An interview with Kristaps Ceplis, of the association “Zaļās mājas” (“Green Houses”)

You are surrounded by many drawings…

Yes, we are preparing a book about the birch tree! The idea of creating books about the most common trees in Latvia developed gradually. The first was a book about the pine – “Pine slender, pine lush, your magnificent form” – which was created by pupils of the Riebiņi secondary school as an entry for the “Our Little Hike” creative competition. We liked the idea very much; we only made small corrections and improvements. The “Birch Book” will be different – here we will collect various works by pupils in one book, and, of course, add something of our own. In the future, the plan is to create something similar about the spruce.

Adults, who have a lot of different worries in life, mostly think a bit stereotypically... if I had to prepare a book about the pine myself, I would certainly have started from the theoretical and “correct” end: Pinus sylvestris, mast pine, dunes, pine forests, and the like. Children looked at the pine differently. They highlighted what is said about the pine in folk songs, poetry, and folklore. The children looked for information about “interesting” pines, for example, the Gallows Pine. The young authors found the pine in well-known product names, animals, insects, etc. The young people's perspective was quite different from that of an industry professional. It was interesting, and the idea arose to compile it all into a book. Works for the birch have already been selected; the choice will be broader, and we will compile the most interesting ones. Of course, it is not and will not be a scientific book.

How did a journalist end up in the forestry sector?

I was already writing about the forest sector in my early years of journalism, I knew people, and I was offered the chance to work at the Latvian Forest Industry Federation. For the last five years, I have been leading the association “Zaļās mājas”, where work with young people is very intensive. One of my most visible activities, which has become just as invisible due to the pandemic, is the exhibition “Meet – Wood!” About 3,000 people visit it annually, which might not be much, but we used to run the exhibition in a group of three, and currently, I do it alone. The exhibition does not operate on the principle of: come, look, walk around, leave! Only pre-booked groups can visit. Each group is met by a guide, and they talk for two or three hours; the conversation is purposeful, highly specific, and tailored to each age group. The exhibition is not just for children, but of course, pupils have become the main visitors. Work with young people also takes place within the framework of other projects. There are a number of events taking place in the sector in which I participate, travelling to schools to talk about the forest and the industry. While I used to look for which region or which school to go to myself, now I am invited. I also talk about industry issues in “Career Consultant”. Mostly, I am invited outside of Riga, and I work a lot in the near Riga area (Mārupe, Salaspils).

Working with schools, I have developed my own impression of what happens, how it happens, and what could be changed or improved. I meet many truly interesting teachers, yet overall, I cannot express enthusiasm for Latvian teachers, unfortunately. A sort of life-weariness shines through, a clinging to one standard, without the desire to change and learn, for example, from children. I don't want to be “critical”, but in my daily life, I often have occasion to compare Latvian teachers with those from the International School of Ķīpsala, who also bring children to our exhibition. Sadly, in most cases, the international school teachers are better and more effectively able to motivate, discipline, and praise their students. It seems like nothing is different, except that in the international school the language of instruction is English, but a different attitude towards children is felt.

For example, a group arrives from a school, there are a few teachers, we go into the exhibition, and I talk. Part of my “show” is to ask tricky, slightly shocking questions, to which they usually give the wrong answer. In fact, they always get it wrong! In the groups, of course, there are children who are not afraid to answer, even if incorrectly. Unfortunately, Latvian teachers very often say: “Well, Kaspars, Jānis, Marta, etc., why are you talking nonsense?” It happens that the class laughs afterwards: “Like, stupid Kaspars, he doesn't know…” Kaspars gets confused, shy, and no longer bothers to offer his answers...

With young people from the Ķīpsala school, it is different. Jeremy answers a question incorrectly, and the teacher asks: “Why do you think so?” Jeremy explains. The teacher adds that 100 years ago, no one would have considered it normal or understandable to call home from the forest. Now it is normal. “But, Jeremy, it is possible that what you say will one day be the way you say it! Currently, it is different, but I like that you think!” What about the class? “Look, Jeremy is thinking!”

I have had this experience three times now, specifically with the International School of Ķīpsala.

Another story: back in the day, my children were given so-called project works. For teenagers, it is clear, but in the first or third grade, there is no real clarity about it. Consequently, the essence of the project work changes – the parents compete.

