“Latvijas Finieris” is more often associated with factories and manufacturing. It is less well-known that the company also owns significant forest assets. How long ago did the company’s forestry operations begin?

A long time ago! We acquired our first properties in 1997 and 1998, and the trees planted back then have already grown considerably. In the late 90s, we began studying birch resources and their availability in Latvia, delving into the age structure of the stands. At that point, it became very clear to us that, looking to the future, the situation could turn out to be quite dismal. What to do?

One answer: we could turn to afforestation. So, we purchased our first tracts of land—unused agricultural land in five different parts of Latvia. As years passed, the number of areas grew, and from 2007, a separate company, “Latvijas Finieris Mežs”, has been in existence. The time came when we also started purchasing “classic” forest areas that appeared on the market. Currently, we have about 11,000 hectares—not too much, not too little, there is plenty of work.

To be clear—the forest assets are not intended solely to supply “Latvijas Finieris” with raw materials.

Both... It is understandable that we cannot provide the entire volume of timber for the factories; that is impossible. At the same time, there are various ways to acquire veneer logs—one can buy them at the factory gate, one can maintain one's own logging operations and purchase felling rights, and barter deals are also possible—for example, we provide logs and receive veneer logs in return; another known resource is our own forests.

It is important: we are planting forests with the idea that one day they will be (or will grow into) the resource we need.

At the beginning of our conversation, you mentioned the problems with the age structure of birch stands in the 90s. What were they, and what did you conclude?

At that time (in the late 90s), the situation was as follows: for the next 30–40 years, the forecast curve for birch wood resources was rising, followed by a “huge void”.

If we recall the end of the Soviet era, birch in the forest was considered something akin to a weed at the time; it was diligently “weeded out”, and this cleaning work, carried out for a sufficiently long time, was reflected in the age structure—estimating in approximate figures—the maximum in one decade was 180,000 hectares and the minimum was 20,000 hectares. That is 9 times less. If one is building a factory and planning major investments, one definitely looks and thinks far ahead.

Could one also visually notice in nature that there would be less birch?

Those were the State Forest Service data; for quite some time now, National Forest Monitoring has been carried out, which makes the situation even clearer. The dynamics were and are clear.

How does the management of property located in different parts of Latvia proceed?

In this regard, we have one major advantage: in many parts of Latvia, there are structural units of the joint-stock company “Latvijas Finieris” that deal with both logging and forest management. In places where we do not have our own people, we sign cooperation agreements with local contractors. If I may say so, the management proceeds quite variably, but successfully.

Speaking of the land market in Latvia, one often hears that farmers, at the very least, are queuing for the opportunity to rent or purchase a plot.

Here, regional differences are clearly visible. For example, in Latgale, there are plenty of areas that can be purchased; in this region, previously poorly managed areas or small land properties come onto the market. I will add that, historically, property sizes in Latgale are smaller if we compare them with Kurzeme or Vidzeme. In general, there is still a lot of unused agricultural land in Latvia, about 200,000 hectares; that is a large number! Very large!

When “Latvijas Finieris Mežs” started work, there were about 500,000 hectares of (unused agricultural land). If we look at the situation in Latvia today—on “paper” there is unused agricultural land, which in reality can be both agricultural area and territory already overgrown with large trees. Farmers clear brush and pull up stumps to cultivate fields, while foresters come, remove the overgrowth and plant a “normal” forest, or, if that is not necessary, prune it, officially transforming the territory into forest land.

As I said, the situation in the regions is different because in some places, as you mentioned in your question, agriculture is at a very high level and there are no free areas, land prices are high, and people are queuing for them. There are also situations where a municipality, thinking about agricultural development, says: “We will not allow this territory to be forested; it is being saved for agriculture.” That would be commendable if only there were someone who wanted to work those (saved) areas. There is no one! The land is there, something is growing in it... until it grows to the point where a taxator comes and says: “That is now a forest!” Every municipality, of course, has its own policy in this regard.

