An interview with Jānis Švirksts, Board Member of BM Certification

Society in Latvia has gradually become familiar with the necessity of certification across various sectors. There are industries where it is illegal to operate without a certificate. Forests and their certification in Latvia are a relative novelty. What is the overall situation regarding forest certification in Latvia?

The issue of property rights is important – namely, who the forest belongs to! A private forest owner has one set of interests, while a legal entity that owns a forest has others, as the property (in this case, the forest) is one component of their business. State forests are another matter entirely! For legal entities and state forest managers, certification also carries a certain commercial interest so that the end product can be sold in export markets. For a private forest owner, who harvests their forest every 30 or 50, or however many… years, certification will not be their primary goal!

Forest certification is a certain guarantee that a forest is managed sustainably! Conversely, if a forest is not certified, it does not automatically mean that it is being managed unsustainably!

Exactly! I have emphasised and highlighted this thought repeatedly during various meetings, lectures and conversations: “If a forest is not certified, it does not mean anything bad, nor does it mean anything good! From the perspective of certification, it means nothing! It simply indicates that the forest owner has not invited a third party to perform an audit of their forest!

The year 2020. A warm winter, a virus, problems in timber markets. What is currently the most topical issue in certification? Restrictions, as we understand, have little to no impact on the forest certification process.

That is exactly right, they have no impact! It would be a sin, at a time when many are speaking loudly and anxiously about Covid-19, to start talking about problems in certification. Of course, there were discussions, but many projects already underway continued; some things happened more slowly or differently. For example, colleagues did not travel to the forest together in one car, but instead went separately to avoid physical contact. As we know, no one audits a forest remotely! You can look at certain documents or supply chains remotely, but you have to go to the forest yourselves and look on-site! I wouldn't call what is happening a 'current trend', this is a short-term event, short-term changes! In Germany and Belarus, audits are still partially taking place remotely, but in the Baltic states, we have already returned to the usual mode of on-site audits!

Current issues should be viewed separately: local (Latvian) and international. Internationally, changes to the group certification standard are underway. In Latvia, as it has been “constant and stable” for the last 10 years, the development of a forest management standard remains topical. Will it continue or not? Will it happen or not? And (speaking specifically about the FSC standard), will there be a representative in Latvia, or not, and who will it be?

Sustainability and certification. When the word “sustainability” is used in public, is its meaning clear to everyone? It often seems that the word is contemporary and “stylish”, and its use in public discourse gives the impression of the speaker’s “sophistication” without any deeper understanding…

The word “sustainability” has a deep and powerful meaning! The question is rather: to what extent, through the use of various systems, schemes, developments and processes, is this word being “muddled” in everyday life… For comparison – the best songs that have stuck in listeners’ memories are played to death on radio stations, until a large portion of people at some point no longer want to hear them! There is, of course, nothing wrong with the song, but it has been played too much! It’s tiresome!

The same can be said about the use of “sustainability”! Of course, there is a time difference – from the moment a person hears a song for the first time until it becomes uncomfortable or awkward to listen to it, a certain amount of time passes!

When talking about sustainability, in the field of forest certification, we talk about and understand a balance between the environmental, economic and social spheres. To me as an individual (not as a certification specialist), it seems that sustainability schemes are being created and “produced” too much! There are already at least three forest-related certification systems in Latvia; all three are voluntary, but for the most part, they do not “recognise” each other, which leads to a situation where any company wanting to export must obtain all three. Of course, there are minor differences, but the essence of all the systems is the same. At some point, in the situation I have described, “sustainability” can become a swear word for a company manager, business owner or forest owner! In my opinion, it is very important that owners, entrepreneurs and auditors approach every situation rationally and sustainably: how to evaluate, how to audit, how to look at things! So that an audit has real, tangible added value!

Is it possible to manage a forest unsustainably on small plots in Latvia?

Speaking professionally, for something to be considered unsustainable, significant deviations from the standard must be observed in the management!

Speaking from personal experience, unsustainable management is also possible here on small plots! A specific example would be needed here…

When talking about “sustainability”, the phrases “I consider”, “it seems to me”, “I think…” are often used. The messages are not concrete.

