A conversation with Jānis Vitenbergs, Chairman of the Saeima Economic, Agricultural, Environmental and Regional Policy Committee

Did you have an inkling that you would have to work in the Economic (...) committee even before you became an MP?

I consider myself a country person. I grew up in a distinct rural environment and did all the farm work, so rural life is close to me and familiar. Before the Saeima, while working at the commercial company Augļu serviss, I observed that our farmers were in a weaker position compared to those in Lithuania or Poland. I saw that agriculture at its very foundation relies on our local work ethic, which is unfortunately slowly disappearing as generations change. The old men working in agriculture are getting greyer and more wrinkled, and the young are replacing the old less and less. After being elected to Parliament, it was clear to me that this was precisely the reason why I wanted to work in the Economic Committee – at first as a deputy, until I was elected chairman of the committee. Upon becoming the head of the committee, I understood how important it is to cooperate with various sectors and listen to their arguments. This is important because these are the sectors that earn money for us all – including the state! The "field" of issues covered by the Economic Committee is wide, and issues from several sectors are reviewed every week, such as transport, public procurement, energy, waste management, etc.

Non-governmental organisations are also involved in the review of draft laws. These days, environmental organisations play an increasingly significant role in shaping opinions. There is a feeling that thinking and doing good for the national economy – and thus for society, the public and the state – is not popular! Clashes of opinion in society are vividly highlighted in the discussions about potential amendments to Cabinet regulations regarding tree felling. In a way, this is understandable, because mushroom picking, hunting, berry picking and walking in the forest are close to the hearts of Latvians, and now a myth is being maintained that this could be "taken away".

Of course, it is beautiful and literary to say that money is not the main thing. But the state and the national economy cannot do without it, and the budget is an essential thing. Where are we to get money if we want to leave available, renewable and usable resources unused, rotting away, wasted for nothing?

Living in a green, flower-rich meadow and running barefoot – that sounds lovely! But Latvia is not a reserve or a giant nature sanctuary! This is a territory where almost two million inhabitants must live while living in harmony with nature and each other! We have natural resources that must be used wisely! For example, my recent surprise – the peat sector! Yes, I am very interested in it! There are enough resources, and with wise management, they will last for a long time. The problem is that Europe wants to equate our peat with fuel, which is not true – Latvian peat is used as a very valuable horticultural product for growing cucumbers, tomatoes, strawberries and other vegetables, fruits and berries. These are two different things, and it is important for our ministries and representatives in Europe to explain this! We also export peat to the Middle East, to desert regions. For example, our peat can help to plant and grow a palm tree in a Qatari desert… Wonderful!

The European Commission's initiative regarding peat was an unpleasant surprise, which we must not allow! The industry pays about 20 million euros in taxes every year. Peat is extracted in relatively small amounts from what we have available! I visited a bog whose owner, Uldis Ameriks, said: "We can work here for 70 years! I could build a new production facility, but… I don't know what will happen, what will be decided, what to expect…"

We have the most bogs in Latgale. So, this is an opportunity for the region to develop, which we must not deny it!

Furthermore, in the committee we have examined, and the Ministry of Agriculture has been tasked with developing a draft law to protect against the selling off of land to foreigners. Recently, the LTV programme DeFacto investigated that among the largest recipients of direct payments are farm holdings owned by foreigners. However, I support the view that local people should work and cultivate our land!

In order for the countryside not to die out, we need small and medium-sized farmers and entrepreneurs. I want people to live and work in the countryside! Also, in my opinion, we should definitely think about some world-class object that would attract tourists. Not an Eiffel Tower in Kurzeme, but ideologically something like that to attract tourists.

In Latvia, there is an increasingly noticeable tendency to invent and forbid: a person wants to invest, to develop production, but someone organises and collects signatures against it. What to do with this? Returning to the topic of finance, production gives money to the state, not signatures or public activities…

I agree that public desires occasionally clash with economic interests! There are quite a few large investment projects in Latvia that have been blocked or stopped in this way. For example, the Tukums-Dobele wind farm, the egg production facility in the Tukums and Valka area. Talking about the egg producer, we were at the territory the entrepreneur wants to develop in the Ogre municipality. Fields, shrubbery, we don't see a single house! 100 signatures "against" have been collected! The place is abandoned, unused agricultural land. The public's desire for development has happened, but – "everything is fine, but only in the neighbour's garden"! We need jobs and money, but let the production plant work in the neighbouring parish.

A solution must be sought. For example, I like the idea of wind farms in forests. Of course, this has not been discussed widely yet.

It is understandable that if there is a desire to achieve something in politics, juggling or balancing skills are necessary…

I recently met with representatives of wind farms to talk about this. As I understand, often, when thinking about their political future, local authorities refuse an entrepreneur or producer because "the local residents won't understand".