Do they not understand in the municipalities that if the land is not tended, it will very quickly become overgrown?

I do not have direct and regular contacts with municipal representatives, but there is an example from life: a landowner “threw” farming aside and sold the property. It was located in the middle of a forest—a small forest plot and agricultural land. We purchased it. We asked the municipality for permission to afforest the agricultural land.

“No, no, no! Agriculture is very important to us.”

“There are no farmers nearby.”

“We will give them to you...”

They didn't give us anyone. Five years passed; we wrote a new request. No! And that was it...

The longer land stands untended, the sooner we will see alders or birches or bushes there.

The situation can be different. For example, if low-value trees or bushes have grown in an area, with good energy wood prices, the overgrowth can be assessed with a plus sign. The greatest stupidity in such a situation, in my opinion, is the fact described earlier: the land is there, but nothing is happening—it is neither growing anything nor producing anything...

A good example: 23 years ago, we planted a birch plantation in Ukri parish. During this time, we have carried out two thinning operations, each time obtaining 45 m³ of pulpwood per hectare. While initially we thought that we would only recoup our investment through thinning, we now see that we have already made quite a good profit. If all (or even most) of the unused land areas were assessed in this way—that would be a lot of money for the state. In many cases, it is actually lost, literally—blown away in the wind.

Why doesn’t a farmer go and take it if such an opportunity exists?

I will repeat myself—situations and conditions are different. Each place has its own peculiarities; it is clear that some farmers live near the unused areas, but... if you offer them land that is located far away and the area in question does not fit their plans, they will not want or request this land. Many factors determine the choice: location, where and how people live, what the roads are like—each story is different.

Birch grows everywhere, is that true?

Looking regionally, we will encounter birch in many places. If we look at the soil, however, that will not be true. It is a false myth—if land is not really suitable for agriculture because nothing grows well, there will definitely be a good forest here. Well... in such a place, the forest will also be “rather poor”. Appropriate soil is needed for carrots, wheat, birches, apple trees, and pines.

I remember when we started forestry, there wasn't much experience; we planted wherever we could. As a result, on the hillside, birches grow—you can't be happier—while down in the hollow, they languish. Now we evaluate every plot quite carefully, thinking about what exactly would grow there best. It is also important to understand and find the reason why birch doesn't grow “exactly there”—maybe the drainage system needs to be fixed, a ditch needs to be dug, or, in the end, a different species needs to be chosen.

Like all foresters, we grow different species—also black alder and, in clayier soil, spruce—yes, the emphasis is on birch. If we look sequentially—in larger areas we have birch, then spruce, then pine, aspen, and black alder.

11,000 hectares of forest and our four-legged neighbours, who are not always friends or friendly to us. How and does the high density of forest animals affect forestry?

It depends on the place. For example, in Ukri, it is almost impossible to grow a new forest; I have seen a herd of deer in the field myself—more than 100 animals. If they come to your small area 365 days a year to feast, what is left? The areas can somehow be protected with repellents, which makes the whole management process very expensive. It must be added that spruce will survive and stretch, but... after some time, once the spruce has grown, someone will eat the bark, and you will find that all the work was in vain.

In the Latgale region, moose cause more problems... In my opinion, hunting plans must be created reasonably so that there is space and living opportunities for both the tree and the animal.

What is the cooperation like with local hunters?

We sign contracts very actively and try to lease all our areas to hunting collectives.

Speaking of animals, there is a known number (density) which, if exceeded, begins to harm the species itself. Warning signs are already being heard.

If species develop freely and undisturbed, without human influence, their number shows a certain cyclicity—they multiply, then “come” diseases and predators, the number of individuals of the species falls, similar fluctuations exist for predators, etc. We have a harsh and already long-standing example—African swine fever and wild boars. The number of animals will not increase forever; that is clear. I cannot say that there are too many of them everywhere, but there are areas where the situation is “crazy”.

