The Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union (LMNA) marked its 35th anniversary in April, while 4 May marked 35 years since the Supreme Council adopted the Declaration of Independence. 35 and 35 – a telling coincidence.
Exactly! It is worth recalling that it was at the Forest Sector Trade Union's congress, held roughly a month before 4 May 1990, that the decision was taken to abandon cooperation with USSR structures. We are very proud of that step and we always stress that representatives of the forest sector have often initiated processes of national importance, or taken a very active part in them. Whenever I have to speak to an audience about the history of trade unions in Latvia, I mention the fact that the first major strike on Latvian territory took place in 1870 at the Vērmanis sawmill. Many representatives of our sector also took part in the barricades of 1991, when a considerable amount of forestry machinery arrived in Riga. To my mind, being closer to the land gives you a very firm bond with your country.
Colleagues from the sector who took part in the anniversary birch planting in Dobele municipality had great praise for your opening speech, in which you linked security with the economy and employment clearly and comprehensibly. You have stressed employment, particularly in the regions, and security more than once. Where, in your view, does the problem lie at the political level in failing to connect two well-known and important things?
Your question touches on a longer process of reflection, one the trade union has also taken up seriously. In my view, the comfortable situation in which someone else could get something done or achieved on our behalf has come to an end. Here I am speaking about the war in Ukraine, which affects the whole of Europe very directly. We see Russia's imperialist ambitions, and we must understand very well that there is no one else who ought to be thinking about Europe's security in our place. At present Western Europe has been woken from its habitual slumber, albeit slowly. Even so, hardly anyone grasps the gravity of the situation better than Latvia and the other neighbours of Russia, which have a vivid historical memory.
When the invasion of Ukraine began, many people were frightened. I was afraid too, because I remembered my grandmother's stories about the horrors of the war years. That is why it is good that we have finally begun to think seriously about national security and defence. Only this requires, and will require, funds that cannot simply be reallocated mechanically in some way or other. Of course, it is necessary to economise and not to spend needlessly wherever that is possible, but it must be done sensibly, not by setting one sector against another because everyone has to cut their budget. At the moment I see that the country as a whole lacks a clear vision of how to earn more for the budget, for example by supporting, or at least not hindering, the exporting sectors so they can work as intensively as possible. Particularly those that process local resources.
As I see it, the forest sector has an outstanding opportunity to make an even greater contribution to the national economy, generating additional funds that the state can direct towards strengthening security. I agree with the Minister of Agriculture and with sector experts who argue that we have scope to make more intensive use of the timber resources accumulated in our forests without losing sustainability. All that is needed is the will, and considered, forward-looking decisions. If only by fully delivering the maximum felling volume approved by Cabinet of Ministers regulations in state forests over the coming five-year period, with the timber resources obtained channelled into further processing to create high-value export products. It is very important that regional employment in particular is strengthened at the same time, as this also matters a great deal for strengthening national security overall.
If we thought this way about opportunities to earn additional funds not only in the forest sector but across all sectors of the economy, achieving our shared economic and security goals would be far more realistic.
A felling estimate is set for the state forests, but it is usually not met.
The question is: why does that happen? Have all the possibilities really been used, has it been assessed what exactly should be done, or, conversely, what definitely should not be done, in order to turn the hectares set in the estimate into the euros the state budget so badly needs? Just one example – if we are now beginning to consider seriously the option of working more intensively in Latvia's forests, including those owned by the state, I cannot fail to mention the restructuring process currently under way at JSC “Latvijas valsts meži” (LVM), a process that has drawn LMNA into discussions both with the company's management and with the Ministry of Agriculture as a mediator we called in – in order to stand up for our members' rights, first, to organise in a trade union and, second, to take part fully in the process of change. If, for economic and security reasons, serious political-level discussion is under way about changes to the regulatory environment that would allow broader and more efficient use of the timber accumulated in the forests, is it wise and far-sighted to carry out a substantial reform of a successfully operating company such as LVM at the same time? Would it not be more important to preserve the knowledge and the people already there, especially when the company's financial and profit figures in recent years show that it works like a well-tuned mechanism? A Latvian saying teaches that you do not change horses at the switch points, yet in this particular case that is exactly what is happening.
I will come back to that question, but speaking of various reforms: they are often organised by looking at tables and charts, without any interest in what ought to be done and achieved, or – quite the opposite – concluding that this or that piece of work is not needed at all. There are quite enough activities in laws and regulations that are not practically or actually necessary, which those involved know about but carry on doing anyway. For instance, it seems the healthcare and education sectors have spent these 35 years of independence in almost constant change, which is just as insistently called reform. The processes roll on, the result is not good...
