If we do not maintain our own sharp minds, we may find ourselves having to accept the research from other countries that find themselves in drastically different situations, which may not be the most advantageous for our own country.
This is according to Jurģis Jansons, Director of the Silava Latvian State Forest Research Institute, in an interview with "Dienas Bizness". In his view, Latvia currently faces a great many challenges where it is impossible to find the best national solutions without the work of scientists.
What is currently the most important task for forest scientists?
It is the National Development Plan (NDP) for 2021-2027, combined with the bioeconomy, the next international assessment of science, and also increasing the understanding among the Latvian public about what is happening in the sector. In a civilised society, innovations and knowledge, which are closely linked to science, are cited as the foundation for future growth. Consequently, the new NDP should contain at least some indicator where a scientist could “find a foothold” in their argument that knowledge is also needed in Latvia. Currently, there is not a single such word in the draft. At the moment, various events are taking place in the public sphere regarding the NDP, where everyone is trying to express themselves as best they can—with complex terms and beautiful phrases, with theories, and sometimes with practical evidence as to why national knowledge is needed at all. The second modern priority is the bioeconomy, which, as a strategic direction for scientific specialisation, brings together not only farmers and foresters but also scientists working in food science and climate change research. The bioeconomy priority is based on three considerations: the world's population is growing, and they will all need food and goods manufactured from renewable resources. Furthermore, in the middle of all this is the ongoing and expected climate policy and the place of forestry within it. We are living on the eve of major changes, but we do not truly know what they will be like. What the reality will be depends not only on the European Union, but also on how we live in Latvia. The questions are: what is science like in Latvia and what kind of scientists do we have? But in my opinion, a more important question is whether society, industries, and politicians want to—and are even prepared to—hear the recommendations or conclusions of scientists.
Undeniably, there is a big difference between the level of funding available to scientists in Latvia and those in Germany or Finland, as well as the public attitude towards them.
What is the difference between Latvian and foreign scientists?
For many years, we have cited Finland as a typical example of this difference, where the forest research institute has 55 times more direct state funding than the Silava Latvian State Forest Research Institute, calculated in millions of euros per year. Of course, Finland has roughly three times as many taxpayers, but the difference is still large. At the same time, Finland is a country whose inhabitants are the most satisfied with their forest sector—both forestry and the timber industry, including the pulp and paper industry. I recently read in the news a finding from a UN study that recognised Finland as the happiest country in the world for the second year in a row. This is shown to everyone as an example, but many essential things that are characteristic of Finnish thinking and lacking in Latvia are not mentioned. For example, in Latvia, the state heavily interferes in a forest owner's decisions regarding felling, whereas in Finland there is no such regulation—the state trusts its people. In Finland, it is accepted that scientists always participate in discussions about global industry issues, including opportunities and challenges, while in Latvia, forest owners and timber industry workers are considered and invited as opinion leaders, with scientists occasionally in the background. In Finland, it is the scientists themselves who address the public about essential matters.
Perhaps scientists in Latvia do not know how to address the public or do not want to? Or are there other reasons?
In Latvia, there are individual popular scientists whose names many people know, and there are those whose names few know, even though they are recognised not only at home but also abroad. This is also true in forestry science. Scientists in Latvia have to regularly report on something and almost justify why they need extra money for certain research. Scientists in Latvia are perceived as money spenders and petitioners, not as creators of new products, technologies, and other types of knowledge. This deplorable attitude has, unfortunately, left a noticeable impact on the thinking of Latvian scientists—only a few are able to see themselves as an important part of the state. Scientists sink into modesty, humility, and entreaty, while others become angry. This feeling completely demoralises a person's desire to prove and justify the necessity of their work. Scientists write not reports on progress, but accountability forms, and they do not perform work, but “fulfil job assignments”. At the Latvian forestry research institute, a forest breeding programme is being developed, widely applied forestry models are being created that promote fast tree growth, answers are being sought regarding forest tree health and the impact of climate change on forestry, a national position for GHG inventory in the forest sector is being formed, and hundreds of other issues are being solved. At the same time, in Latvia, the maximum permissible timber harvesting volume in state forests is calculated using an approach created more than 50 years ago. 29 years after independence, the backbone of the industry in the country—the volume of timber harvesting in state forests—depends on the golden age of Brezhnev! The question arises—what have the scientists been doing? Can forest scientists really offer nothing in its place? They can! Is work in this direction currently happening? No! Why? It is “considered” that there is a lack of resources, but sooner or later the moment will come when it will be impossible to live and work according to the understanding of the Brezhnev era, and there will be nothing real to put in its place. They will ask the timber industry for their opinion, and their answers will be judged as adding fuel to the fire. Perhaps first we should answer: why is such a felling quota even needed for forests in Latvia? Really, if there were no such state-mandated maximum five-year felling limit in state forests, would everything be cut down or logged? Of course, that would not happen, but that is exactly the narrative that is often presented to the public. And it is presented by people who, as often happens, judge the world by themselves. Scientists are not asked for their opinion.
Personally, I am not a pessimist when thinking about reaching the level of development of Finland in Latvia: at one time, our backwardness (compared to Finland) in both thinking and standard of living was estimated at 50 years. Now 29 years have passed, we have 21 left, or just a blink of an eye. That is not much. In actual fact, in 29 years in Latvia, we have accomplished a great deal, especially in the forestry sector and forestry science.
