For land owners to be able to effectively defend their interests at the European level, they must be informed as quickly as possible—not only about projects, but also about ideas and proposals; when developing Latvia's position, politicians, officials, and industries must work in close cooperation while simultaneously seeking allies among other EU member states.
These were the insights shared during a discussion organised by the magazine “Dienas Bizness” and the Latvian forestry and related sectors portal zemeunvalsts.lv regarding the potential impact of the EU Nature Restoration Law project and other emerging documents on land management in Latvia.
Goals must be well-founded
“A year ago, in this same studio, we discussed regulations, strategies, and documents aimed at fulfilling and implementing the European Green Deal—the goal of being climate neutral by 2050, meaning as much carbon is sequestered as is emitted. The goal is noble and beautiful, much like the promise once made by the late Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev regarding communism by 1980,” says Uldis Ameriks, Vice President of the Latvian National Peat Association and Chairman of the Board of SIA Laflora. He adds that any goal must be well-founded.
“To reach this goal, a climate law has been adopted that covers all directions,” notes U. Ameriks. In his view, one must first understand what this giant “spider” looks like and how daily life will change. “Everyone is interested in how the EU Green Deal will affect our lives—how we will work, how we will live, and how we can plan for our future, which is already outlined in these documents,” emphasises U. Ameriks. He reminds us of Fit for 55, which means reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990, for which Latvia has been set a specific target: to reduce emissions by 17% and ensure the sequestration of 364,000 tonnes of CO2.
“These are concrete tasks that must be carried out, and now regulations—laws—are coming, one of which is the Nature Restoration Law under the framework of the Biodiversity Strategy,” U. Ameriks points out. He stresses that he has not yet seen a specific description of how it will affect us.
“Fit implies becoming fitter, healthier, but, unfortunately, we are weakened. If someone in this state is demanded to become fitter, they might simply give up the ghost. There are regulations, strategies, and standards that dictate how emissions will be calculated. This will be a bureaucratic solution—a certification system—for counting these emissions and establishing the emissions (CO2) market, in which we will participate and potentially even have to buy from others, rather than the previous model of selling emission quotas,” says U. Ameriks.
Requirements – out of touch with reality
Guntis Gūtmanis, Chairman of the Farmers' Parliament (LOSP), sometimes feels that decisions are made in offices far, far removed from real life.
“In Latvia, food production and supply should be defined as a national security issue, and any decisions or regulations affecting this sphere should be viewed only through the prism of national security—can we feed ourselves?” emphasises G. Gūtmanis. He recalls that with the COVID-19 pandemic, we concluded that we can feed ourselves.
“But, seeing the forthcoming regulations, there are sometimes concerns about whether Latvia will be able to supply (feed) itself in the future,” says G. Gūtmanis. He points to strange requirements that might be imposed. “For example, the use of antibiotics in livestock farming must be reduced by 50%. