At the time it became known – that the Minister of Agriculture Didzis Šmits had selected you for the position of advisor, a series of interesting things came to light – it turns out that both people from Latvian Television and the Latvian Fund for Nature have been following the activities of yours and the Forest Owners Association of Latvia (LMĪB) quite closely, which, however, has in no way deepened or improved their knowledge or understanding of forestry and forest science issues. From the reaction of these people, it was clear that in the 21st century, experts and those knowledgeable in certain industries or spheres are not welcome in certain positions... This reaction, in turn, forced a rethink of how the situation has changed in 33 years, or if it has changed at all, where knowledge and professionalism are less important than certain opinions or stances.
Everyone has their own angle of view and trajectory, coupled with values. Those who know me and supported my taking the current position are confident that my values are prosperous Latvian people in an independent and green Latvia. One must look at the arguments and specific accusations regarding my work at the Forest Owners Association of Latvia. One thing that was voiced (I will not quote exactly) is that I have been criticising nature-friendly forestry for years...
... and that I tend to express myself quite directly, without prevaricating and being “disrespectful”...
Both broadcasts and articles are publicly available online, and by watching or reading them, it is possible to find out what I have stood for, when, and what I have supported. For more than 10 years, I have represented the interests of forest owners, and, importantly, these have always been defensive positions. Foresters do not attack or criticise, for example, urban policy or the fact that nature conservation goals are a priority in specially protected nature areas. Forest industry organisations care about forestry and its role in the national economy. It must be sustainable and foster development and prosperity. If someone questions this and wants to weaken it, I will emphasise: one must stand firmly by one's values, without prevaricating.
The first and most important thing in my work has always been the conviction that one must talk to landowners, which is still not happening. If there are rare or endangered natural values in commercial forests, the protection of which is truly in the public interest, first and foremost, it is necessary to agree on the rules – what we protect and how. I want to emphasise the word “agree”. My position has not changed over the years – the opportunity to protect nature under clear and acceptable conditions must be in the hands of the owner. If the owner needs additional knowledge or consultations for the more precise management of a species or habitat – please, provide them!
Knowledge about nature conservation must be accessible to the landowner so that it is clear how they can manage their property in the long term to preserve these natural values. This resonates in all my articles and is very clearly understandable from what I have said. Nature conservation – expertise, funding, and the task of doing – is currently an exclusive commodity held by environmental NGOs, and this is to a large extent what the struggle is about.
I have always been for cooperation, and not just in words. At the LMĪB, we have invited forest owners to participate in owl protection, and we have done good work. At the same time, for example, the Latvian Fund for Nature takes a very firm stand that a ban on forestry activities is currently the only available and acceptable method for them to use for bird protection in a micro-reserve. This does not work because it is not state-oriented, it is super expensive, it has no scientific justification, and it is not sustainable either.
Both representatives of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM), including the previous minister Artūrs Toms Plešs, and ornithologists, as well as those who later avoided a clearly agreed-upon interview when speaking with zemeunvalsts.lv, have always emphasised that everything is possible only through cooperation and that cooperation is the only way to move forward.
“Listen to my words, don't look at my actions!” Actions often do not match words. For example, during the preparation of the species protection plan for the lesser spotted eagle, a VARAM representative pointed out during a public consultation that there should be separate regulations to protect a species that nests dispersedly (the lesser spotted eagle, which changes nests). The most knowledgeable researcher of lesser spotted eagles in Latvia, ornithologist Uģis Bergmanis, prepared such a proposal, and the cooperation platform was ready, but the Nature Conservation Agency unilaterally deleted this proposal from the species protection plan, and VARAM did not object.
Forest owners wrote letters to the then-minister J. Pūce, the Ombudsman, the Prime Minister, and the President, but... VARAM explained that they were addressing this issue with a compensation working group... since 2019, and without results. This is just one example – proposals for cooperation have been made, they have not been accepted, but many are ready to make accusations.
The issue of compensation is slowly turning into a perennial one. Back in 2014 and 2015, only forest owners and industry representatives talked about compensation, the next proposal was to “take” compensation from the industry itself (“we invent and conjure up restrictions for you, and you pay for them yourselves”), and now so-called environmental activist organisations are suddenly talking about the “necessity of always-supported compensation”. Remembering your work at the LMĪB, can you name one clear example where a landowner has received adequate compensation within the framework of an environmental project related to restrictions?
