Every landowner will have to evaluate their economic activity on every single square metre to meet the goals set by the EU, while Latvia requires a national policy that promotes the voluntary transformation of economic activity for owners of land where current practices will become difficult or inefficient.

This is the picture painted by a discussion organised by "Dienas Bizness" in collaboration with the portal zemeunvalsts.lv regarding the potential socio-economic impact of the European Green Deal on land management sectors, jobs and regional habitation.

Knowing the plans and rules

“The EU’s major political objectives for agriculture are well-known: to reduce the use of plant protection products by 50%, reduce antibiotic use by 50%, reduce fertiliser volumes by 20%, lower CO2 emissions and increase the proportion of organic farming to 25% of agricultural land. However, there is no clarity, for example, on the contribution expected from each EU member state to achieve the goals of the 'Farm to Fork' strategy, especially considering the different situations in each country,” explains Maira Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre, Vice-Chair of the Zemnieku saeima board. She supports her statement with figures: for instance, the EU uses an average of 2.82 kg of active substances of plant protection products (PPP) per hectare, whereas in Latvia, this figure is only 0.8 kg/ha; there are countries where PPP consumption is five or six times higher than in Latvia. “We need joint discussions between politicians, officials and entrepreneurs, and the involvement of scientists to determine and prove to the EU the level of plant protection products below which farming is no longer possible, because without them, it is impossible to effectively fight pests and diseases while offering the resulting produce at acceptable prices,” M. Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre explains. She predicts that these guidelines are diametrically opposed to the interests of consumers in terms of price and yield (as yields are likely to fall), and consequently, also to labour productivity and efficiency.

Flawed assumptions on the road to a kingdom of crooked mirrors

“Peat is on the 'front line' of the EU Green Deal, even though the peat extracted in Latvia is processed into substrates used by seedling growers and farmers; it is therefore unclear why peat, a slowly renewable resource, is viewed by Europe as a fossil resource,” rightly asks Uldis Ameriks, Chairman of the Board of SIA Laflora. He points out that the EU's one-size-fits-all approach is not suitable for all circumstances, as the situation in member states varies greatly. In Finland and Ireland, large volumes of peat were used for energy; these countries’ situations are not comparable to Latvia, where less than 2% of the extracted volume is consumed for energy. “In Europe, decisions were made based on the assumption that every cubic metre of extracted peat is burned. Although it is well known that in Latvia peat is extracted for entirely different purposes, this resource was still ‘ranked’ alongside Polish coal and Estonian oil shale as a fossil fuel whose extraction must be stopped because it supposedly causes significant CO2 emissions,” notes U. Ameriks. He is surprised at how flawed and incorrect information is used in the decision-making process for such important matters.

“Who are the experts preparing these incorrect and unrealistic assumptions? Why was the CO2 emission volume applied to soils in Latvia similar to that of Germany and France, which have a completely different climate and soil type? Why are soil CO2 emissions in Latvia not based on scientific studies, but on assumptions using data from countries in different climatic zones?” asks U. Ameriks. He is convinced that future decisions affecting Latvia’s national economy cannot be based on erroneous assumptions. “I understand that in Germany, peatland drainage was implemented several decades ago, and now they want to correct these historical mistakes at the expense of other countries, with more than one non-governmental organisation actively ‘working’ in this direction to put pressure on decision-makers in Latvia.” Uldis Ameriks concludes that the EU is moving towards centralisation, as fewer and fewer decisions can be taken at the local level.

Only together can we achieve an excellent result

“The most important thing to see the big picture in land use and not get bogged down in a discussion about banning certain sectors or products is to look for ways for sectors to complement and support each other. The primary goal is to be productive and efficient owners on every hectare, for every product, while ensuring the prosperity of society as a whole,” says Uldis Biķis, Chairman of the Council of a/s “Latvijas Finieris”. He points out that Latvia still lags behind in productivity and labour efficiency compared to the “old” EU member states. “We must be able to talk and discuss: that is how we will find the best solution for using every hectare of land, taking into account the major EU guidelines, such as CO2 sequestration. Or, conversely, how much goes into the air. We must learn to read the algorithms that are being constantly refined,” says U. Biķis. The forest sector, represented by the Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, has done its homework in recent years—conducting research on CO2 sequestration and emission volumes, providing the ability to calculate.

