Czechast with Jakub Majer, a Czech businessman and activist

They are really treating us from the position of power, the lack of information, sometimes even manipulation through media, and this is something which I think is not right. I don't like this, and I don't think we should act like this in a democratic society.

I think that the nature protection sector, or I don't know how to call it, they like national parks because in national parks they have the word, they manage them, and they don't need to discuss much with the others, like they have to in, for example, the landscape protected areas. And that can also be one motivation because their position there is definitely stronger.

I have to say, and this was one of the very positive surprises and good news for me, that they are listening. Of course, you have to respect that they can make their opinion maybe with you, maybe against you, but the good message for me is that you really have the chance to speak to them. If you just send an email and you say, 'We are the initiative, or the mayor, we are the association, we want to meet you and discuss this topic,' you usually within 14 days, three weeks, really get the appointment, and you usually meet open-minded people who listen to you.

Thank you for inviting me. My name is Jakub Majer. I'm 48 years old, and I work in the pet food business. I run one of the biggest European companies in this sector, and I also live partly at Kokořínsko. When I found out in the year 2021, after the election, that the new government put into their program statement the establishment of the national park, my journey and relation to this topic and my activity around it started.

Yes, we are creating, producing, and selling products for pets. The business is based in the western edge of Prague originally, but nowadays the group is much bigger. The base is still in the Czech Republic, but we also have several companies across the whole of Europe, including production units outside the Czech Republic. We run nine factories and about 10 distribution companies.

We are lucky. It's interesting. We are exporting to 90 countries around the globe, and we are among the 10 biggest companies in Europe, definitely.

The business was started from scratch 30 years ago, but not by me. I joined the company about 17 years ago when it was still relatively small, or quite small, and I participated a lot in the growth from very pioneer ages. When I joined the company, the annual production was equal to about three weeks of production now, to give you an idea how much it has grown over time.

We employ about 650 people in the Czech Republic and another 350 in other European countries, all together a little over 1,000 directly.

Kokořínsko is west of Prague, about 40 to 50 kilometers west of Prague. It is on both banks of the Berounka River, which goes from Plzeň to Prague, and it's a big forest. It's a forest which is in lower altitudes, because the highest point of Kokořínsko is around 600 meters above sea level, but it's definitely not flat. There are very deep valleys created by creeks or small rivers, and of course the canyon of the Berounka River. It's actually one of the biggest forests in Central Europe. Back in the day, in the medieval age, it belonged always to Czech kings, and it was their region for hunting. Because of that, the possibility to build settlements was very limited because there was this ownership by the king. Later, in the 17th, 18th, 19th century, there was very significant mining activity and iron production, and to that was also relating coal production. People were burning wood to get charcoal, which was then used as fuel in the production places. This had a very significant effect on the region because the forests were devastated; it was basically deforested. There are evidences about it. That later turned around. The coal production stopped in the early '90s, and now the region is famous for forestry. Kokořínsko is part of the Model Forest network in Europe, so it's very known for its forestry. It's known still as a hunting region because there is a lot of game, and today it's also known as a touristic target, especially in summer, spring, and some autumn, not that much over the winter.

Well, depending when, of course. If we take Kokořín Castle, for example, that's not strictly speaking Kokořínsko, but the name of the region comes from the place called Kokořín. There was a very famous king's castle which is there still, and I think this place is exposed and visited also by foreign tourists. Not that much the other places which are more related to some interesting place in nature. There it is more visited actually by Czech citizens, not only from Prague, I would say, because we are also close to Kladno, which is quite big population, Plzeň, and other settlements. It's kind of easy to get there. The highway D5 is quite close, and there is also the highway towards Karlovy Vary, so it actually lies between these two highways.