At the time when one-off compensations were paid; until the crisis in 2009. Today, there is no such experience in Latvia. A pilot project “Living Forest” has been started, where owners have the opportunity to get involved in habitat management and receive a payment. But it is a trial, the results of which we will not feel so soon, as the project will last until 2028.
Speaking of compensation, it must be emphasised that forest owners must be given the opportunity to reconcile commercial and specific nature conservation interests so that there is no need to ask our meagre budget for huge sums for excessively expensive nature conservation. Today, no one calculates how much money we are simply wasting on chaotic nature conservation – from taxpayers' money we pay both to the person who finds a natural value and to the person who prepares an opinion on this value (even €1000); at the moment of establishing a prohibition, the owner loses the opportunity to manage the area in question. Yet, these rights and opportunities are gained by those who have the privilege of engaging in nature conservation – at this point, other programmes start to operate, for example, the need to monitor protected areas, the need to carry out nature management measures in protected areas, etc. The funding for these measures does not reach the landowner; it is managed by nature conservation organisations, which are effectively businesses that offer nature conservation and management services. It is a business. And these organisations accuse me of criticising such a chaotic system. To a certain extent, there is a battle going on right now: will the land outside specially protected nature areas (ĪADT), on which forest grows, be for forestry, which Latvian people and companies engage in, or will these territories be taken away from forestry through regulations and become objects for the nature management business?
How do you see the further progress of the compensation issue? What makes one cautious is not the fact that the political will to solve it might now exist, but that the most significant obstacle would be the acute lack of money. We can be ironic about social media content, but it is often enough that Saeima and local government deputies, activists from various fields, and those who want to influence policy and political decisions at any cost express themselves there. The recently created state budget is already being “re-tooled” – the demands are still numerous, the money is still lacking. At the same time, various restrictions are being demanded that unequivocally reduce state revenue.
If one wants many restrictions and enough money, one will have to choose: one or the other.
We need both!
It would be necessary to rethink the goals, justification, procedure for establishing, and management regime of prohibitions and bans, while simultaneously calculating how this affects the well-being of our society. The marked desire and tendency of recent years is to exclude ever larger areas of land (forest) from commercial use. Decision-makers and those creating the state budget should understand that these territories have been excluded from economically generating territories, including from generating money for that very same lean state budget, and have turned into a budget expenditure item.
Another important thing – for a large part of natural values, a complete ban on commercial activity is not necessary. It is very important to realise this because precise nature conservation is not that expensive, and such large amounts for compensation in the budget will not need to be earmarked. More targeted nature conservation will be both more successful and financially understandable.
For example, if a property has a natural value for which specific conditions must be ensured – let's say, not disturbing birds during the nesting period or maintaining a specific light regime in the undergrowth – it would require very concrete actions or precise rather than absolute restrictions. If nature conservation becomes dynamic, all involved parties achieve their goals and – importantly – the state budget does not suffer either. This is the right path to take!
Many requirements do not originate in Latvian cabinets, but outside the country. Already during the discussion of the lesser spotted eagle project, it was mentioned that European Union money should be attracted for compensation... The responsible officials first dodged, until they became more permissive, and the then-minister* expressed the existence of such possibilities in conversation. Have anyone in Brussels or elsewhere enquired about and talked about it? Drawing parallels with more than one event – it is understandable that it is more convenient not to raise this issue, so that such possibilities exist.
We see that there are so-called environmental projects... If we want to, there are opportunities to do something, and it is possible to work together with the owner.
This is a time of opportunity. After the elections, two ministries (VARAM and Agriculture) have come under the control of one political force, which until now effectively “did not talk” (did not cooperate). I would very much like to hope that in the future it will be different – our goal is a society that lives in a clean environment and prosperity and understands nature conservation. The interests in both spheres are similar; it is necessary to solve issues together.
There are definitely people who do not take kindly to this version of ministry governance. For example, in the aforementioned social media, opponents write a lot about the ministers of the United List or the National Alliance, who monitor them like in the film “Unfinished Supper” made at the Riga Film Studio.