I assume there are wealthier hunters who can afford to maintain large areas, many feeding troughs, and a large number of animals—it is good for the hunter: he arrives, the animals are there, finding them does not require great effort, and he can afford to be selective. They won't hunt everyone, of course.

This reminds one of the old-time story about the Communist Party leadership's hunting trips, which always had to end successfully.

I come from the Lubāna side, where in those days there were hunting grounds favoured by Augusts Voss. In this region, by partially sacrificing forestry, moose were guarded (“saved”) for the “special” hunters. The hunters, of course, travelled from Riga, the hunts were successful, but the foresters were literally spitting because it was impossible to grow pine in that area. Everything that was planted and started to grow was eaten quickly and with a hearty appetite.

At that time, a ministry employee was travelling around Latvia, checking how forestry services were working. My father explained to her that pine could not be grown, that there were too many moose. The answer was: if you have problems, buy another freezer—thus, as if, indicating a possible solution... You cannot breed animals pointlessly; the hunter helps maintain the balance—it is good for both nature and man.

City dwellers and people not connected to the forest often think—if they don't hunt, there will be a lot of animals and everything will be fine. Not so! Extremes are not accepted in nature either.

Do you have to encounter Latvia’s age-old problem—waste or construction debris dumped in forests?

I think we notice waste in forests more closer to large cities. Those are forests with many small roads and paths where it is pleasant to walk, presumably the dry pine forests where people spend more time. One can go or drive quite deep into them.

We do not have many such areas, but there have been individual cases where we find something illegally dumped. In general, in our forests, I would not consider it a major problem.

C19 is said to have driven city dwellers quite far from their usual environment.

Our forests are not suitable for walking; we feel the human impact in them less.

Does the company have a plan—how many hectares or properties must be purchased per year?

Since we are a subsidiary of “Latvijas Finieris”, the purchase of properties (areas) is largely related to the situation: how well and successfully the joint-stock company is doing in a given year. If business is successful, certain funds can be allocated for land purchases.

The second thing is what the market situation is—what is happening in it and what the property price is.

The land and forest market will not be eternal; presumably, we will soon arrive at the situation that exists in many European countries—the land market is very small. Prices will reach a high level, and the number of transactions will dry up.

The #1 or #2 headache for Latvian landowners in the second and third decades of the 21st century: restrictions.

Of course, there are certain restrictions on the areas we own as well. I would describe the situation as follows: if we look at a large territory—for example, the European Union or even broader—it is clear that society can decide how large an area needs to be protected. Currently, at the EU level, there is talk of 30%.

Fine—if society wants it that way, so be it! What should be done? Take care that there aren't many, many more such areas in Latvia than, for example, our competitors have. If the rules of the game are accepted, let them be the same for everyone.

The second important thing: it is necessary for the landowner to be interested in having such protected areas on their property. Turn it how you like, but the only person who can protect nature in their territory is its owner. Why would they do that? There must be some interest. If someone comes to a person and says: “You will not work here now, but an eagle-owl, a woodpecker, and who knows what else will live here,” this attitude offends the owner. For the sake of society, or so it is said, but in fact, the property or part of it is being taken away. If something is done for the sake of society, it is only fair and understandable that this same society, not the owner alone, pays for the “taking away” just as fairly.

It is not about making money, but about the principle—this type of burden cannot and must not be placed only on the owner.

The idea of protected area percentages does not come from society, but from the European Commission. As we know, elsewhere in Europe, society and decision-makers also tend to think differently.

If we are living well and decide that we don't need something, for example, “we don't need income”... We as a society can decide this; there's no problem. The question is about the consequences. If we now give up 30% of potentially economically usable areas, understanding that some of them will be in mature forests, it means that we are stopping a large flow of timber in a short period that “goes” to sawmills, factories, etc. The forest industry in Latvia is a very significant economic sector, which we are reducing this way. What do we get in return for that? Has there been serious and far-sighted thinking about it?