I think there are two reasons. It's important to say in the beginning that Kokořínsko is very unique for its nature, and as such, it is already protected. It's a protected landscape area since the year 1977, and this is quite a strict system of protection in the Czech Republic. We have 26 protected landscape areas, and Kokořínsko is one of them. So it's important to say that there already is a system of protection, and to my understanding, as I see it, this system of protection is very appropriate for a region like Kokořínsko. Because a national park represents a specific approach to the land which basically is manifested with a system of non-interference. In Czech, I'm not quite sure, but non-interference: you let things grow naturally, you don't do anything about them even if they are attacked by some bark beetle, even if they are attacked by wind, which is by the way very common in Kokořínsko, even if it is attacked by fire, you just let it be. Kokořínsko is very known for forestry and for planting forests, and it's a very traditional profession, a traditional approach to land. We are afraid that the way Kokořínsko looks today really justifies that this is a very relevant management. Nobody said what's wrong there, and suddenly out of nowhere came this idea to change it and to make the central part, which actually is in the first and second zone of the protected landscape area so has the heaviest protection, to change to the national park, which actually means a totally different way of treatment and approach to nature. We are afraid that that can have rather negative impacts, that it's not really justified, and that it's very robust and not needed. Because it goes hand in hand with a pretty robust organization, we are talking about 70 to 100 employees. I also see it as relevant from the cost point of view, and the costs are paid by all of us through taxes. Last but not least, we also think that national parks are a big magnet; it's a known brand from the marketing point of view, so it will bring even more people there, and in some places and some periods of time, it is overcrowded already today. All of that really puts us in the opposed position. And the other point is the way how the government and the officials or authorities act in the last three or four years, because they are really treating us from the position of power, with lack of information, sometimes even manipulation through media, and this is something which I think is not right. I don't like this, and I don't think we should act like this in a democratic society.

Well, it's not brand new. This activity was here also about 12 or 13 years ago. Actually, the first ideas go back to the '80s. Our minister, Mr. Hladík, says already Communists wanted to. He is the Minister of Environment. So this idea in the nature protection part of society exists for long. Why they came up with it right now out of nowhere is maybe a question to them, not to me. I can say that it really appeared out of nowhere, and I think that there are political reasons behind that. The people who put it to the program of the coalition before the election really thought it's catchy and that it will bring them some new voters. I little bit think that this is one of the motors behind it still. I do not want to speculate about some other alternatives. Plus, I think that the nature protection sector, or I don't know how to call it, they like national parks because in national parks they have the word, they manage them, and they don't need to discuss much with the others, like they have to in, for example, the landscape protected areas. And that can also be one motivation because their position there is definitely stronger.

I think I can say the region is quite strictly against it. I would say that 80% of people are against. Of course, there are some supporters logically, but they are definitely not the majority, and they are not even a significant minority. This is not just my feeling; this is based on facts. There is about 16 or 18 villages or towns in the park with some part of their cadastre, and in the area around there is another 15, so let's say 30 to 35 settlements are somehow connected because they are either in or in the near surroundings. Out of those, 29 are members of the Association of Communities, and they entered this association based on the voting of their representatives. The strict statement of the association is no to the park. In almost every village or town, there was some questionnaire or research, and almost everywhere it was significantly against, we are talking about 70, 80, even 90% against. Plus, when we formulated a petition in the year 2022, we got over 11,000 signatures, mostly from the region. And then, of course, you meet people, you talk to people, you see in almost every village a banner against the park. If you really put all of that together, I think you can say that the significant majority of the region is against this idea.

I am not a member of the local council in our village, but I cooperate with them. I know them, I visit the meetings. Basically, we were like five founding members of the initiative, the citizen initiative of Kokořínsko. Actually, two of us were mayors of some communities, and one of them, Mr. Sakař, is also chairman of the association. Now, the structures or the pack of active people is changing over time, and there are even more mayors actively cooperating or participating in the initiative. So we are really in close contact, and we work together.

I have to say, and this was one of the very positive surprises and good news for me, that they are listening. Really, you say, I mean, the ministry, well, the ministry not that much, but we are trying to meet politicians, we are trying to meet members of the parliament, members of the Senate. The good news is that 90%, maybe even 95% of those you ask for a meeting, they really give you the time, and you have an appointment with them, and you have the chance to explain your statement. Of course, you have to respect that they can make their opinion, maybe with you, maybe against you, but the good message for me is that you really have the chance to speak to them. If you just send an email and you say, 'We are the initiative, or the mayor, we are the association, we want to meet you and discuss this topic,' you usually within 14 days, three weeks, really get the appointment, and you usually meet open-minded people who listen to you. And that's really good news for me.