In comparison with the year 2000, fundamental changes have taken place in society; the majority of people live in cities, there has been a distancing and a certain alienation from the countryside, which is why for a part of society, the forest is a kind of exoticism…
This is a global trend and a very significant one for foresters, which must be taken into account. The understanding of the big difference between a tree in a city, which is to be protected and cared for, and a forest in the countryside is slowly fading, because at times both social and media attitudes smooth out this difference. Not everyone who feels like it should be allowed to speak about forestry. Scientists sometimes get involved in this exchange of opinions, but in many cases, their arguments are interpreted for or against one of the disputing parties. Perhaps the situation would be different if the scientists' opinion were monolithic (unified), but if specialists from other fields speak about forestry, what results can be expected from such a conversation? At times, there is a feeling that scientists are to blame for everything. For example, recently near Smiltena, a fairly large forest stand was felled near a popular café – local people were worried, collected signatures, and looked for those responsible. The culprits were found: forest scientists, who supposedly needed the space to plant trial seedlings in a scientific research forest.
There is another important fact: many processes, especially the minds of a part of society, are influenced by so-called “opinion leaders”, whose words people accept very uncritically. Just one example. There is a “stable opinion” that forestry, including drainage, results in the littering of watercourses and subsequently the Baltic Sea. To prove how things really are, forest scientists started a research programme on the interaction between forestry and the environment. In a compact forest mass in Nereta municipality, a state forest area was chosen where forest scientists follow forestry work, carrying out at least 100 different measurements. By measuring the water quality in the Zalvīte stream, which flows through a drained forest area, scientists concluded that the water purity of the stream is akin to the salmon rivers of Alaska. Thus, we conclude: neither timber harvesting nor forest drainage causes harm to water quality.
To demonstrate even more clearly the enormous importance of forest drainage for Latvia’s growth, near Smiltena, in cooperation with the Forest Research Station, we are planning to create the first new forest drainage site since the restoration of independence, equipping it with scientific infrastructure even before its creation. We have a personal interest in how much the Latvian state, with various mechanisms and offices created in the name of environmental protection, will try to hinder and delay this event. I would like to hope that they will not hinder it, but support it! A unique drainage site can be seen near Engure, where the drainage system has been renovated in state forests. For one mature forest block, the ditch was dug around it during the system renovation because “significant natural values had been identified” in the block. They have arisen because the first drainage was carried out in this forest area in Ulmanis-era Latvia—ditches were dug. Therefore, it is the ditch that has “created this great diversity”, for the sake of which people today are ready to invest enough money and dig a ditch “around” the forest. Such examples are at every turn; knowledge is needed to systematise and describe them. It is not prohibitions on working in the forest that have fostered the natural diversity that is so commonplace in Latvia and is protected today, but rather active management. Often, forest scientists are attributed an attitude that does not correspond to reality, such as unfriendliness towards natural values. Who proposed creating the Gauja National Park and the concept of the remaining protected forest territories during the Latvian SSR? Forest scientists from the “Silava” Nature Conservation Laboratory. Later, during the years of independence, “Silava” scientists tried to suggest developing these designs and creating so-called forest conservation quarters—so that for each of the 23 forest types in Latvia, there would be one conservation quarter in each of the 36 forest districts of that time, which in total would occupy about 6% of all forest areas of that time. Unfortunately, at that time, priority was given to the choice of “key habitats”, from which, in turn, the modern “nature census” business “grew”. We have described these events with the help of colleagues from that time in the book about “Silava”, which we hope to see published in the institute's 75th anniversary year.
In the context of climate change, there are many unknowns, but Latvia's commitment to be a pioneer of sorts infuriates many and increases misunderstanding. For example, Germany is preparing to abandon coal only in 2038. Many EU countries can only dream of the level of renewable energy that Latvia has, but despite this, Latvia has to reduce its CO2 emission volumes!
Climate change is happening; we can feel it too, especially if we “happen” to have a rainy or dry summer, or a warm winter. There are a great many questions that are within the competence of science. For example, how much CO2 does a specific soil release if it is ploughed in a specific place in Latvia? Are these data the same as those applied to the whole region? No! Latvian regulations on CO2 sequestration differ from average European standards; our goal is to describe and prove them. The use of national data in the context of climate policy will be a great benefit for Latvia, especially at the moment when it will be necessary to find justification for the compensation of potential emissions that will be created by developing industry. Do we have such studies? Are their results recognised in Brussels?
“Silava” is currently working seriously specifically on CO2 sequestration studies depending on the age of tree stands. In our opinion, a young and growing forest sequesters CO2 and produces oxygen, but an old forest behaves in exactly the opposite way. Old tree stands should be felled and new ones planted in their place. This does not have only an economic justification, which we can evaluate through the prism of timber resources. This is Latvia’s contribution to overall climate policy, small of course, because the country is small.
Will there not be a clash between two opposing approaches—European regions where forests are a rarity, and therefore a unique natural value, and Latvia, where the forest is nothing special?
A good question! Of course, for Latvia, old-growth forests where people have not been working intensively with a saw for the last 50 years are nothing unusual, but in the context of Europe, especially Western Europe, such extensively grown or grown-up forest is a rarity and therefore worth protecting. Again, it is a question of scientific research and arguments, with the help of which Latvian politicians would have better opportunities to defend Latvia’s interests. Of course, with both EU directives and regulations and their interpretations, there will be attempts to slow down forestry in our country, but then it will be important for Latvia to defend these positions together with Estonia, Finland, and Sweden, which are forest countries. The only question is—will there be scientists in Latvia working in these directions? Without science—facts and arguments, which are also regularly published in international scientific periodicals—such discussions will have no results.