In my view, that is another example of the lack of a common national strategy and a comprehensive view. We need a clear and firm view of the country's direction – where we are going. We must be responsible stewards who know how to use the resources we have and to care for them over the long term.
When you talk to businesses in the sector, the development plans of the company in question are clearly visible and readily understandable for a reasonably long time ahead. That happens very rarely, or not at all, in politics, where unfortunately the view extends over a four-year period – from one election to the next... How do we “get to” long-term national development?
Short-term thinking has to change. I am personally very fond of the terms “statesman” – someone who works selflessly and to the best of their conscience to increase the nation's welfare – and “steward of the national economy” – a person who manages not only for their own benefit but also thinks about the common good. If, looking at the actions of politicians and business people, we could use these words without hypocrisy, I am convinced we would live even better in Latvia.
To think in terms longer than four years, the overall public mood and attitude matter. The media play a large part in shaping them, and unfortunately negativity dominates there, including very markedly with regard to the forest sector. That is baffling. We manage our forests conscientiously and sustainably; the statistics clearly show the sector's investment, tax and employment figures, which contribute to the national economy. I am convinced that the people working in the forest sector are patriots of both the sector and the country. At the same time, an obvious counter-campaign runs on almost without a break, which those working in the sector find deeply offensive.
As is well known, we are criticised for the most part by people who, as they see it themselves, are connected with nature conservation and environmental activism. Speaking of these activities, calls to invest in them have been heard more than once, forgetting that whatever is invested has to be taken from somewhere; it will not appear of its own accord.
It is clear that we have to think about environmental matters, just as we do about the social side. I do not think anyone doubts that state-provided services and social guarantees require budget funds, which have to be earned in the form of taxes. The question is and remains one of balance. Unfortunately, we are not accustomed to thinking of environmental matters as a process that the whole of society pays for out of its own pockets. We cannot only prohibit and restrict, particularly at a time when we have to think about security. For us to be safe and strong, we need a strong economy based on local resources.
In August 1991, while we were waiting for international recognition of our independence, which did not come quickly enough, more than one person remarked bitterly that “for well-fed Europe, not recognising the occupation was enough”, but when the occupied countries want genuine freedom and independence, it is time to think it over... Every so often, when assessing the situation in Europe, that time comes to mind... We understand what must not be done and how, but while the aggressor acts, we will keep thinking it over, weighing it up...
What comes to mind is something I read in the news recently, that the European Union has undertaken to end imports of fossil energy resources from Russia completely by 2027. The words do not match the deeds, though, because it has been calculated that last year the EU bought a record quantity of liquefied natural gas from Russia, and Russia earned more than 7.3 billion euros. It is convenient for Europe to carry on buying resources from Russia, while at the same time we want to be safe in Europe, we want Ukraine to win and the war to end. Do we genuinely support Ukraine, do we genuinely think about how to safeguard Europe, or do we do it only declaratively? In my view, this state of affairs explains why so many people are disillusioned with politics in general – because words so often do not match deeds.
The same is to be seen in so-called civil society. For example, when the illegal crossing of the Russian and Belarusian border comes up, from time to time you hear the claim that we are forgetting about the war. As though this situation created by our neighbouring countries were not part of the war.
Refugees are being used as an instrument of war. Populism on this issue, meanwhile, correlates with how far people's declared values match their actual conduct – they often choose whatever is more popular at that moment and turn a blind eye to fundamental values. Take what is happening in America at present. The leader of an influential country allows himself to say whatever comes into his head, without considering how true or untrue his words are. That devalues the whole system of values, because you no longer understand whom you can trust, and when.
What are the most important tasks for the Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union in the coming years?
We organise our work along several lines. First, occupational safety. It is clear that investment improves the working environment, but there is always room for improvement. Companies from third countries are entering the Latvian market, and some of them have poor references when it comes to occupational safety.
Second, the trade union's involvement in lifelong learning and retraining programmes, as well as educating young people entering the labour market about employment rights and occupational safety.
The sustainability aspect also matters, because the introduction of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) is opening a new era in the disclosure of environmental, social responsibility and governance information. Responsibility towards employees and cooperation with the trade union as the employees' representative is an important section of the sustainability report.
The trade union is also an interested party in certification schemes, where a set of requirements is laid down that certificate holders must observe. And, of course, everything to do with employment relations – so there is plenty of work, and there will be plenty more!
While the territorial reform was being drawn up, the so-called outlying areas or more remote parishes were mentioned frequently. Unfortunately, this problem has persisted where it already existed, or arisen where it did not. What should be done to make local authorities interested in their budgets? I ask because from time to time you hear that support for business is what it is.