This is across the political spectrum. And of course, it's difficult to get an appointment with, I don't know, the prime minister or the minister, because really their agenda is big and our problem is really regional, but even this is possible, I guess. And this is very good news, and this is what we want, because we want to be heard, and we want to have a chance to explain the reasons and our motivations. Because we are in a little bit tricky situation, which by the way on the other hand is also intellectually challenging, that we are like against, or somebody can say that we are against nature protection, which is not true. We actually are very happy that we are living in the protected area. One of our mottos is that 'Kokořínsko is okay,' which is the abbreviation for the landscape protected area. We are very happy for this, and we are not against nature protection. We are just saying that the system of national park is not appropriate everywhere. That goes a little bit, I think, to your question, because if you really look at it strictly, but also according to what the Czech law says, then the area for the national park has to fulfill some requests about the number of ecosystems. Because in my eyes, the national parks are here to protect really pieces of the world which haven't been touched by man yet, and they are here to protect them and keep them as they are. Therefore, we as a society say, 'We will let the nature be, we will not interfere, we will not touch, we will not plant forest, we will not harvest the wood, we will not hunt, etc.' And I think this is very valuable, and there are some international standards called IUCN, and that really makes perfect sense. But we are living in Central Europe, we are living in a very populated area of the world, we are living in an area of the world with a very long history of settlement. The nature is exposed to people, there is nothing bad about it. In my eyes, the national parks are a little bit like a game. Yes, it's probably interesting to five or six or maybe even seven, not only four as we say today or as we have today, but I see it a little bit like artificial. I understand that there were reasons in the '90s when, for example, National Park Šumava was founded, because we were right after communism, the environment was really devastated. Actually, one of the first demonstrations were because of the ecological situation here in the late '80s. One of the first demonstrations against communism were because of the environment damage that communism did in the northern region. Then, after the revolution, I think people were afraid that wild capitalism would be even worse, and then it was very relevant to say, 'Okay, we really want to keep that,' and let's have this new national park in, for example, Šumava. But this is not the situation today. The environment is improving every year, this is a fact which is justified by the annual reports of the Ministry of Environment. We are really as a society understanding that we have to protect the nature around us, we are protecting it. That's why I said that we have about 26 landscape protected areas in the Czech Republic. To say that if we take 16% of one of them and turn it to the national park, that we will increase the level of protection, that's a little bit, I think, populism. I actually think, sorry, last sentence, that if you really want to improve the level of protection, you should start in the places which have no protection at the moment, and not just change the status of the landscape protected area to something else. I actually think this is very bureaucratic thinking, and that's also one of the reasons why we are against it.

I think it does, because unfortunately, for example, the national park officials or the officials from the Ministry of Environment, they are pretty much on this conservative part of the spectrum, and they are really taking it to extreme. That's also why there are clashes and they are running into conflicts. I think this is not good. They should really listen more, and they should respect that there are also people living there, and that is relevant what they want. Now we have the question like what should we do with the burned area in Czech Switzerland, but I actually think the more important question or position is why it happened, why it burned so badly, and what can we do not to repeat that. When it's already burned to the ground, I think both attitudes are relevant. Probably it's better to let it be and monitor what will happen, but this is also one of the strong positions of the national park, and this is the scientific position that their interest is to observe and monitor, which is fine for the scientists probably, but this is not always fine for you as a citizen of the region who lives there, because simply you do not want it maybe. It burned because there was a lot of dead wood which was left there, and this is the non-interference management attitude. Of course, there were many other reasons like a strong wind, it was started by a man, not by lightning, but I think it's very typical situation for a national park, and I think that the national park does not have much other alternatives than let it be and observe what happens, because this is their purpose.

I would say 60/50. 60/50? 60/50, difficult to say. It's very difficult to say, but I will put it another way. When we started, people were giving us something between 10 to 25% chances that we succeed and that we really win, that you can influence the process. Our position now, the politicians are saying to us, is 50/50, which I translate for me that it's like 60/50 because I want to be optimistic. There is not much time left for the government because we have the election coming in October this year, which is like 9 months from today, and there will be a campaign. The process is quite long from the beginning to having the bill as a part of the law code, so it's really open.

I know it because now during the process we have really learned a lot about this topic, we try to be active in this. It does not surprise me that much. What is, I think, more important to mention is that with establishing the national park Kokořínsko, this count or this percentage will not change, will not change by a single digit. Because according to the European law, I can say there is a demand to protect 30% of the land area and 10% strictly. The whole area of Kokořínsko is already protected by protected landscape, so influence to the 30% is zero. And the protected landscape area is categorized into four zones, which are like 1, 2, 3, 4, and zone one and zone two is considered also according to the European law as a strictly protected region. The national park is from, I would say, 97-98% of these first and second zone, so it will not even help Czech Republic to improve in this 10% strict protection. So this is often used by the officials as one of the arguments, but if you really find the European document, if you read it carefully and then you look at the map, it's actually not true.