Do not deprive me of my freedom to make decisions! Do not deprive me of respect for the work I have done! Do not deprive us of the opportunity to be masters in our own land! In a historical context, such a cry would be self-evident – we would be talking about the occupation of Latvia. Unfortunately, I am forced to shout it today, and furthermore, many people in the Latvian forest industry, who do their work in all good conscience, feel the same way.
It is highly likely that this year, the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive will make decisions without providing adequate compensation to landowners, effectively nationalising large areas of private forest. This, in turn, will drastically reduce the availability of wood resources for the production of export goods and will lead to the bankruptcy of many forestry and woodworking companies in the Latvian countryside.
As the head of a large bioeconomy company, I am responsible for a collective of two and a half thousand people whose work is based on resources obtained from land management. As a forest owner, I am responsible for decisions that will affect the value of my property for future generations. My conviction is that fertile land is Latvia's most essential asset. It is our duty to manage it as productively as possible, use local resources, and produce goods that are in demand globally. It is our duty to be productive, accumulate capital, invest in development, and implement innovations. Our duty is not to maximise profit, but to create a wage growth rate twice as fast as that in Western Europe.
Nature “friends” and “enemies”
Do the people of Latvia want such a strong economy, based on local resources? What can we be proud of on a Baltic and European scale? Unfortunately, no one has asked society for its opinion on this. Just as no one asks forest owners anything when placing restrictions on economic activity in their tended forests, openly pitting foresters against nature and pinning a label on them – “uneducated” enemy, from whom the forest must be protected. By openly disrespecting, questioning, and criticising the life's work of several generations.
Do not misunderstand me – there is never any question that natural values must be preserved. However, this should not be done with “best” Soviet-style methods, but in a balanced, rational way, and with respect for the branched ecosystem of the national economy. Reliable and measurable indicators of natural values are unfortunately absent from this discussion, and the biological diversity that we are now rushing to protect turns out to be the result of at least 150 years of Latvian forestry practice, while the most reliable source of knowledge is the research conducted by the foresters themselves. I am a friend of nature, just like all the forest owners I know. Yet we feel disrespected and unfairly punished when we alone have to pay for nature conservation proclaimed “in the name of all European society”.
The lack of adequate compensation for the establishment of micro-reserves in private forests is a disastrous misstep. How can we blame a person for intentionally felling a forest that perhaps should have been left to nature, if otherwise no economic activity is possible there, and the annual compensation for the current value of the growing trees will only cover the cost in 200 years? What kind of trust can these landowners have in the state? Perhaps such degradation of the institution of private property is the foundation for the destruction of the Western democratic system itself. If so, this way of thinking is entirely consistent with the Eastern model of centralised, absolutely authoritarian governance. Is this not a matter for the Constitutional Court?
“Blind” bureaucracy on a European leash
You will ask – why such emotions all of a sudden? The problem is that what is described is nothing new. These are the consequences of years of a systematically incorrect approach to the issue of preserving natural values – that man must be separated from nature – which is now triumphing in the Latvian bureaucracy's exaggerated interpretation of the European dictate. Specifically, one of the Green Deal policy documents – the European Union Biodiversity Strategy – includes a mandate to allocate 10% of member states' land territory to strict nature protection by 2030, halting any form of economic activity in these areas. For another 11-30% of the territory, environmental aspects must be integrated into economic activities, which will significantly restrict them. On the part of the responsible Latvian state institutions, we have enthusiastically committed to fulfilling this immediately. So that Brussels can once again appreciate how diligent we are. For some reason, however, the Dutch government has firmly declared that it cannot fulfil such conditions...
Given that species diversity is primarily found in human-managed forests, not on ploughed arable land, in the case of Latvia, it is intended to very rapidly allocate up to 250,000 hectares of mature, previously commercially used forests to nature conservation. This is more than half of the areas available for timber harvesting in the coming years. A brutal, surgically fast approach. A formal fulfilment of European guidelines that could have a devastating impact on the woodworking industry, for which resource availability will decrease by 40-50%.
What talk can there be of technology and product development, or of salary increases, if the industry is forced to struggle in agony for its survival? Where is the much-vaunted European “just transition” (just transition) approach? Instead – disrespect for our work, our set goals, and human lives.
To at least partially compensate for the decrease in the volume of raw materials available for production, it would only be logical if owners in other forests could more freely make economic decisions regarding the forest turnover rate. Understanding the situation, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a science-based decision in 2022 to change decades-old atavisms of the USSR planning system in normative acts and to level the playing field for forestry competitiveness at least within the Baltic states. Surprisingly, the challenge to this step is being accepted for review by the Constitutional Court. We shall see if we are capable of evaluating processes by their spirit or only by their letter.
Will factories have to be closed?
If there is no wood in Latvia from which to produce birch plywood products, we at “Latvijas Finieris” may also consider a scenario where we are forced to close one of our local factories and mothball the equipment. It would be relatively easier to do this in Riga, where other industries would absorb the vacated jobs. Of course, we are an international concern with the ability to balance resource availability. It is possible that we can expand our operations in Finland, Lithuania, or Estonia. These are jobs, taxes, and investments that will, to some extent, be lost to Latvia.
The question is: what will other industry companies, whose business is based solely on Latvian wood resources, do? Especially in regions where a local woodworking company can prove to be a critically important employer for the local community. There is public distress over the potential closure of small schools and post offices, which may influence the emptying of rural areas. If people have no opportunity to earn a living, the choice is clear – either the road to Riga or packed suitcases and the airport.
But perhaps this is correct and for some, it is the goal. No people, no “threat” to nature.