In a recent interview, while still serving as State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Raivis Kronbergs agreed with the idea that in cases where the sector represented by the ministry comes under unfounded, unfair or untruthful attack, ministry staff ought to step in, explain or defend. How do you, as the person usually sent into battle first, view that?

Raivis Kronbergs said the right and logical thing. If untrue claims are made, everyone should unhesitatingly get involved and set out the true substance of the matter, speak up and explain. The more people who do this, the more weight that explanation will carry. That is what Latvijas valsts meži (LVM) does as a company, including on social media and in communication of every kind. It is very good when state officials get involved on such occasions too, as their communication carries, if I may put it that way, greater weight. In my view, non-governmental organisations should also get involved, and where our sector — forestry — is concerned, that generally does happen.

In the forestry sector, discussions have flared up more than once that there are many of us (people working in the sector), but very few speakers who can also use sharper words when required. From what you say, I gather you do not feel alone, and that it is not a case of: "You know how to speak, you are better at it, we will support you, but silently."

I do not feel alone, but... truth be told, our large and powerful sector has too little speaking power. We saw the strength of the forestry sector in the spring, at the protest on 5 March outside the Cabinet of Ministers; at that moment, being together, the sector's people felt like a significant force. Day to day, following the various discussions going on in society, on social media or elsewhere, there are not many people representing the sector who actively and regularly voice their opinion. There should definitely be more; in my view, this is our shared work or task — to mobilise and speak, to tell, inform and remind people about what is happening in our forests and in the sectors connected with them. It happens that even in Latvia the simplest things have to be repeated, for example, that there is no other country in Europe whose forest area has doubled in under a century.

This claim is held against Latvijas valsts meži, and more than once. The source of the reproach is a single one, though; the others merely repeat it. If you can do the arithmetic, it is easy enough to check...

There is nothing to argue about here; it is one of the strongest and clearest messages, and I use it often, but it is not my personal message or that of Latvijas valsts meži — it is the story and explanation of the whole forestry sector. One must also take into account the fact that the forest area has doubled precisely thanks to the growth in the area of private forests. Fundamentally, LVM manages those forests that once belonged to the German barons and that in the 1920s and 1930s were managed by the Latvian Forest Department. I know that the sector's opponents often mention what happened in Soviet times, collectivisation and the problems it created in the 1950s. Some forests have grown up on former agricultural land; yes, that period was contradictory and, for many, tragic, but now these are forests that are well managed, and moreover some areas were afforested after the restoration of independence, and that continues today as well. I see no grounds whatsoever for objections; it is a splendid result achieved by foresters, one that makes our country richer and greener.

I have expressed my personal view more than once, and, looking at the state of the legal framework for the forestry sector, it sounds fairly radical — in Latvia a great many people are very fond of regulating almost everything down to the last detail. Perhaps it sounds utopian, but in my view state policy on land management with regard to private landowners in areas where there are no protected natural assets should be simple: do what you like, but take care of what needs taking care of! Of course, all of that within the bounds of some sensible land policy, for example: Latvia must have no less than 45–50% forest and no more than 75%. And of course, in areas that are protected under the law or where nature conservation takes priority, we preserve what must be preserved; in the rest, let the owners act as suits them best. I do not know why we have lost the trust in the landholder that existed in the days of the free state; we seem to think that a rural working person will wreck something unless every step they take is supervised, documented and approved.

Unfortunately, over time a thoroughly warped but by now settled notion has taken hold — if there is a forest property, it will certainly be cut down, shipped abroad, and the clear-felled area will remain a clear-felled area forever... In other words, a conviction is being cultivated in Latvia that an owner will not know how to handle their own property. Life shows the opposite.

I do not think there are many people in Latvia who would deliberately want to harm themselves and their own interests. It is a problem of mindset — we have not travelled far from socialism, even though the generations have already changed. Look not far from here, at Finland: of course you cannot farm freely in areas designated for nature conservation under the law, where different rules apply, but in order to work the fields or forests on your own property, where there are no statutory restrictions, you do not face half a kilogram of prescriptions for every single action, and you do not need to go to some third or fourth party to ask permission to work on your own property. You yourself are the master of that land or property and you accordingly inform the state of your plans.

Is the need to control genuinely demanded by society? Forest owners and farmers are also part of society, and not a small part at that.

