Influenced by various misfortunes this summer (drought, heavy rain, storms, a drop in logging volumes and the corresponding lack of resources), the old narrative has returned to circulation – that all of Latvia's forests have either been cut down or bought out by foreigners (Scandinavians)... How do you view the regular repetition and recurrence of this issue?
When it comes to the forest and its owners, I have always held one view, which I have not changed over the years – if you are a forest owner and wish to remain one in the future, you must look at the forest in the long term. Regardless of various processes in the world (mainly economic), you must look at this forest as a greater value, not just a source of profit. If you have this outlook (regardless of whether you purchased the forest, inherited it, or it was gifted to you), you will strive to manage it and keep it for yourself. A proper forest owner, in my opinion, thinks this way and highly values their forest. One part of the story is the extraction and sale of timber, the other is the property itself. What is property? In my view, for every person, it represents both national security and a value.
I have always said and believed – a proper (genuine) forest owner will always own the forest; they will pass this forest and the story of its importance and value on to future generations. Such people will never lose their property.
Has no one invited you to give lectures or make public appearances regarding sustainability issues?
Actually no, and I don't particularly long for it.
Your short narrative about forest ownership contains the essence of sustainability.
I think it is because I have been involved in these matters for a sufficiently long time. If you want to talk about sustainability, you must look at it as broadly as possible, including all issues related to the social sphere and well-being, as well as the environment, the economy, etc. The term “sustainability” is broad, used quite frequently in recent years, and is currently very popular.
Each person’s individual understanding of sustainability is linked to their knowledge of various processes as a whole.
Has sustainability as a modern term entered your daily work as well?
I think it has always been in my work, because we think several steps ahead. When talking about daily life, the future, or a certain level of well-being for a family or a company – sustainability has always been right there. For example, a sense of security or future plans also represent sustainability.
You mentioned the forest as a value in a broader sense. How should one evaluate or analyse the sharp discussions of recent decades regarding what is more important – the environment, the economy, or social issues? These disputes, understandably, have not bypassed Latvia... How much and what should be preserved, how much and how should it be managed?
Primarily, one thing must be understood (it is often forgotten) – today, forest management is viewed very differently compared to the early 1990s, because much has changed.
For instance, over the years, new wood products with higher added value have emerged, which consequently means higher income from the forest, as well as potentially higher employment. If we look from an environmental point of view, it is clear that people in the forestry sector know and understand environmental issues and nuances very well. More and more people understand that in the rush of modern life, every visit to the forest provides satisfaction. The fact that a common position or view is often not reached in discussions or disputes and the participants highlight only their own differences is also familiar.
What is not good is that the fundamentally flawed view that using the forest is bad continues to be cultivated quite actively. Repeating and popularising this view is a serious problem that would require closer examination – in whose interest and why this has happened and is happening. It would be necessary to explain to the public, simply and understandably, that forest management is a full (complete) cycle that consists of many very important steps – it is not just logging, but also tending, regeneration, planting, technology, etc. A full forestry cycle based on modern knowledge and previous experience. I think the general public, especially outside spheres related to the forest, has very little or very superficial understanding of how the forest functions. We must think about how to manage better, what to use, and take into account climate change, thinking more and more in the future about species composition and its possible changes, tree density, thinning intensity, etc. The climate is changing, which is why I think more than one forest management method and technique will have to be changed or adapted to these changes.
Why does society like it so much when people talk negatively about the forest sector? Those who don't pay attention don't notice it that much, but often every trifle turns into an elephant... Moreover, these people are not anonymous.
Speaking of forestry, one must not forget that a lot is said in similar terms about agriculture as well. Both are land-use sectors in which both good and bad examples have always existed and been observed. The fact that quite a few people have a special ability to perceive the worst says something about the overall level of education in society. Everything depends on the forest owner and their outlook on forest management. I suspect that a sufficiently large part of the criticism of what they believe to be improper or misguided forest management comes from people who do not own forest and have no understanding of it. Perhaps a certain amount of envy can be felt here, because, in their opinion, the person who owns the forest “must be cutting everything and is sufficiently rich”, although it is often far from the case.
