' by biologists, activists, or active scientists? Wolves and lynx are studied by biologists; Latvia's main expert on large predators is the biologist Jānis Ozoliņš. If an auditor does not know this nuance, they may get the impression that wolf and lynx hunting is merely a matter of hunters' interests, a narrow perspective, etc. Which is essentially superficial and wrong! In such cases, the reports of the State Audit Office or other institutions must be rebutted. A report is not a final verdict.

The 'sturdy men and women' of the industry mentioned at the beginning of the conversation in the 70s. Are we reigning in too much peace and prosperity? One should not go against the current, one should not speak loudly, just quietly... What is happening?

There is no single explanation; it is, most likely, a sum of many circumstances. Fear for one's position or post. The ongoing generational change. For example, in the past, generational change was survived more easily. Working in forestry, I remember there was always some young person to train. The young listened, the old trained. In the still-existing 'good' collectives, that is how it happens. But as time goes on, young colleagues look for a better position, better financial security, better opportunities... Even that young and strong 'football team' that started after the restoration of independence (in the early 90s) has already become 30 years older and... is also afraid for its positions. Of course, I am not talking about everyone.

Is it that simple?

Once, work was like a hobby and 'above all else'. Yes, perhaps not entirely correctly, but work was more important than family and everything else. Time passed, and one day a forester announces: 'I won't be at work tomorrow because I have to take my child to school.' Without a doubt – everything is clear, understandable, and a father is taking care of his child... But, step by step, the situation and status change: forestry as a profession is no longer 'above all else'! At some point, something else 'takes over' this place and feeling. The situation is changing. Yes, I am astonished that people with industry education are not applying for the position of Head of the State Forest Service! There was no competition, but no one was clamouring for this position either. I am not criticising the new VMD head with this, who from what I've heard seems knowledgeable, however, she is not a forester... It was not that long ago that there was competition for this position, which there wasn't last year. Something has changed.

State service is state service: instructions, regulations...

I don't know whether it is possible to eliminate any duties in the VMD's control functions, but various checks (from above or elsewhere) have achieved the opposite – fear. Fear of making decisions and taking risks! That is the problem.

Fear of defending the industry. If it persists, the industry itself might not exist. Is a natural, but not always desirable or sensible, feeling of fear farsighted and sustainable?

I have personal experience in objecting to reforms that were organised during the time of Minister Jānis Dūklavs. Of course, I thought I could lose my job. At the same time, foresters also believed that such reforms were wrong and not that they weren't necessary, but that they should have been based on the principles of management science. Yes, in Tukums there were 200 strong men and women (I repeat myself, but it was!). In the end, I was left alone... Where did they disappear to? There is no explanation!

I will repeat myself again, but in my opinion, the generational change is what seriously affects the defence of the industry and the desire to do so. The old system no longer works: one must talk to society, one must discuss and argue, one must be active. You cannot dress nicely and assume that just because of that, people will listen to you. The leaders of industry-related associations must think and reconsider: who are they talking to and how much are they talking? What is the scope of their conversation partners? 700, 960, or 3,000 people? Like-minded people or those who think differently, or don't think at all...

Communication on social media is very important! An example from last week: allocating 500 euros for child benefits. The news that the money could not be paid because it would be wasted or spent on alcohol 'flew' across social media quite quickly and... we can track how the government's opinion also changed, which concluded with Krišjānis Kariņš's announcement: 'It will happen!'

500 euros is a good thing that almost everyone likes. By braking those industries that provide work and money for both people and the country (all of us), the consequences will be very unpleasant. If the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Economics are thinking about it, the VARAM pretends that everything is in the best order...

One must take into account that there is money from various EU projects that we receive regularly, and someone is quite regularly 'absorbing' it! Until it is noticed that there are identical projects being implemented by different organisations... Why are the 'activists' silent right now? EU money has not yet arrived, it is not known what projects are expected, it is not clear what to shout about and who to attack. Also, party strife is continuously going on there, a desire to shake the government is visible. What is the easiest thing? To pick on someone's appearance, to pick on a woman, to talk about unimportant problems, to stir something up... Let's not forget that there are many unresolved questions and problems in Latvia, but it is not possible to get European funding for all of them to sustain oneself and ensure one's existence.

It must also be remembered that ministers are not all-knowing; they need to be explained to, they need to be convinced. It is our mission to change the opinions of society, the government, and parties in favour of the industry that sustains the country!

The good news is that, compared to the previous year, the industry is very slowly starting to show signs of life on social media and in the media as well.