I would say that society still allows excessive regulation (of everything) to continue. There are plenty of European and EU countries where people are trusted and allowed to work normally.

If we look into the situation closely, it is dual to a degree. That is to say, as long as we merely say "Bureaucracy must be reduced!", a great many people agree. The moment we get down to actual work, the opposite begins. Take what we experienced this year — the question of tree felling diameter, where we are talking about a couple of centimetres one way or the other! Why is there any need to regulate anything here at all, when in nearby Finland there are no diameter limits or other restrictions — if the owner considers that the forest is mature and it is time to regenerate it, that is what happens (as I said earlier, provided the area does not have statutory protected status). I do not associate bureaucracy with the forestry sector alone (which is what I know best), because there are plenty of similar examples all around. For instance, now and then I listen to the Latvijas Radio afternoon programme Ģimenes studija, where parents sometimes speak out very sharply against schools, saying that the school fails to do something, does too little to bring pupils up and so on, trying to secure stricter requirements for the school and the teacher. In my view, one should do exactly the opposite — a responsible young person has to be brought up in the family; they go to school to learn. What is more, a pupil must have the chance to spend time somewhere other than the classroom. At Latvijas valsts meži we are strong advocates of outdoor education — getting out and doing things outside... Why is that anything but simple? "What if something happens...?" The system has taken this so far that teachers are afraid to let children split firewood for a campfire, or to use a knife to cut sticks for sausages or marshmallows — "what if they cut their hand or leg, the teacher will have to answer for it!"

When the portal zemeunvalsts.lv started up, in many situations that called for a short, clear word, colleagues in the sector resorted to diplomatic hedging, unlike their opponents. More than once we encountered the situation: "They abuse and slander us, but we, quite calmly and amicably..." And so we have gradually reached a point where many have had enough. Do you think foresters are excessively refined and diplomatic?

You cannot carry what you cannot lift; there is a time and a place for everything. I grant that much could have happened sooner, but every situation has to ripen. If I assess my colleagues in the sector, forestry people are quieter, more diplomatic, less inclined to sharpness, though life has shown that such qualities no longer really fit in today's society.

I have already mentioned that I do not really understand Latvian society's distrust of rural and forest landholders, the left-leaning regulatory mindset, and how these still have a place after 50 years of "socialism"... Polarisation can be observed in many parts of the world; the most striking example is the USA, where the presidential election results have been fairly predictable time after time, while over time the level of polarisation rises and the scope for productive conversation shrinks. In Latvia, in my view, it is the understanding of land management that has moved in the direction of polarisation — how it looks in the countryside and how it looks in Riga. Several sociological studies show this too: this opposition is growing. Yet far better results are usually obtained by working more in the Scandinavian tradition — reaching agreement, thinking about the best outcome and about cooperation... that is not what we have here. But it is possible — take an example from our own company: Latvijas valsts meži employs 10 environmental experts, among the most respected in Latvia; to name a few, Uģis Bergmanis and Mārtiņš Kalniņš. On environmental matters, discussions inside the company are held with them, deciding what would be better for the forest and for all forest inhabitants as a whole, not just for one species or another in isolation — what needs to be done for a species to fare well or for a habitat to be preserved in good condition over the long term.

Are the 10 colleagues you mention not excessively criticised by the non-governmental environmental sector for selling out to producers (industry)?

Of course, I have heard various stories, and they do more than surprise me. It is a catastrophic inability to see the big picture — what would be better for Latvia. How should we act so that together we achieve the best? What is to be done so that Latvia remains one of the greenest countries in the world? Anyone capable of logical thought who has travelled even a little understands perfectly well that Latvia is unquestionably among the greenest countries in the world. Why is it so difficult to get anything done, why must there constantly be an argument about something? We need to move forward so that the country develops and we do not lose the Latvian people, so that our prosperity grows and our security is strengthened — that, in my view, is what matters, and these propositions also underpin the forestry sector's philosophy and strategy.

I have talked about prosperity with many people, including ministers. There are many things Latvia lacks. Most often people talk about a lack of money. This year effectively began with a long-forgotten quotation: "We will be taupīgi", which the theatre rat Kornēlija once played on brilliantly... Austerity is back. Everyone needs money, more or less — so why do a fair number of people act in ways that ensure there is not more of it?