There is an important yardstick – relative to what are we looking, relative to what are we evaluating! Moreover, the yardstick must be approved or accepted (agreed upon) by representatives of various interests! What is sustainable for one person may not be for another! For example, we can criticise a forest owner who bought a forest, harvested it, and someone does not consider that to be sustainable behaviour. But if we look broader: if this owner is able to protect other territories or send their children to study at a good university, or thereby become an employer and create a productive company – open a factory, that can be considered sustainable behaviour and a sustainable plan! If we look at one specific hectare of forest, we may not see sustainability, but if we look at it in a socio-economic environmental context – at the level of a household, a municipality or Latvia – the view and conclusion will be different! If you look at a forest in “isolation”, as a separate entity: here is the forest, here is the state, and they are different things, you can “see” a lot! A big picture, a broad view, is necessary!

Has this not become a contemporary Latvian problem – that many things, processes and developments are viewed very narrowly?

That is definitely a problem! Furthermore – it might sound complicated – we lack calibration (filtering)! What is considered the norm in one country is evaluated differently in another country where (perhaps) there are other requirements! There is a palpable lack of a global perspective! In Latvia, we might consider or want to consider something a huge problem, but if you look more broadly: there is no problem, the issue is already resolved!

The draft “Stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world’s forests” published this year

This is personally a very important thing for me: not to blindly accept international norms that must be applied in the country. General phrases are useless! Of course, general guidelines or key themes will always exist, but they must be applied with an understanding of the local situation!

Is there a noticeable lack of a critical approach in the analysis of documents and decisions? Europe (whoever it may be) sends something: we accept it uncritically!

Most likely – it is easier that way! I have not worked in a state administrative institution, but it is permissible to assume that this is how “work” is done with documents sent from European Union structures: something is rounded off or clarified so that the stated task is fulfilled, and the person responsible considers their job done!

Reading interviews with successful local entrepreneurs, more than one mentions the problem: over time, the entrepreneur gene has been lost or “weeded out” in Latvia! Part of the problem can be attributed to the Soviet era, where at least one full generation did not live and work in the capitalism we live in today. But there are few people who think with an entrepreneur’s vision; there are many who think only in a bureaucratic style: “we were told so, it is written so, that is what we will do!” A balance is needed here, but – creating (teaching) this must start if not in kindergarten, then certainly in the first grade! Teach them to think! Teach self-respect and self-confidence! Think in a state-minded way!

What does the certification expert see as the biggest problem and the best thing in Latvia's forests?

That is a difficult question! Every person, depending on their position (job, knowledge, etc.), will have a different answer! To me personally, the most extreme thing seems to be the “tugging of the blanket” in all directions and the attempt to tear it to pieces! That is to say: on one hand, it looks like great democracy, on the other hand – it is chaos. I do not find chaos likeable or acceptable! For example, about one and the same topic, only good or only bad is said! It is only black and white! Even regarding sustainable forest management: it either is or isn't… The biggest problem I have observed is that forests managed in accordance with all standards receive harsher criticism and are “lashed” more than non-certified ones! This creates an absurd situation. And another situation is forming: whoever screams the loudest or has the most heart-wrenching texts or images takes the lead in the public space!

A crisis of industry experts. In Latvia, many people with various educational backgrounds judge the forest wisely…

It is difficult to speak about forests on a political or public stage because the speaker must be well-trained and educated so that what they say is not immediately twisted by those who think differently. Successful Latvian entrepreneurs do not want to be part of such publicity because they do not need it! If you express a well-founded opinion as a forest scientist, but this opinion is “just not” acceptable to someone else, you are publicly berated, threatened and… what is there to do?

I would advise companies to actively engage in hiring young environmental and natural scientists so that a young person develops a connection with real life, production and work from their very first year! Environmental science must exist and operate in symbiosis with a production company, which is very important! It is normal for forest faculty graduates or students and, for example, biologists to work in a company. Otherwise, two fronts are artificially created. If a person works in a business and sees things more broadly, not just a small part, they will have a more accurate view and better understanding! As long as it is as it is now, where there are “some and others” – the forest must be spoken about by a good speaker (not always an industry professional!), who will meaningfully pause during the speech, make the necessary emphases, etc. Do we really need that??!