An interview with entrepreneur Druvis Paeglis
It is always advisable to look at a situation or events from different angles, because as time passes and information becomes more accurate, everything can turn out to be different, changed. I believe Kaspars Roga from “Prāta vētra” once made a comparison: “If you look at a Persian rug from a metre away, your eyes go blurry. If you step back further and further, a beautiful ornament or pattern becomes visible, and the 'picture is already different'”. I would apply this benchmark to the forestry sector as well – everyone has their own opinion, and often that opinion exists because the person has not delved into the matter.
How to encourage people to delve into things and processes?
…If you watch a discussion programme on TV, journalists are often “experts” on all issues. Regarding events or matters you know nothing about or very little, you listen to them with quite a lot of trust. As soon as a discussion touches on things you are involved in, participate in, and are knowledgeable about, a different feeling arises: ”Listen! It’s not how they are telling it!” So we can conclude that one can talk or judge about things one does not know in a similar way!
Often, professional journalists, during a discussion, do not lead the conversation but rather express their own opinion. We do not see professional work from a moderator, but rather a presenter of opinions or feelings. And often, this opinion is based not on arguments but on emotions.
In this regard, I remember a man, then already of respectable age, who had been a lecturer at the Aizupe and Ogre technical schools, as well as the Faculty of Forestry. Once, he asked a younger colleague for data on some statistics from the previous month. The answer followed with a precise number, and the aforementioned wise man said: “If you give me a round number, it means you haven't calculated anything! You should have given at least two digits after the decimal point, just so there is at least the feeling that you have been calculating.”
This leads to a question – are there problems in the forestry sector, or must there simply be, because there is no sector without problems?
If we are a healthy sector, which we are, we are developing and working, and in such a process, problems undoubtedly arise. We develop to become better, because we have problems. Of course, what we mean by the word “problems”.
Is there a basis to believe that forests in Latvia are not being harvested, but rather slaughtered?
A very categorical statement! That is a thesis that can be used for informational manipulation. Take a person not involved in the forestry sector, for example, a programmer. They live and work in Riga, having previously lived in a district, say Suntaži or Dagda, where their grandmother still lives. Near the country house is a forest well-known and dear to them, where they picked mushrooms, ran with a dog, walked, skied, etc. For the programmer, this forest is something very personal and understandable. If the time comes and this forest is cut down, it will be “bad”. In my opinion, the public is often manipulated based on emotions. We can say the same about the coastal forests and the pines. A person knows it is beautiful and pleasant to go there for a walk. And as soon as talk starts about the tending or cutting of these forests, a villainous image appears in the person’s mind, operating a “Harvester”, starting work at Rucava and only switching off the engine in Ainaži. A person does not think or even consider that legislation and regulations exist in Latvia as to how and what should be cut and where to do it. The person knows neither the story nor the history, but, hearing that “all this ('his' old, familiar, dear forest) will be cut away”, emotionally and quite understandably, they want to defend the things and places they know.
Over time, in my own company, I have also concluded that… There were problems, and, analysing the situation, we often looked for the causes of these problems and looked at who was to blame for something… That can be considered a certain confrontation, because the one who is supposedly “to blame” will never act or cooperate in eliminating the problem. Looking for the culprit is not productive! It is most likely that what happened was unavoidable and the only thing we can do is to teach and learn so that things proceed better in the future. It seems that society is divided similarly – there is the forestry sector, there are the “good greens”, there are others, and everyone has their own views, and everyone is a seeker of culprits. Any involved party searches for strong arguments so that the opponent raises their hands and gives up!
In my opinion, respect for one another is necessary, and one should treat the other as an ideological opponent without making it personal. We are not succeeding in this. Perhaps it is a national trait… If you look, there are so many local wars with international weapons. I remember the once-discussed “Al Jazeera” broadcast about Latvia… Obviously – a group of people had decided to resolve Latvia’s internal problems internationally, had found like-minded people with influence who they complained to, and were supported: “Say, we will deal with those there!”
Instead of talking, this preparation of things happens and the resolution of the issue is pushed further, further, and further… At one time, we had the head of the State Forest Service, Jānis Kinna, who was interviewed on TV after his appointment. He was accused of not “belonging to the forest guild” because he had never drunk in the faculty dorms. A sense of belonging!
Every day, I see that people who are supposedly on opposite sides and expressing opposite opinions are good friends in everyday life. They are present at each other’s children’s christenings, but on television, we see them as irreconcilable opponents who grumble at each other even during celebrations.
Latvians and Valmiera residents love theatre!