An excellent question to which, logically enough, I have no answer. Looking at the "big picture" — what is happening around us, what might threaten us — in my view we need to think very seriously about how to increase production of everything that grows on the land, which is our greatest resource, and how to add value to what is grown so that we are more stable, better off and more secure. If there is a chance that all of it could be taken from us one day, why not invest today (now) in order to preserve and protect it?!

Working at Latvijas valsts meži, a company that is large not only by Latvian standards, how do you view the loudest and strangest events of recent times — as soon as a large or larger project has to be delivered (Rail Baltica, the fence on the border, the bridge over the Salaca, repairs to significant buildings), the problems are there, unasked for and unwanted...

I will be brief, because I do not know the details of what you ask in any great depth, although I have heard about it. In my view there are two things — the first is professionalism (on the part of the tender organisers, the contractors, the supervisors), because I grant that there are places where it is lacking; the second is honesty and integrity. At LVM we have reached a position where the tenders we organise are transparent, honest, clear and comprehensible, something that colleagues in the sector and our partners also emphasise. Tenders are not run for one particular business or winner.

It has to be said, though not as an excuse, that delivery of the large projects you mention is stalling in much the same way in many parts of the world; it may be a broader problem — recall, for example, the construction of the new airport in Berlin.

If the tenders run by LVM are rated highly, has nobody come to you for advice on how better to draw up the terms, how to organise other processes? There is always something to learn from a good example.

It has to be said that LVM has neither managed nor organised the construction of bridges worth tens of millions, nor the design of buildings worth 50 million. I know that local authorities come to us, asking how we organise road building, which we manage relatively economically and to the highest possible quality for carrying out forest management work. It should certainly be remembered here that forest roads are intended for different vehicles and different speeds compared with public roads.

LVM works actively with schools. It is sometimes said that it is easier to work with schools outside Riga, that Riga's schools are a different world altogether.

To a degree that is so. One explanation is that urbanisation is continuing in Latvia, and the young generation goes into the forest and into nature less often, and it is harder to work with people who know nothing or little. If we are talking about the city of Riga, its best schools have so many other offerings and opportunities that it is harder for these schools' representatives to free up time to come out to the forest and take up the excellent opportunity offered by LVM's environmental education projects. Even so, a great many schools do find the time to take part; for example, we have a long-standing and excellent partnership with Riga Teika Secondary School.

It will soon be 20 years since we at LVM began working with schools, and we can see that the work is gradually bearing fruit. When we carry out sociological studies, it becomes clear that among young people who were in year 5 or 6 ten to twelve years ago, who are our core audience, perceptions of forestry have statistically changed; they look at the sector with more understanding, I would even say more knowledgeably. In my view there is no other company in Latvia that invests so much work and so many resources in educating schoolchildren. It is long-term work; a forest also takes a long time to grow, and we do not expect results after a year or two, but we are convinced they will come. Another important thing we hear in conversations with our young employees, who have most often studied in Jelgava, at the LBTU Faculty of Forestry (now the Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences), is that they began thinking about forestry after meeting LVM staff, when they took part in a hike or another event in one of our environmental education programmes while at school. That too shows the work has been worth it.

Working with schools requires significant human resources, ensuring, for example, that every year 6 class that wishes to can go out to the forest in the autumn and meet our colleagues. In the busiest month — September — around 170 Latvijas valsts meži staff are involved in this event, the Forest Expedition; that is a lot. Speaking of the forest expeditions, in closing I would gladly turn to colleagues in the sector — if anyone is interested, you are warmly invited to get involved. We have a very positive partnership with Silava, Latvijas Finieris and the association Zaļās mājas, and we can certainly find a way to involve other specialists and experts from our sector in this educational work.

Do you have a clear idea of how to talk about the forest and the sector correctly and wisely in Latvia at present?

I do not think there is an answer anywhere in the world as to who does sensible and necessary things the right way and who does them the wrong way. We, the representatives of the forestry sector, have to speak and tell our story far more, and every patriot of the sector, every company, has to tell its own story, remembering one fact — everyone sees the situation differently, everyone sees the story differently; that is right, and it is the wisest way to hold a conversation. At once many-voiced and at once broad, keeping in mind the sector's shared strategy and goals. We must tell nothing but the truth and be able to captivate the person we are talking to.