As we know, there is direct employment, indirect employment and a third layer as well – a teacher, for instance. If in some parish the father works in wood processing, the mother is a teacher and the son works at a logistics company, the whole family is in fact within a single ecosystem. It is clear that regional employment matters for even development, for security, and also for strong politicians – statesmen and stewards of the national economy. Where else are all these things to come from, if not from a foundation of regional resources, their management and their further use? And who else will create it all, if not the people who live and work in the regions?
You might call that political wisdom...
We have to come back to the common national vision mentioned earlier: what we want in our country. If something changes politically, for example one council or Saeima convocation is replaced by another – does continuity happen, and how? Take the healthcare sector we have already touched on in this conversation, where we have been hearing about changes for decades. They go on and on, every new minister comes with new ideas, “the previous ones are no good at all”, every reform needs funds, money is spent senselessly, which is why trade unions certainly object to this “everything from a blank page” practice.
Of course, this is not only in Latvia but often at European level too. A striking example is the EUDR (EU Deforestation Regulation, or the Deforestation Regulation), which will require member states to increase bureaucracy and will place an additional burden on companies. In Latvia, too, we now have to think carefully about how to integrate it into our systems so as not to waste money needlessly.
The EUDR and Europe. The fight against deforestation in regions where it is a major problem, but... If there is practically no deforestation in Europe, why is it so insistently necessary to create problems for our own companies?
A good question, and one on which we need a coalition with those EU countries that have a strong forest sector, so as to raise it in every possible way. The sector must certainly also work with Members of the European Parliament. When I am in Brussels, I raise this question regularly in the forestry sub-committee of the European Federation of Building and Wood Workers, because every opportunity has to be used to remind people that the aim of the EUDR is to fight deforestation globally and to reduce to a minimum the EU's impact on forest clearance and forest degradation linked to imports of agricultural commodities into the European Union.
A final question, one you will be able to explain best – the trade union's disagreements with “Latvijas valsts meži”, which you have already mentioned. What has happened and what is happening?
Several employees of JSC “Latvijas valsts meži” had already joined LMNA as individual union members. At the start of the year they came to us with the news that they wanted to establish their own union organisation, thereby bringing together the LMNA members who had until then been individual members, employees of “Latvijas valsts meži”. What is more, the number of these members had been growing steadily since the beginning of the year. When the interested representatives came together, the LVM union organisation was established in February, and we sent out a press release about it to colleagues in the sector, the media, cooperation partners and interested parties. I know that the Forest Certification Council of Latvia also informed its members about this fact. In any case, I was genuinely pleased that LVM too now has its own union organisation, that this flagship of the sector has finally become involved in social dialogue, which moreover seemed only natural and had previously looked like a mere “matter of time”, because LVM's publicly declared values, including in the field of social values, chime beautifully with the stance required to conduct productive and sustainable social dialogue.
That is why it came as a great personal surprise to me both that LVM's first public reaction was that its management had supposedly not been informed about the establishment of the union organisation, and that what has followed – the union organisation still not being treated by the company's management as an equal cooperation partner. Trade union theory, practice and history teach and prove that a trade union can only arise, can only be founded, in conflict. Like it or not, that is how it is and how it happens. And evidently there were internal conflicts or conditions at LVM that prompted the formation of a trade union. As I tried to say earlier, and as far as I know, not all LVM employees are satisfied with the reform taking place in the company – more precisely, not with the reform as such, but with the way it is being carried out, chiefly with how the reduction in staff numbers is being handled, the rotation between newly created structures and posts, and how existing and new positions are being filled anew. The new structures and their tasks, including employees' new duties, also strike more than one person as not fully discussed. Many LVM employees have worked at the company since it was founded, or at least for many years, and are patriots of their company who genuinely want it to grow, and that is precisely why they want to take part in the processes with their experience and competence. If that is not allowed or is ignored, forming a trade union to represent and defend their rights is only a logical step. I want to stress that at times the right to representation is far more important than the defence of rights – the right to one's own opinion, the right to be listened to, to be involved, to be heard.
We are aware that in a large state-owned company everyone has their own place and responsibility, and that the decisions LVM's management has to take are not always easy or pleasant for employees, but in any situation we urge people not to forget the possibility of building a constructive and open dialogue. Social dialogue is an effective way of ensuring that its participants achieve their economic and social goals, averting the risks of confrontation and conflict and building on the reconciliation of all parties' interests and the achievement of constructive compromises. With the experience and competence accumulated over its 35 years of activity, LMNA is always open to talks; we are ready to continue the dialogue in a manner acceptable and respectful to the parties involved.
Photographs by LMNA from the birch planting event held for the 35th anniversary, and photographs from zemeunvalsts.lv