At the Ķīpsala school, they do this: last year a girl called me and asked in English if five children could come to the exhibition. Of course, I waited. Five children and two teachers arrived. I said that if I couldn't say something in English, the teacher would help translate. The teacher said: “I am not here! I am only accompanying the children so that they are safe on the way and on the street. The children must be able to ask in English so that your answer is understandable to them.”

What do I want to say? In the Ķīpsala school, the essence of learning is not to write a “tick-box paper” about the wood industry, but to negotiate it yourself, to understand and find out what is needed, to invent and ask questions yourself. In the international school, they evaluate the process: whether the child or young person is able to communicate and obtain the necessary information.

Understanding and explaining the sector. There are problems with this in part of the society…

In my opinion, we live too well! Consequently, people in society think little about simple but very fundamental and very important things. Thoughts dart about inside small, limited information spaces, unable to find or connect correlations. Daily routine, haste, and needs create and take their toll. I think the majority of people can be considered good. It is hard for me to imagine what is going on in the head of some villain or maniac. Even if one happens to make a mistake, it is, for the most part, not intentional. A person wants to be good.

If there is no time to think about fundamental things, because other things take up thinking time, it can be seen and felt when talking, for example, about forest issues. A normal, superficially thinking person's train of thought would be as follows: “Should nature be protected? It should. That is good. Is watering a small tree good? Good. Is cutting down a tree good? No, bad! Is hunting good? No!”

At the same time, people have wooden furniture at home, and a large part of the population consumes meat. They don't think more broadly: if they buy meat in a shop, rarely does anyone think that the pink piece wrapped in plastic film was recently something alive, which was created and raised with one thought – to be slaughtered and eaten. Meanwhile, reading people's views on hunting and hunters on social networks, the dominant opinion is unambiguous – bastards! Greedy murderers who hold nothing sacred. How can their hand be raised against a poor little doe...

Regarding hunting, I recently had an exchange of views with classmates who, finding out I was a hunter, worried about poor little does and hares, saying: “The shop is full of meat, why do you have to go shooting in the forest…” At the class reunion, we all amicably ate store-bought meat shashlik and no one cried.

At the theoretical level, I can understand people's dislike for killing anything living, however, that is a part of life. For us to live, someone is killed. And animals are killed not only to satisfy the needs of carnivores, but, for example, also to protect crops from wild animals that eat and trample them. I understand that not everyone can kill an animal, but at least I would invite them to be honest with themselves and not insult people who do work that is unpleasant to oneself.

It is similar with the forest: historical photos show that the situation that existed in the late 19th or early 20th century is no longer the same. A large part of hillforts are overgrown with forests, rarely is one well-visible and scenically viewable, as in old photographs. The forest has “joined in”. How wood was used back then and now. There is more forest! People don't notice it or pretend not to notice it.

Since I come from the countryside myself and have worked enough during the time of the collective farm, I can take anyone and show the place where I picked potatoes and weeded beets in primary school; now... I can pick mushrooms right there! Half a century hasn't passed, but today you wouldn't say that in place of the mushroom forest, not so long ago, there was a collective farm field. So… Once, in the countryside, almost every house had a cow or several cows; now only a few people have milk providers, and look at what is happening with the pastures! Yes, large farmers have become active, the land is being cultivated, but there was a period of time when there was a lot of overgrown agricultural land!

If you think only in categories of black-and-white and “cuddling a tree is good, but cutting it is bad”, it is impossible to understand the situation (let alone master it) from the fifth floor of a Purvciems apartment block in front of the television. And I am also surprised by the fact that such a large part of society is supposedly worried about forests and tree felling, yet piles of waste in the forests grow year after year...

I like nature that is not overburdened by people and their presence, which is why I definitely do not want to agitate people to go to the countryside and build or use stupid walking trails made of wooden planks, along which larger and smaller groups of people wander. Those are not the countryside, and that is no longer nature, but infrastructure, which on the one hand is good – it's convenient, your feet don't get wet, there is a place to sit and throw away trash, but it is “far from the truth”. Use the opportunity as before – take a bus or train somewhere, get off at a small station in the middle of the forest, and go a few kilometres to the nearest populated place or the next station. Do not walk on the road, walk on a forest path, one trampled by deer, through a sparser and also a more overgrown section of the forest, and look at what the forest looks like! Now everything is too simple: you got into a car and drove where you wanted, or what you read about on the internet, because n-tourists have already been there and left reviews. You only see a small fraction of all that from the car window, but right here near Riga there are “really” wild places where you can fall ten or more metres from a cliff and break your neck in a small, rocky stream. You don't need to go abroad to enjoy extreme sensations.