The most likely reason is an inability to converse. I am convinced that normal, reasonably thinking people work in the forestry sector. In the 90s, when the so-called capital accumulation took place, things were harsh and cruel! But now… I believe that no one wants to plunder the country, no one will intentionally go for extreme compromises and cause damage. Denigrating one another is not productive! It is not just about the sector, but society! The forestry sector is a part of our society! It provides benefits to absolutely everyone! Is it necessary, with one’s ambitions, to put obstacles in the way of gaining the common good? Personally, I know only a few of the “greens”. I have the feeling that their goal is not necessarily to do something bad either! Their inner desire is also to do good, only they are looking from a completely different point of view. Most likely, in the compromise regarding benefits between nature and people, our opinions differ. It is possible that the “green” view of the forest is somewhere more from the higher levels of Maslow’s pyramid, forgetting that the forest is the only significant natural resource that must both be protected and reasonably used for the common good of society. I don't know exactly, but I suspect that the daily life of green organisations is paid for from elsewhere, from various funds that pay for achieving certain goals and expressing an opinion. Their income does not depend on the success of the sector, and therefore it is harder to understand the sector's point of view. They do not feel it (the work and success of the sector)! They might both feel and see a solution for how nature and the economy can live together, but one completely opposite to the sector! The forestry sector is the largest income generator in the country! The goals are roughly similar for everyone, but both sides – the sector and the “greens” – are overly categorical towards each other. In my opinion, people have remained in the sector now who perfectly understand that there must be a balance between management and nature conservation, but I doubt whether it is reasonable and if we can at all afford to put the public good on the back burner. I see another serious problem in the fact that the pattern being tried to be applied to Latvia is “general, world-average or similar”. Here in Latvia, forest coverage is high, forests are renewed and tended, and we are used to it. I understand that there are requirements applied to “the Netherlands’ only tree or Belgium’s industrial hills”, where in overpopulated territories there is no room left for forests. In Latvia, there is no overpopulation observed, and forest areas are by no means decreasing. In my opinion, our situation is too different to apply the same patterns as in countries with high population density and few forests.
How correct is the belief – “logs are being exported from Latvia in large quantities”. Looking at the 90s: at roughly the same volume of felling, the sector’s turnover was around 300 million, now it has grown to 2 billion (euros). Higher productivity and added value? Definitely! But – we in Latvia import a fair amount of wood (Poland, Lithuania, Norway, Estonia). The sector is capable of importing wood from neighbouring countries to add value here in Latvia! That is excellent!
The sector earns well, the numbers are pleasing, but those working in the sector are unable to unite and dedicate time and resources to normal lobbying for the sector’s interests. We lack strong and visible representatives! In short – spokespeople!
I am a small forest owner myself and have noticed that categorical opinions about forests are voiced daily by those who do not own a forest themselves. Unfortunately, in the not-so-distant past, a part of the “heirs” saw the forest only as a resource for obtaining money. By cutting down the forest, they got “decent” money, but were not as keen to invest part of the money back into forest renewal. People are ready to judge things as long as they do not concern them! I am glad that the situation has improved significantly now; more and more owners are planting and tending and seeing the forest as a long-term value. As soon as a person becomes a forest owner, managers and loggers are no longer villains in their eyes! There is a short and quick financial gain plan, but – it is forgotten that the grandfather, godfather planted the forest, and I should also pass something on to my children or grandchildren!
What kind of forests do you own yourself?
Various. There are old, mature ones, as well as maturing stands, young ones, naturally regenerated ones, and ones just planted. My forest is located near Kārķi, not far from the Estonian border.
My spouse has forests in Sēlija, where (in her forests) various protected objects have been found – Baltiņi settlement I and II (first and second), the Jozups ancient burial site, as well as the Baltiņi holy spring, significant to folklore. Because of the restrictions set there, the forest is relatively overgrown and untended. Interest in the location of the spring arose in the family around 2002; my wife’s grandmother, who lived to be 97, having lived in that area her whole life, had never seen this holy spring! In 2015, we contacted the Monument Protection Board so that they would finally show us the spring. Apparently, a representative of the board visited the forest because they sent us a letter with a photograph showing a pile of branches with a pit, and an attached description of its location, indicating 200–300 metres to the right and left, and then another 100–200 metres, but… The description is so vague and the photograph is the same. There are many such pits and piles there, but we never found the spring. As far as can be understood, it was once there and is very important to our folklore! If one wanted to go and scoop up water or rinse one’s face, it would not work! At present, it turns out that forest management in the “spring” plot can still be carried out, only it must be organised at least 25 m from the spring! But – the spring itself has still not been found! That seems very strange!
In life, I am guided by the thought – people are good! It is important to live in harmony with oneself, not to act against one’s own morality and beliefs, and in all likelihood, you will not break the law either. With this attitude, I have noticed that the much-criticised civil servants are mostly kind and responsive, yet it seems that in forming public opinion and legislation, the view that the “opposite side” is a potential violator has taken root too deeply, and inspections and ministries must create conditions that would prevent this untrustworthy individual from committing another violation.
People are good, but they are not focused on solutions, but on prohibitions. If we observe the attitude of the state system… An example. We often invoke the Estonians with a good word. It happened that my company’s timber truck had exceeded the weight limit in Estonia. We received a letter; I enquired how to sort out the weight permit issues in the neighbouring country. I found the phone number of the Estonian transport inspection, we talked, they told me to write a letter, and they would reply within fifteen minutes. Half an hour passes, I call again. They answer: “Everything is not so simple, it is about a timber truck, my colleague is explaining the additional regulations. We are explaining what needs to be done!” The neighbouring country’s officials are striving to find out how a Latvian entrepreneur could resolve the issue! The Estonian representative had found out all the places where I needed to call. Everywhere, I was told that the Road Transport Directorate had already called. The Estonians helped me and were interested in helping to solve the issue! They are focused on solutions, not prohibitions or penalties!