A conversation between Māra Liopa, Chair of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, Pauls Rēvelis, editor of the portal zemeunvalsts.lv, and Aina Stašāne, Director General of the State Forest Service (VMD)

In the Latvian forestry sector, many issues are consolidated or covered by laws and, if you will, reinforced by certification.

I have not yet familiarised myself with the entire VMD system within a month and a half, but I am continuing to do so. You cannot insert a flash drive into a human so that they immediately act as necessary! If everything were robotised, managers would not be needed. I have "received" a very significant state institution with everything it entails, with everything "inside it".

As far as I understand the specifics of the sector: in the certification process, both the forest and forest management are certified (and therefore audited). The State Forest Service has no direct connection to certification; the service does not oversee or perform certification, but I think we can be confident about those forests and sector companies that are certified: everything is in order there, starting from environmental and sustainability issues and continuing with everything else. If you will: we do not need to specially or overly supervise certified companies.

In certification standards, national laws prevail over the norms of the standard. Certification is a voluntary process, but it is better to be certified when operating in the sector.

I assume that everything a person does or decides has a positive intent. Yes, positive! Of course, we may deal with different intentions in different ways, but I believe that everything is fine with people. A different question is: whether and how employees work, and how they achieve the results expected of them.

For some time, there has been talk and discussion in the forestry sector about the need to reform the State Forest Service. Was this one of the tasks when you took office?

No one has tasked me with reforming the VMD! At least not directly, no! But change is an inevitable thing, and it is likely that there will be changes! There are many things, processes, and issues that we can transform or improve. Some things we can do imperceptibly from the outside, but clients will feel it and be more satisfied. Some things we can solve in a more complex way, some things must be addressed more "loudly". We are not a repressive institution; our task is to provide benefit to society! VMD employees are coming to me with proposals.

There will be changes, that is development, but whether to call it a reorganisation or something else? Regardless, there will be changes!

An important issue for the sector – many years ago, every politician or decision-maker spoke beautifully: bureaucracy must be reduced! Those working in the forest sector emphasise that much is overly regulated. Do you have plans to reduce the number of regulatory documents and the volume of significant procedures? The sector is longing for it!

We are policy implementers, and we do not produce regulatory acts!

You can suggest and influence…

Yes, of course – we can suggest and influence! There are many players in the sector's "arena", as you can see – the Forest Owners' Association, the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, the Latvian Forest Industry Federation, "green" NGOs, and more and more… A number of public organisations and public administration institutions – they can all influence the result – what the regulation should be! At the moment, the existing situation does not satisfy many. Some are fine with it, some do not like it, and some dislike it very much. I think the number of regulatory acts (documents) would not be the most serious or accurate indicator of the volume of bureaucracy. In your opinion, what is bureaucracy for?

For the bureaucracy itself!

No! Classical theory suggests that bureaucracy is intended to protect people from the whims of politicians.

However, bureaucracy can be quite deftly used for political purposes.

That is another story! But we – the VMD – are the executive power; we implement the adopted policy. The service's task is to ensure that the relevant regulatory framework is applicable, following the set goal, so that this regulation is clear and understandable to people and works for the benefit of society. That is our task – the State Forest Service's – to understand whether this regulation will be beneficial to society. Given the same rules and circumstances, we make the same decisions.

The VMD participates in solving many issues. Currently, micro-reserves are a topical issue, where the VMD is often and cunningly pointed out as the one that designates micro-reserves. To speak in analogies – a speeder on the highway is "fined" by the radar, not the one who sets the fine… Speaking of micro-reserves, the VMD designates a micro-reserve based on what an expert has said.

I am well aware of the unpleasant experience with micro-reserves. I also know that the State Forest Service's lawyers are often criticised, which I cannot agree with. We are caught between two millstones: if we decide in favour of the owner, what do NGOs do? They go to court and appeal our decision. The same happens in the opposite case, if the decision is unfavourable to the owner, i.e., a micro-reserve is created.

I have looked into the situation in detail. A fact I do not really understand: I assume that micro-reserves are created (recommended for creation) only after an expert opinion, but we do not have, for example, a socio-economic assessment of the situation. The service does not have such specialists. Here I see that the VMD lacks competence, but an opinion on the socio-economic impact is necessary. I want to talk about this issue, and I will definitely talk with the chief foresters. I am preparing to involve municipalities in the process of creating micro-reserves, purposefully asking them questions about specific cases. These questions must be very targeted; I am not planning to ask for a general opinion! Municipalities, of course, will not have enough competent specialists to write a scientific paper on this issue, but they are also executive power. Representatives of municipalities must be able to answer specific questions. For example, a small forest owner lives and works in a county, who derives some benefit from the forest, earns money and pays taxes, is an employer, produces certain products… this circumstance or fact has not been evaluated in any way in the process of creating a micro-reserve so far! My task is to activate the relevant levers so that we have a basis to evaluate: what will be the benefit to the environment, what to the local municipality, what to the owner. Sometimes it is necessary to choose – whether we protect a special nature territory or object, or whether the local resident and owner tells us goodbye and leaves for abroad, no longer being interested in what is happening in the forest. I understand that, in percentage terms, there are not too many restrictions in private forests, but… each case affects the interests of a specific person or family. Currently, the principles of creating micro-reserves work in only one direction, without viewing the issue more broadly.

