We are back from the summer break, or from partial holidays, having already begun in August to keep you informed about developments in the Scottish forest sector. From here on, understandably, we shall pay more attention to what is happening in Latvia, which — under the influence of local events, European Union regulations and directives, in the course of planning Latvia's 2025 budget and because of various other developments — is and will remain colourful enough. It seems that 2024, with the storm and downpours in Zemgale and the revelations surrounding Rail Baltica, is once again saying: “Something must be done, but... how, and what exactly?”

The most important conclusions, unfortunately, have to do with the recent past.

Since August 1991, when other countries officially began to recognise Latvia's independence, a mere 33 years have passed. At the time (1991), more than one person judged the overly long hesitation to be the inability of well-fed and lazy Westerners to understand other people's longing for freedom (at the same time, those cautiously waiting Western politicians had never recognised the occupation of the Baltic states). Time has moved on, and an evident laziness and a European slowness have taken quite lasting hold here as well, because year after year governments, one following the other, undertake the same things, promise the same things, and leave the work to the governments that come after them. Why this conclusion? There are promises that have not changed for a quarter of a century now. Listen to what officials say and think not about the content, but about which year it was that you heard this before.

For some twenty-five years virtually every prime minister has called for and promised a reduction in bureaucracy. The call will not meet many publicly visible opponents, but... It finds no echo whatsoever (or only a very minimal one) in the ministries, or in the work, the understanding and the actions of ministry staff.
“But these regulations have been in force since 2016!”
“What do you mean? This requirement has applied since 2019!”
“If we fail to comply with something, the State Audit Office will turn up, and...”
In communications and discussions there is still no assessment of whether a requirement, a rule or a piece of legislation is necessary and justified in the first place. Do the requirements increase a business's costs, or take time away from its actual work? Could we manage without them? Is the oversight genuinely necessary, or has someone simply written it into the rules and that is the only reason they must be complied with (the only reason to act that way)?
Whenever those repeated warnings flare up about the State Audit Office (VK), which will turn up and ... it is worth recalling Inguna Sudraba's interview, in which it was plainly stated that the VK also assesses a situation against the very rules drawn up by the officials themselves.

A very simple question: “On the day after Evika Siliņa's statement about reducing bureaucracy, did any state institution (the State Chancellery, for instance) draw up and send letters to family doctors and teachers and business owners, inviting them to compile (even roughly) 17 obstructive and unnecessary requirements that take up a great deal of time and resources?” That would be a sensible start to serious work, because it is highly doubtful that those who draft the rules have much idea how much work and time complying with them takes. What is more, there is more discussion of the sheer volume of requirements and less of what they cost in money and time — that is, how much meeting or observing a requirement costs and how long it takes.

Speaking of the forest sector and of business in general, both of which matter to zemeunvalsts.lv, activists of various ranks went on surprising us this summer. What can be surprising about people who need no knowledge of the matter at hand and have only the energy to do something or to take a stand? The very same people object just as vigorously to, and fight against, any opportunity for a business or for the state to earn money (in their view, Latvia has no need of money), while at the same time wanting more and more to be paid for out of taxpayers' money... What can we expect of people who move from the school and university bench straight into the world of projects or the public sector?

That is why one can watch the latest “changes” in education not with “European concern” but with “Latvian anxiety”, hoping that nobody will explain to young people that “money is right there in the cash machine, and anything you need day to day is in the shop”.

In closing, we recall a few articles published over the summer that may have gone unnoticed.

https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/eiropas-komisija-piekapjas-atmezosanas-regula-noteiktas-zinosanas
The European Union Deforestation Regulation is being criticised over the increase in bureaucracy it brings. As is known, the European Commission (EC) is reviewing the reporting requirements, which continue to worry the forest sector, since the signs are that they will be extensive. The EC is preparing an information-technology-based review of the rules in order to make the reporting provided for in the Deforestation Regulation less burdensome.

https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/mezu-nozime-musu-planetas-saglabasana
One of the outcomes of the 26th IUFRO Congress is the Stockholm Declaration: Forests and Society Towards 2050. It is a call for purposeful and objective action, and for far-sighted decisions.

https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/meza-nozare-saka-ne-kailcirtes-nodoklim
The idea of discussing the possible introduction of a natural resources tax on every cubic metre of roundwood harvested in a clear-cut has come as an unpleasant surprise to forest sector businesses and has led them to object categorically to this way of topping up the state coffers.

https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/skotija-strauji-attistas-mezsaimnieciba
Scotland's Forestry Strategy has been drawn up for the period from 2019 to 2029. It sets out a 50-year vision and a 10-year programme for taking action to expand, protect and improve the quality of Scotland's forests, delivering greater economic, social and environmental benefits for the people of Scotland.