Such a question cannot be solved in a simple vote. For a person who is not connected to the economy, thinking is quite simple—felling trees is bad, but wooden furniture is very good and modern; I use it gladly. Yes, this train of thought sounds quite schizophrenic.

In my opinion, questions should be asked clearly, correctly, and understandably, and the situation must be explained just as clearly and understandably—for example: “as a result of this decision, logging or timber harvesting in Latvia will decrease by such and such a percent, it will cost us so and so, it will cost you personally so and so.” Are you in agreement? That is a normal and clear question, rather than asking society if it supports or does not support clear-cutting.

During the budget adoption process, we heard that deputies want a lot and at the same time have the opportunity to achieve a lot want to limit. We won't earn, we won't do, but...

A deputy and a politician always keep and will keep their nose to the wind, trying to understand what society wants at that specific moment. On the other hand, one cannot ask “loaded” questions to society.

For example, we could very amicably vote on what every person’s salary in Latvia should be. Let’s go, let's vote for €2000 a month! And? What will change from that, and where will we get this money?

Looking on a global scale, we are quite prosperous people, in the context of the European Union—not very. We cannot make unconsidered decisions, quickly destroying the economy.

The Green Deal is a good idea that comes with a huge burden of bureaucracy. One would think that Latvian entrepreneurs and landowners are worried quite justifiably, knowing the “bureaucratic” style of Latvian administrative institutions well. A good idea can quickly “bury” in documents, requirements, controls, and slogans.

My thoughts are similar. If we are talking about nature conservation, I think there are no people who would say that they do not care about nature conservation and that it is unimportant. There aren't any, or there will be very few.

Nature conservation interests not only the “greens”; that should be clear. Even the director of a sawmill, who lives right here among us, is interested in nature conservation. The problem starts at the moment when we understand very differently what nature conservation is, what needs to be protected, how much, how to do it, etc. The idea is one, very positive and correct, but the understanding of what follows differs drastically.

The most important question: who will pay for it. The biggest problem or mistake of the nature conservation sector—they do not talk about money. Money for these people is taboo—let others think and talk about it. Of course, phrases like “you, entrepreneurs, only have money on your minds” are heard. Are there many people living without money in Latvia?

We must also start talking about money, expenses, benefits, etc., in the context of nature conservation, and understand where it comes from and how we will spend it.

Speaking of the Green Deal—at the slogan level, the idea is correct—when you start looking at solutions, you conclude—the European Union is trying to solve the issue very linearly and identically... But! We are very different—for example—30% of the Netherlands, Sweden, or Estonia (territory) will never be the same (identical) 30%. I would gladly like to understand where they will place these 30% of protected territories in the Netherlands or Denmark. Scandinavians have northern territories, the more mountainous countries have mountain regions, while, for example, in Latvia—forests, fields, land is a large and significant economic sector. Great concern is raised by the fact that, for example, in other countries they might think like this: “you, in Latvia, have more nature, we have less—you could protect more, we would throw you a few cents for that...” Once in North America, Indian-inhabited territories were bought for glass beads.

Not so long ago, Latvian representatives were proud that we were taking otters from us to the Netherlands to restore their population there.

I do not think that anyone elsewhere wants to “undercut” or spite us directly; most often, it is the defence of one's own interests—if the residents of a country see that placing large areas is less possible or burdensome to locals, they will look for a solution.

I think there will be a part of society here that will applaud such a proposal: “Give us money, we will protect instead of you and realize our plans,” as a result of which Latvia’s already not very strong economy will suffer quite seriously, which will mean corresponding consequences. The situation is risky enough; I would not want us to be transformed into a European nature park, especially in a situation where the governments of different European countries tend to change, and their political views change as well, etc.

The Latvian political leadership, unfortunately, is not ready to go and loudly say: “No, this is not in our interests!”

Lack of competence and disinterest—that could describe this situation. “We'll see, later we will...” When a decision is made, it will be hard to change—one must think and calculate in a timely and far-sighted manner. I will add that politicians rarely spot serious risks; unfortunately, others have to deal with them.