It is important that the heads of both ministries are people who have achieved and experienced enough in their lives. For example, Māris Sprindžuks is an experienced local government leader; it is clear to him who works at what level – where the situation will be better solved by the local government, where a national-level perspective is needed, etc.
In a recent meeting, both ministers and their teams discussed how it is possible to achieve (observe) the goals set (determined) by Brussels without losing local opportunities – this can be achieved by both delegating certain functions and demanding accountability, and by giving opportunities.
It is possible to integrate new European requirements more successfully. One cannot say – “we are told to do it, so we do it!” Those times, I hope, are over! One must evaluate how specific things will affect the state, regions, local governments, etc.
So it doesn't sound just like – “Yes, sir!” or “No, sir!” So that we see real work in the given conditions. Here, there is unequivocally a wide field of work for you, as someone knowledgeable in the industry. One cannot agree to everything concocted or invented in Brussels.
Recent events, where we see Latvia's position regarding the Nature Restoration Regulation and the attitude towards the RED III proposal, indicate the strength of our national stance, from which one must not retreat. Thanks to the responsible people at VARAM and the Ministry of Economics for this important work!
Speaking about the European Green Deal, hardly anyone in Latvia has analysed the regulations created in Europe more broadly. For example, in a recent conversation** with “Silava” scientists Andis Lazdiņš and Āris Jansons, it was emphasised that a choice will have to be made – either climate or biodiversity issues. They do not fit together and/or exclude each other. Has Latvia not already managed to rush? Are there enough strong people in Brussels to fight for our interests?
Your question has a simple, even very crude explanation – various EU directorates work on various issues, and the employees of the directorates have no obligation to coordinate their plans and policy with other directorates.
I have personally experienced this and asked EC representatives. When asking how it is possible to simultaneously fulfil the Nature Restoration Regulation and the Climate Neutrality goals, which are contradictory, the answer was – it is not our duty to coordinate them with each other.
In Latvia, one must be used to incoherence and a lack of coordination. It is nothing new if Ministry A has no orientation about what Ministry B is doing, with both working successfully towards an unsuccessful result because the goals are mutually exclusive.
Yes, but as I mentioned before, with regard to the positions prepared by Latvia, one must praise the good work and express the hope for the observance of national interests in the future as well. In the government's action plan, the Ministry of Agriculture has included measures aimed at reconciling interests, for example, the development of nature-friendly forestry guidelines, which would determine, with scientific justification, the parameters that must be met to ensure the prerequisites necessary for biodiversity. If we accomplish this together, it will be a big step in cooperation.
It's clear about Latvia, but what do they think about this in Brussels?
We can influence the situation there little. It is clear that various lobby organisations are actively working there, representing the interests of various industries.
There are several “buts”! The most important – the forest industry in our understanding (Scandinavia, the Baltics, Poland) is something that is not understood by the countries of Central or Southern Europe, where it is not an important and rather problematic, not productive, industry. One must talk a lot with the representatives, deputies, etc., of these countries.
We are not very well oriented in citrus fruit cultivation and processing, we don't have the wine-making traditions of southern countries... And?
That is true, but we are by no means the ones pushing any weird (even unacceptable) conditions for other EU countries. Since we are too different and overly distinct in EU forest industry issues, forestry is the competence of the member states. Unequivocally – one must decide on forest management at the national level, not by listening to Brussels' instructions on improving certain indicators in the forests of your country. Apparently, we have weak economic interests to defend.
Valdis Dombrovskis works in Brussels, in social media we very often see enthusiasm about Latvian officials working in European structures getting high positions, we have deputies in the European Parliament – this is all serious potential for defending Latvia's interests. Is it difficult to reach them?
Each EP deputy has joined a political force or group, which, in turn, also has a certain political trajectory that corresponds to its voters. One must definitely look at how large the representation of a political force is and in which countries these deputies were elected. Why are the RED III conditions, which the European Parliament approved by voting, unacceptable to us? Because our lives and problems are not theirs. There are enough countries for whom ensuring heating or warmth in winter is not the most important issue. Let's not be naive; with a clear view, one must evaluate competing businesses – if wind park construction ensures an economic breakthrough for a country, that country and its representatives will not support the use of biomass in energy. Simple as that!
The EC is accused of concentrating too much power in a fairly narrow circle. It is clear that agreeing on something for more than 20 countries in everyday life is not simple – it would be more advantageous to choose a large frame (Green Deal and a few basic principles), allowing member states to build each their own policy.
The grand goals of the Green Deal are very correct – the path away from the use of fossil resources, the reduction of waste volume, etc. If we look at what the real environmental problems in Latvia are... we don't lack nature or its diversity; in this respect, we are one of the richest countries in the European Union. However, we have problems with waste recycling and collection. I assume not a few will have travelled around Europe and noticed that there are countries where waste must be sorted into not three or four, but seven different containers. We have a lot to do in this field.
One cannot abandon fossil raw materials just like that, without replacing them with anything. Wood is the most nature-friendly way, for the better and higher-value use of which technologies are needed, in which one must invest (buy or create ourselves).
It seems absurd to me to apply to Latvia what Ursula von der Leyen once said: “Let's bring nature back into our lives!” As a Latvian who has a farm with land and forest in the countryside, I don't lack nature! Every Latvian is given a lot of nature, and it is very close to us – all you have to do is leave the city. Those European countries that have managed to drive nature out of their lives and immediate surroundings could start with themselves.
The beginnings of waste sorting in Latvia can be found 20 years ago; effectively, for two decades, Latvia has still been trying to fix something. One must not forget that the Green Deal also provides for waste recycling, reuse, and the use of wind and solar energy. As soon as there is a plan, for example, to build a tyre recycling plant – objections, to build a wind park – objections, etc.
I think there are stories that society understands better at its current level of understanding, and stories that it does not understand or understands very poorly. Modern society, at its level of understanding, perceives the message – that cutting down or felling trees is bad – emotionally it works, and with it, one can earn points and popularity in various ways.
Do you want to say that in Latvia – a country with ancient forestry and agricultural traditions – such a thought has taken root?
A large part of society is very urban. On the other hand, there is a part that lives in the countryside and effectively maintains the viability of the countryside, and who really works from morning till night all year round; from these people, we will not hear objections about management. The need for nature for city dwellers is “now and then”; it is perceived as a matter-of-course service or utility – I leave the city, I need a specific environment for my well-being.
No one is interested – “Listen – how do we have such greenery all around, how does it happen that we can leave the city and be in a forest, meadow, field?...” In the Netherlands, there are national parks to which locals go to relax; one vacationer is 5 m in front of you, the other – 8 behind.
I don't lack diversity in the Latvian landscape. For example, going towards Sēlija, beyond Valle there is a beautiful and quiet landscape. Just like throughout Latvia. There are few people there, which I very much regret, because I want there to be viable villages, schools, kindergartens, and available medicine in Latvia. For that to happen, there must be more jobs and production facilities in the regions. People must be given the opportunity to develop this environment.
A fox, bear, wolf will enter the void...What is heard about the socio-economic assessment of habitat mapping?
I think this is a matter for the near future. The assessment was made last year, the further process has stalled... The informative report on habitat mapping must soon “move” to the Cabinet of Ministers. It is important that the socio-economic impact is assessed, because at the moment of decision-making, a choice will have to be made, which in any case will cost something. One must not forget that by restricting an area, its economic value must be multiplied by 6 to 10 to account for the value-added of processing.
Was there a possibility that the desire to protect anything had no side effects?
Until now in Latvia, these public interests have remained on the shoulders of the landowner, which is not sustainable.
Can you say anything about the Forest Consultative Council (MKP) at the Ministry of Agriculture, the work of which should be renewed?
I think in the near future the composition of the MKP will be renewed and it will start work. The MKP (in accordance with MK regulations) will not be elected; interest groups will work in it – private forest managers, state and local government forest managers, representatives of the timber industry, service providers, and the environmental block.
What, in your opinion, to do with the explanation of the Green Deal document and its practical side, so that misunderstandings do not arise. In Latvia, we often see enthusiasm or denial, or misunderstandings, for example, regarding firewood heating, etc. If there is a commitment to live better, things need to be explained briefly and understandably.
Speaking of documents created and most loudly discussed recently – many of them have not yet been finished; in the further development process, they will be supplemented. For example, by such and such a year (ellipsis instead of a year) this and that must be implemented...
The question of the use of biomass for heating, which worried Latvian society, was justifiably brought up. As we already talked about before, the EP deputies' vote created serious risks for Latvia's path to energy independence – we will not heat ourselves in winter with solar or wind energy. At our disposal is gas, or the local resource – biomass. In the further future, technologies could develop and heat pumps would appear more.
Currently, it is correct to pay attention to the problem – we as a country are quite small and obedient enough, and we are often pretended not to be heard or are deliberately not heard. We ourselves see and understand the risks better. This must be talked about and it must be done loudly!
It was six years ago when colleagues at an industry meeting emphasised that one must address society – both directly and through the media, but public media is not among them.
It will be very difficult not to notice that the forest and agricultural sectors are not close to public media. Latvian society would gain much more, both economically and in terms of understanding, if public media opened their doors more widely to economists and producers, and explained elementary things.
For example, the broadcast “Zināmais nezināmajā” (The Known in the Unknown), where environmental NGO representatives are regular guests. To my question – why forest scientists are not invited to talk about forest issues, I was answered that researcher Jānis Ozoliņš is invited from “Silava”. So, in this broadcast, “Silava” researchers are allocated to talk about “small animal” topics, but environmental NGOs will educate society about forestry. If the specialists from the forest science institute who study the impact of climate change and the ability of forestry to adapt spoke about forest issues in the public media, and explained what our forestry has been like historically and what we can do in the future, the level of understanding in society and, first and foremost, in the public media itself would be much better.
It should be the interest of the public media management – for their employees and society to have more scientifically based data about what is happening around. I think turning the public media into a platform for the stance and views of one group of society about an important Latvian national economic sector is harmful.
There are many good things that work successfully in our neighbouring countries. All that remains is to want to adopt good practice. Therefore – if decisions are made through the prism of social welfare and sustainability, we have many good opportunities that must be realised.
We can smirk, but it is clear who will write complaints to various institutions in the future.Why, in your opinion, are many requirements expressed in percentages? Who can guarantee the fulfilment of percentages if we are talking about nature?
In my opinion, many participate in the preparation of a plan, thought, or regulation, and it is more understandable if the result is expressed in percentages. In terms of protection, we talk about hectares – 10% of the land territory must be strictly protected. There is an assumption that natural processes will run their course in these territories and in this way nature will have the opportunity to recover.
Of course, here is the question – what these 10% look like in nature in Latvia and what – in Belgium. Silence will by no means reign in these 10% – they will be allocated to the nature restoration business, and again – these will not be natural processes, but the type of commercial activity with the help of which someone has thought up to restore something.
Speaking of these 10%, I, for example, find it hard to imagine what will happen to our rivers... Various restrictions have already ruined river quality. Now we will spend public money, we will restore nature by cleaning rivers, instead of thinking about how not to pollute them.
It is not clear whether everything will flourish and bloom in these 10% of territories as thought up in some cabinet – we have insects, fires break out, biological processes occur, invasive plants also spread. It is an experiment with unpredictable consequences.
There must be concrete national-level plans, and we arrive at a situation... In the guidelines, describing the habitat “herb-rich spruce forests”, as a desired management method, it is indicated – “do not interfere”. Leaving old spruce forests without the opportunity for them to regenerate, the achieved result will be quite sad; what will we gain?
Herbs growing among fallen spruces...
Don't forget hazels and other shrubs, which, of course, are natural, but will the gain be what was intended?...
When taking office, there are usually plans that a person definitely wants to do. Do you have one?
This work gives the opportunity to be present and talk at the political level with the leadership of other ministries about joint tasks that would be reasonably solvable so that they promote human well-being and solve the most painful problems of our society.
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/kompensaciju-jautajums-ir-skaidrs-un-saprotams-un-esmu-apnemies-to-risinat-intervija-ar-arturu-tomu-plesu-vides-aizsardzibas-un-regionalas-attistibas-ministru
** https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/pasaule-nav-vietas-kaut-kur-citur-saruna-ar-dr-silv-ari-jansonu-un-dr-silv-andi-lazdinu-latvijas-mezzinatnes-instituta-silava-vadosajiem-petniekiem