In our daily work on the committee with various issues, we meet with non-governmental organisations. We often have to ask: "Who do you represent?" Sometimes, we get a call, and they state the name of the organisation. We ask: "Who do you represent?" Silence. "I'll tell you in a moment!" Often it is clear that such one-day NGOs are being created for a specific draft law to show "public activity and interests". It happens that the same thing happens with a large company whose interests need to be lobbied; organisations "spring up" on its account as well. At the moment, unfortunately, strength often lies with whoever shouts the loudest! Arguments remain in the second, third, or even further background…

The public is told various things. As I mentioned, I have visited the Silava Forest Research Institute and familiarised myself with its work. Surprise would be the right word – interesting research, world-class level! This should be told and emphasised using every opportunity! We were at the Institute of Solid State Physics, where young people work and think about climate issues from a scientific perspective! I don't know if Latvia will ever produce electric cars, but it can produce batteries for them!

What is the view from the Saeima on regional reform?

At the moment, it looks like the talk, the struggle, the discussion is only about the first level of local government. We have also talked a lot within the party. I like the idea of a second level of local government! Many people are moving from the countryside to Riga, many villages and settlements have grown around the capital, but the second level… The Riga, Kurzeme, Latgale, Zemgale and Vidzeme planning regions operate, but functions are not delegated to them, and no funding is allocated for their implementation. What can you do without money? You can, but very little! If the "second level" were allocated funding and functions (duties), local leaders would think about which road needs repairing, which is more necessary, or whether, for example, the Port of Engure should be developed so that one doesn't have to go to Riga. Second-level municipalities would look at things more broadly, in accordance with the overall development and needs of the region!

At the moment, unfortunately, everyone is looking at their own small municipality and sincerely thinking only about that… I personally stood for the preservation of the Kandava municipality, I know the situation there: if Kandava joins the Tukums municipality, there won't be any more money! I know my friends from Aloja say they would happily be with Valmiera, acquaintances from Mazsalaca also mention Valmiera.

The question of the Valka municipality sounds painful and quite loud, because there are rumours about the possible closure of the psychiatric hospital in Strenči, which provides jobs for the residents of the surrounding area. Nearby is Seda with all its problems… Something significant is needed in that part to shake up the municipality!

I am not talking about the necessity of reform or merger – it is needed, it is not easy in small municipalities with 2,000 or fewer inhabitants! In my opinion, before the VARAM plan, it would have been good to invite the municipalities to talk and agree amongst themselves. For example, in Kandava, when talking to people, the idea was voiced that the Kandava municipality could align with Sabile – similar towns, the Abava and the Kuldīga highway are "unifying branches". So, in the course of the reform, the municipalities' own talks and potential agreements were missing!

Forestry issues… The mentioned topicality regarding the change of logging regulations and the note that entrepreneurship is needed but not desired…

Since 4 May 1990, when we began to feel free and became so, when people regained their formerly nationalised properties, it has crystallised – who will manage, and who will not! 30 years is not 30 days! Those who wanted and want to manage and who see the value of the forest are entitled to manage it as they wish! The forest is a guarantee of security for a Latvian family, which can be trusted. Those who did not understand the importance of the forest and perceived it differently have already sold their forests, cut them down and sold the land. That's it! Those who remained are working and planning for future generations as well! If you listen to talk on radio or TV, even now you could cut a lot. They are not cutting! So, the assertion that Cabinet regulations will be adopted and forest owners will suddenly rush to cut is neither justified nor logical! Our Latvian mentality is also characterised by the ability to handle property! Let's assume that if someone owns 10 ha of forest, they calculate - if I cut now, after ten years I won't get anything! The thoughtless system of micro-reserves in a certain way destroys the gene of the saver and practical calculator that has taken root over the years. Compensations are still small and ridiculous. Latvia does not have to be a reserve for all of Europe, because we have to live and work here! A micro-reserve in its current execution practically puts the owner in a state of war with nature or a bird: the owner will pray to God that the bird is not there! Is that good? No! Not for the bird, not for the person!

Here I also want to mention hunting. It is a tradition, it is a social function, it is a certain school. The young learn traditions, the old teach the young, show them certain things and skills. In hunting, everyone is equal and equivalent. The forest is available to everyone, and hunting is a "people's hobby". In Western Europe, it is an expensive pleasure. With us, very different people hunt – from those for whom it is an additional source of income, to those for whom hunting is a process for relaxation and the result of the hunt is not important. My foster father and brother are active hunters, while I go hunting for relaxation and for the sake of the forest. In the countryside, a hunter also occasionally looks after some more isolated property. You go and see what is happening! That is why I am definitely against the idea of increasing various fees related to hunting, which will be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture in the near future at the suggestion of the State Forest Service.

What will Latvia be like in 2050?

I will speak from the position of climate neutrality. Latvia can prepare well for it (climate neutrality). We have power plants. I assume we will have wind farms. We will have well-developed production for small, necessary things (niche products). The number of people in the world will have increased, maybe others will eat synthetic or "printed" food, but we will still know how to grow it ourselves! We will have both real food and real water. The world will appreciate what we can do! And we will still be independent and there will be two million of us!