Exactly! And it in no way affects NGO members personally. The creation of a micro-reserve for the lesser spotted eagle resembles the commodification of a specific amount of money. Forest owners are waiting for an answer: how much and what do we need. What you have said is a very pleasant surprise!

By the way, the text of the law says: we can make a decision to create a micro-reserve, but it is not a mandatory measure! If we create a micro-reserve, it means that a prohibition for a specific activity appears in a certain territory. It is possible to approach the forest owner with an invitation to reach an agreement: what can and should not be done. I think if there were an offer to reach an agreement instead of a restriction, the owners' attitude and cooperation with them would be very, very different.

In Finland, such a system already exists, and this is known to Latvian decision-makers.

If the issue is about limiting property rights, the first thing that should be done is to reach an agreement with the owner. Of course, if nothing can be achieved, one must act otherwise, but the basis must be either a compensation or a balancing mechanism.

Recently, publications initiated by the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) appeared in the media about the non-compliance with the micro-reserve regime and felled trees. Such situations would not exist if there were an agreement! What the DAP is talking about – strengthening the capacity of control institutions – is yesterday's news! It is the past! I see a reasonable agreement as a solution. That, in my opinion, is the right path.

The creation of micro-reserves is actually an administrative act prepared by the VMD. We could change it to an administrative contract; that would be a start! Of course, changes in the regulation are needed, but we should start with this! So that, while protecting habitats, birds, and living areas, we do not lose people!

Forest and waste. An issue that is often discussed on social networks, by publishing photographs, discarded documents, and the like. What could be done here? This is topical!

Let's not talk about upbringing, but about a personal example. I am a Riga resident. About a year ago, there was an opportunity in Riga to conclude a waste management contract with "Tīrīga", which I did because the company offered good terms, namely, renting containers for sorted waste. The rental fee was small; this allowed me to reduce the volume of so-called landfill waste. The large container would fill up slower, recyclable waste would go to recycling, etc. This opportunity was liquidated (cancelled). The current waste manager no longer offers such a service. The municipality has announced a procurement with conditions that might have been good and useful in the last century, but not now – in 2020! A Riga resident "does not have to run around with bags" to find the nearest sorted waste container! This does not have to be done! Waste sorting works best closer to home (place of residence). ZAAO is an excellent example right here in Latvia; the company offers a service that is understandable to people and necessary for all of us! In Northern Vidzeme, no one needs to take waste to the forest or a ditch side!

The municipality must offer a waste manager that gives every resident of the municipality the opportunity to sort and whom everyone can call if they are doing renovations at home and need to remove construction waste. Instead, now I search for information on the web, not knowing if the entrepreneur I reached manages construction waste or bulky waste… The problem is the lack of service or its shortcomings. Nothing is being done to reduce the volume of unsorted waste. I truly and seriously hope for the new Riga City Council to resolve this issue. It is solely and exclusively the task of the municipality.

Waste management capacity in Latvia is small and insufficient. There is a lot of talk that a waste recycling plant is needed. Yes, it is needed! Very much so… There is nowhere to put tyres… As soon as there is a desire to tackle this problem in an organised and controlled manner, no… Not here! Public protests are heard, and the "cartload of tyres" does not move from its place. The precautionary principle, unfortunately, is well-respected here…

Hunting. A recent, as it were, delving into issues by the State Audit Office, which they do not understand… But there is a desire to express oneself loudly and offensively.

Personally, I have not delved too deeply into this matter, but colleagues at the VMD are researching the issue of wolves and lynxes. We need to figure out what counting method we could apply. "Silava", the VMD, and hunters collect data using different methods; the question is: how to align them and understand them, and make them understandable to everyone so that misunderstandings do not arise. Is the data correct? I will ask a counter-question: do we know exactly how many people there are in Latvia? Approximately, yes, but – exactly?

Bears. It is known that it is an animal often discussed in writing, the attitude towards which tends to be frivolous: bear cub, little paws…

I will not express my opinion on cuddling bear cubs. A "disservice" in this regard has been provided to us by the Gauja National Park's "bear mother" Velga Vītola with her beautiful stories about the Līgatne bears. The stories are beautiful and touching, but… do we know what is on the mind of even a dog or a cat? But a bear met in the forest? I have a very cute-looking cat, which is not at all like that! People's recklessness surprises me!

How do you plan to reflect the VMD's activities to the public?

What, in your opinion, is a good public administration institution?

Friendly! You can approach it like one of your own, who will help! And will not interfere.

A good institution is an institution that performs its work well, an institution that is fair and provides value to people.

I often think: why does society pay me a salary, what does society want from me, what can I give. A bit philosophical, but it is very important to me. The communication plan with the public is good. But nothing builds an image better than a job well done. Nothing else. Our biggest job at the moment is drafting the VMD strategy. It will be a document in the creation of which we will involve absolutely all employees of the service. Everyone must be able to answer: what am I doing in the VMD and what do I want to achieve? That is a very uncomfortable question, but… everyone needs a well-thought-out and clear answer to it. To feel a sense of belonging, every employee of the institution must understand the institution's task, mission, strategically most important directions of activity… It will be a very important document, first of all, so that we ourselves understand where we are heading.
Photographs of Aina Stašāne and zemeunvalsts.lv.lv used