Processes have taken place too quickly. People are easily influenced by someone else's story without delving into the situation. Recently I met a person who had restored an old house in Riga, and created a small flower garden and lawn in its courtyard. He was born in Riga and lived in an apartment all his life. A convinced “green” who believed that “not a single tree in Riga should be cut down, and he certainly would never do it...” In front of the lawn of the house I mentioned, where the terrace ends, grew an old pear tree. The tree is sturdy, everything is good, but... the pear tree produces fruit, wasps fly in, endangering the owner and the children. Later, the pears over-ripen, fall to the ground, and you can't walk normally on the terrace because it is covered with semi-rotted pears and, of course, wasps. A strong wind blows, the tree creaks, some branch breaks – it's a good thing it didn't damage anything on the neighbour's side. The old tree was cut down and... finally, everything is good, one can enjoy the family nest... And! This doesn't mean that the person suddenly became bad and became a tree-hater. The person concluded from his experience: where there is no room for a tree and when it is time to cut it down.

Hunters and discussions about hunting, wolves, and lynxes.

In Latvia, there is a regular tendency to discuss things heatedly and foolishly. Before the issue of wolves and lynxes, there was a loud argument among us about 16-year-old youths who might or might not be allowed to use firearms in hunting. Unpleasant trends appeared even then. There is a mystical, quite active part of society (mostly women) that opposes hunting, mentioning America. (Like, you now want us to shoot like in the USA!) The wildest thing – there are politicians and state authorities who know the situation and know it well (if anyone doesn't know, that is very bad), but for mystical political needs, they whine along with the loud shouters or do not silence them by stating the truth. And furthermore, it is sad that there are media outlets that often literally demonstrate an inability to look at the situation and the question objectively, instead taking one side or the other. In my opinion, the essence of journalism is to make people think, not to influence. Even if a journalist personally thinks it is wrong, one cannot manipulate society by saying untruths or by not revealing the whole truth. That is equally bad.

Unfortunately, there are many such topics. It is the same with forest felling issues – there are those who know but don't speak, there are those who don't know but speak, and there are those who cannot show an objective view but lean towards one-sided opinions. The same happens with issues of wolf and lynx hunting. I will not speak about the fact that a person should regulate the number of predators, but I will speak about the infantile view of the situation, where, like in a children's book, “the little fox is friends with the bunny and the little stork with the kitten”. In nature, we know that a fox will catch a hare, and a stork can eat a small kitten. For one to live, someone must die. For a wolf to be fed, some hare or sheep must depart… That is how it happens! Such a situation will never be possible where no one will hurt another and everyone will live together in friendship. I will repeat myself, but I really want people to be able to look objectively at things outside their comfort zone and try to understand the big picture as a whole. We are now being reproached that in Europe, including Estonia, the lynx is protected, but no one goes to demonstrations to protect Estonia's bear, because unlike our Northern neighbour, in Latvia, it is not allowed to hunt the bear. Bears are remaining, but there are by no means as many as in Estonia.

Opinion. What is it in the 21st century? Do we express an opinion by saying anything, or...

I really do not like restrictions; there must be freedom of speech! It is unacceptable that people talk about great democracy, but when looking closer: one cannot do this, that is forbidden, and you don't need that, that is not polite, etc. Regarding general standards of behaviour, I can agree – much has developed historically, but the abnormal and numerous restrictions irritate me: “Someone in my place will decide or has decided what I am allowed and not allowed to do.”

An opinion can be anything, but it must be substantiated. Especially if it is sharp and directed “against” or “for” something. If an opinion is voiced in a large media outlet that claims the title of an independent media, any one-sided opinion must have a counter-opinion. The audience must be allowed to hear both sides and understand the overall picture. If we are talking about a facebook page, let them shout whatever they want there, but for media, the equality of opinions is the law!
Photographs by Kristaps Ceplis and zemeunvalsts.lv used