To own a forest and manage it yourself, you need deep and extensive knowledge. It would be important to mention a fact here that we still feel little of, but as time passes, we will feel more and more – namely – that generations of forest owners are changing. This concerns the education that the new forest owners have and will have. I am not talking about the inheritance and knowledge passed down from generation to generation; such forest owners seem to know everything and are ready to improve and educate themselves further. But, talking about those into whose hands property has fallen unexpectedly or suddenly and who are encountering the forest for the first time – these people definitely need consultations and advice to understand: “What is this that I have acquired, what does it mean?” Here is an opportunity for education.
Speaking of the aforementioned 90s, one can sense that every now and then someone tries to project these times, when serious changes were taking place in every area of life in Latvia, into the present day.
If we talk about the 90s, when properties were being reclaimed, it was a period with very many unknowns at a state level; property could also be acquired via certificates, etc. Someone or some people purposefully and farsightedly understood that land had and would have value, and they used this understanding; someone else did not understand it or was not interested.
Is it hard to ignore that the 90s are long behind us?
Our life and information space have a completely different quality. If someone wants to think that some remnants of the 90s exist somewhere, they can only be invited to realise the reality. I think we can safely compete with both Scandinavia and Western Europe with our knowledge and development; perhaps we are even in a better position because there are excellent opportunities to compare both production and products.
In Europe, politicians are increasingly realising that the Green Deal and its promised benefits could be inaccessible to quite a few people due to financial means – not everyone has the opportunity to insulate their house, not everyone can buy an electric car, replace a heating system, etc. In part of society, there prevails excessive enthusiasm, forgetting that part of the contract which is “written in small, barely legible letters”.
The Green Deal is a very good commitment. To commit to anything and implement this commitment, a vision and a concrete action plan are necessary – how to fulfil it step by step. The plan must certainly be based on the real situation (what the situation is now, what the level of well-being is, what the minimum wage is, etc.). The current situation and the string of requirements that should be met call for the need for the Baltic states to cooperate more with each other. We will not be able to reach or fulfil any concrete goals or tasks by destroying what already exists. That is a utopian thought that could cause an even greater crisis situation than the current one. It must be understood that the Green Deal requires and will require a great deal, but to some extent, we will limit both agricultural and forestry processes. My gut feeling is that the Green Deal will be revised because EU member states will demand it. Furthermore, we must remember what processes are taking place in the world – for the second year already, a war is raging in Europe, and the consequences of the previous crisis are still felt. All this leads one to think that corrections to the Green Deal plans are expected. It is unrealistic to fulfil the current requirements.
In the Nature Restoration Law, which was recently approved by the European Parliament, I noticed a significant nuance in language and consequently in meaning – namely – it is a nature restoration regulation, not nature regeneration. Something, in their view, has been disrupted, and someone will go to restore it, not that it will regenerate in nature on its own.
Exactly! The processes that take place in nature are interconnected; it is a complete and functioning organism. If, at some stage of development, the damage or harm caused by human action is not overly large, the ecosystem is functional and capable of adapting to the various changes that are currently taking place. Here, one should also mention climate change as a whole and the ability of ecosystems to adapt to it. In my opinion, this is one of the regulations that has been written, but it is not fully understood how to implement it and what resources will be required for it.
Thinking about what should be restored, a very “cheap” thought came to mind – I suspect – in Latvia, there will be more than one person who would gladly see Staburags again...
...that is a very big utopia. The existing large hydropower plants on the Daugava are a significant source of electricity production for Latvia.
It was not that long ago when, in the great “boom” of green energy production, many small hydropower plants were created. Does Latvia currently have the potential to act farsightedly so that in 15-20 years' time we do not have to tear down what we have built now? Speaking of hydropower plants, some also restored or built them, and thought – we cannot call everyone schemers. Now it has turned out to be wrong. How not to drive into the ditch once again?
First – one must distinguish – large hydropower plants are one story and one history, small hydropower plants – with a different history and a different story. Talking about small hydropower plants, for example, it should be clarified whether the energy obtained is worth creating problems for local fish species or disturbing the natural watercourse. The problem is by no means black and white, but in a large part of Latvia's rivers, the contribution of these small energy stations needs to be reviewed and evaluated. Each case must be looked at separately. The fact that, for example, the upper reaches of the Gauja have changed significantly due to small hydropower plants is a fact.
How not to drive into the ditch... A very good and important question – if someone believes and expresses that one or another decision cannot be influenced, I think they are definitely mistaken. Even if it is just the EU regulations mentioned in our conversation, which are being developed, written, and adopted. Who does that? Representatives of EU member states! Here is the question of the desire to influence, work in working groups, participate and achieve a result favourable to Latvia, or quite the contrary – to keep silent and quietly submit (as Europe demands!). I will add – to be able to change anything, a very great willpower is required – that for sure!
Is there anything in Vidzeme and its nature that you would like to see restored?
I will be proud of Vidzeme, which is the most beautiful region in Latvia in terms of landscape and other manifestations. Observing the landscape in Vidzeme is a true pleasure.
Talking about nature restoration – everyone must start by tidying up their nearest surroundings, their home, their yard, and only then can their gaze be turned further. One must start with oneself – that would be the most important prerequisite. People who are able to tidy up the environment around them will be the ones who, with their example and opinion, will be able to influence society to urge collective efforts to tidy up a place that is important to everyone, whether it be in the parish or the municipality.
Currently, the situation is very favourable because people are changing in local governments; it is very important to them that others want to live in the territory they manage, to live in an environment that educated people understand and see, bringing along those who do not understand these issues.
Green Deal – C19 – war – under the influence of these major processes, things from time to time appear that have been seriously neglected (not solved for years). For example, in connection with the changes foreseen by the Green Deal, there are a series of questions that, unresolved at a national level, drag on and on; let’s say, waste sorting, which is still being implemented slowly... How far can you run if heavy tails are dragging behind you?
I agree – as you said – “tails are dragging behind” – and besides, if we remember how long and how late the deposit system, for example, “was created” for us. These are essential issues. I will remind you again – information and informers must walk in front of everything – why waste should be sorted, why it is so important, why the amount of waste should be reduced, etc. In parallel with informing, the practical side must also be ensured – sorting opportunities; if this is in some way placed on the shoulders of the resident alone, it will be introduced long and with difficulty.
Why are necessary things being slowed down? Or solely for very personal and selfish reasons? For example, ZAAO clients are very satisfied with the company's work; what is the problem with using this experience in another region of Latvia? Onward! One can act similarly in other spheres where there is good experience, but, unfortunately, it does not happen.
My experience shows that interests and personal benefit are quite significant “players” in more than just one sector in Latvia. If the system works as it has worked – that is one thing; if you want to introduce something better – that is to change – it takes time and sufficiently large resources. Wanting to change something will not be enough; a lot of support is also needed. If even small, but very good initiatives are finished off at the very beginning, it is very difficult to continue what has been started. More than one process begins to stagnate and good ideas fade away just because those responsible and those implementing them think little about how to do things better.
What is the most important thing in the forest sector right now?
The latest changes in tree-felling regulations or the so-called diameter question have been challenged in the Constitutional Court. I think this is not the problem that should be pushed to this level and one should be very worried about it – with the mentioned changes we have become similar to Scandinavia and the other Baltic states. We are not doing any harm to the forest and nothing terrible will happen in Latvia’s forests – that should be explained to those who are overly concerned about these regulations. This is not a question in which it is necessary to invest resources and energy. Of course, it must be determined in which forest stands we manage more intensively, in which – less intensively, and what is necessary for balanced biological diversity and its protection. I will repeat – for a forest owner in Latvia, it has long been time for greater freedom of action in forest management, of course, observing the regulatory framework, in which basic things should be determined, abandoning overly large control, which the State Forest Service finds difficult to ensure because there is a lack of necessary resources and it is not necessary by nature. Eventually, over time, we will arrive at a more simplified system as well.
Photographs by Jānis Ontužāns and zemeunvalsts.lv used