“There is no complex view of Latvian land, and there are no discussions at the appropriate level, which is the root of the anxiety,” points out U. Biķis. He reminds us that Latvia’s position may differ from that of other countries, but to defend their point of view, everyone—politicians, officials, and entrepreneurs—must be united and see the bigger picture, because arguing will not achieve anything and will not allow us to defend our interests in the EU.

“One cannot compare southern EU countries with Nordic countries, because in the south, trees in plantations grow in 15–20 years, whereas in Latvia, such results can only be achieved in 50–70 years. This means that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach will not work. To maximise benefits for both climate and biodiversity, everyone will need their own implementation calendar for measures,” says U. Biķis. He emphasises that Latvia has its own goals and should not be compared to, for example, Spain, France, or even Sweden. “We must be careful, try to involve all sectors (that use land) and look for the best solutions to achieve the set goals; this is not wrong, but the most important thing is and will be how we fulfil them ourselves,” advises U. Biķis. He reminds us that as a tree grows, it sequesters CO2, and the CO2 is stored in the so-called wood bank—the wood product. CO2 can also be stored in perennial plants. “It is possible that an owner of peat soil will change their economic activity and move from agriculture to forestry. This process must be voluntary so as not to create tension, not to lose jobs, and not to create a situation where many hectares are managed primitively, with low subsidies, performing only one small action. We must work to ensure that the specific land creates the longest possible product chain and more jobs, and therefore more tax revenue,” U. Biķis explains his position.

Time for homework

“It is clear which activity causes which level of emissions, but for now, it is unknown how much CO2 sequestration is provided by agriculture, as it grows plants which, like forests, consume CO2,” notes M. Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre. For agricultural producers to approach the achievement of climate goals, it is necessary to know which activities in which soils cause higher CO2 emissions. “Since the highest emissions occur when organic soils are disturbed, the first piece of homework (to be completed by 2025–2026) will be to identify where these soils are in Latvia and in what quantities; after that, we can address the issue of changing management practices on them, as it will no longer be possible to grow vegetables there, but there will be an opportunity to transform them into pastures or plant perennial plants, including trees, which sequester CO2,” M. Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre sets out the work plan. In her view, such a transformation will require state support and incentives so that the reorientation yields the best possible result for the country and for meeting its obligations to achieve climate goals. “Farmers would like to hear answers today, but unfortunately, they are not yet available,” says M. Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre.

Concerns about the effect of the green wave

“To decide how to act, an adequate assessment of the current situation is needed, which would comprehensively cover all areas, while keeping in mind the potential socio-economic impact of decisions on jobs in the regions, tax revenues, etc.,” emphasises U. Ameriks. In his view, the biggest problem in Latvia is the demographic situation, as the country is emptying out. “What will happen to the residents in Latvia’s regions after the implementation of the Green Deal, what jobs will there be, and where?” asks U. Ameriks. He believes that those resources that are already protected and are sustainable must not be restricted. “I fear that a ‘new wave’ will arise within the framework of the Green Deal, which will ‘sweep’ people currently working in Latvia away to jobs abroad, where work will be (or will emerge),” says U. Ameriks. M. Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre believes we must not allow a situation where Latvia is beautifully green, but an empty and poor land.

Opportunities must be utilised

“As prosperity grows, pressure on nature increases, so the demands for biodiversity and areas that must be left for nature are justified, because no one in Latvia wants to live in the landscape of the Netherlands, where every square metre of land is processed and saturated with many times the amount of substances compared to Latvia,” explains U. Biķis. He believes that we should use the given opportunities to use renewable resources more effectively. “We can plant more trees, but how quickly and what return will that produce in terms of CO2 sequestration? Every year, about 20,000 ha are planted with saplings grown in nurseries, and planting, for example, another 100,000 ha will not be possible without increasing the capacity of seedling production,” points out Uldis Biķis.

“Coordinated action between ministries is needed to find the best solutions, and sectors and businesses must be involved,” says U. Biķis. U. Ameriks, for his part, points to a precedent where agencies do not even want the industry to provide feedback. “There have been situations where we receive a finished document in whose development process we did not participate; no one wanted to know our opinion, but the requirements contained within it directly affect the sector,” says U. Ameriks. In his view, such situations must not be repeated. M. Dzelzkalēja-Burmistre’s experience shows that there used to be much more consultation between officials, entrepreneurs, and politicians than there is now, when “everyone is rowing their boat more in the direction they personally need”.
A video of the discussion is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lBRnXDlnEI