As 29 October approaches, the date of the 11th International Conference of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia* “Environment and Sustainable Forest and Land Management – Current Solutions”, we share an interview with Arnis Muižnieks, one of the conference speakers, regarding forests, owners, and the sense of property (belonging).

This year, the “Best-Maintained Forest” competition took place for the 10th time. You have been present at all of them; what, in your opinion, has changed over these ten years?

Of course, everything depends on the competition participants who are nominated or who enter themselves. One trend is noticeable – the forest owners we meet and visit increasingly correspond to what is known as family forestry (a term used quite widely elsewhere in Europe – family forestry). We feel more and more the people's attachment to the place, the property, the forest; it has belonged to the family or lineage for several decades, having been managed by the current owners' parents and grandparents, or even earlier ancestors. Owners feel a closer bond with their specific forest and location. Even if they have to sell the property, the asking price is often determined not only by the tree species composition but also by the fact that the property is closely linked to the seller's family. If I am to sell it, then only for a high price.

From what you have said, one can conclude that the relatively recent observation that, over 30 years of independence, people in Latvia have not learned to understand and manage private property is losing its relevance. The situation has changed.

I agree with you if we are talking about the forest owners I have visited, walked in, and seen over these 10 years. It must be emphasised that this is the most active group of owners, because, as I mentioned, one must either enter the competition or nominate someone else. Those who manage their forests are undoubtedly knowledgeable and feel a closer connection to their property.

In a recent conversation, I heard an interesting thought – entrepreneurs are happy to talk and discuss things, but they do not want publicity – that is, the conversation will take place, but there will be no interview. How do forest owners relate to publicity? Have you encountered an unwillingness to participate in the competition?

No, that has not happened! Most often, when we are already saying goodbye and leaving, people say: “Thank you for coming and appreciating our work!”

Often, we are the first ones to visit them for such a purpose. Forest management is a huge amount of work, not an easy profit as some might think. You fight against mosquitoes, horseflies, weeds, ungulates, you plant, you tend, you worry about nibbled saplings – this daily routine is often not seen.

There has been one unpleasant incident – after our visit, the owners ran into problems because, following a publication about the relevant forest, someone noticed or determined that more had been done on the riverbank than was permitted.

“Best-Maintained Forest” is directly linked to forest tending (more broadly – management). One of the industry's current topics this year is the guidelines produced by the Bank of Latvia in the spring. Colleagues, when analysing their content, were surprised to conclude that someone had deemed tending and planting a forest, preparing the soil, etc., to be environmentally unfriendly. Have you had to answer similar questions?

I will start by saying that these are absurd guidelines and I do not understand the reason for their creation. We often do not like to refer to European Union regulations, but in this case, a reference is perfectly appropriate, namely, there is the Taxonomy Regulation, which includes technical assessment criteria for forest management, including in relation to climate issues. If we have a document to look into and to refer to, why and who needs further guidelines containing many ill-considered and absurd theses? The soil preparation you mentioned in the context of the guidelines would be comparable to agriculture – “potatoes need to be grown, we consume them a lot, but they must be planted in a meadow”. Did someone, through these guidelines, want to imply that decades of forest selection work are worth nothing, that all previous investments in tree nurseries are to be written off, that forest saplings should not be bought, etc.?

One can plant something somewhere in a small patch of unprepared land, but we in the industry know well that to ensure successful growth, the soil must be prepared. As is known, sapling prices have risen significantly over the last ten years, so paying for high-quality selected planting material and just “poking it in somewhere – it’ll grow eventually” is absurd.

If we link tending to the “Best-Maintained Forest” competition, we must remember that a maintained forest does not mean a park (of course, if an owner wants to develop a forest for recreational purposes, they can do so). Forest owners do not have one profile; for example, in Finland – one owner calls the forest their bank, someone goes there to relax, yet another views the forest from the perspective of nature conservation. Unfortunately, no surveys have been conducted on this here in recent years, and we cannot speak based on data as the Finns do, but it is similar here.

This is not our first conversation; on previous occasions, we have always mentioned an essential and unresolved matter – restrictions on economic activity and adequate compensation. As the head of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia, you have to be an optimist, but looking realistically, at what point will this issue be resolved, and when can we expect a big, significant step?

This is the issue that first brought forest owners out to the streets to protest in front of the Cabinet of Ministers. During the time of Latvia's statehood, it was the first and, so far, the only forest owners' protest. The problem had escalated so much that people no longer wanted to talk in corners.

If we talk about the current situation, politicians have started to move this issue forward this year. However, at the last meeting of the Saeima Economic, Agricultural, Environmental and Regional Policy Committee, I got the impression that everything is being done to prevent us from adopting the relevant amendments to the legislation quickly enough. This does not mean that we should come out with a statement that there will be no compensation in the next 5-10 years. Within the industry, there is an agreement to point out the source of funding – the undistributed profit and dividends of “Latvijas valsts meži” from the previous year, from which compensation could be paid; this way, the money would remain in the industry, and deputies could no longer ask – where will we get the money?

We will not back down from this issue; I have spoken with members of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia: if the “old” Saeima does not move these submitted legislative amendments further and the new Saeima does not continue what has been started, we will not be content with just attending meetings, listening, etc. Then we must organise a new protest action until the changes are adopted. I assume there will be compromises, for example, regarding the period over which compensation is paid, or whether it will be paid for all stands, but that is all up for discussion. We must strive to ensure that the compensation system becomes improved and much fairer in this five-year period. Whether it will happen – we shall see! At the General Meeting of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia, which took place shortly before the 15th Saeima elections and was attended by representatives of six parties, all six unanimously confirmed that they would support both changes to the laws and the introduction of a fair compensation system. Let’s see what happens!

* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/lmsp-11-starptautiska-konference-vide-un-ilgtspejiga-meza-un-zemes-1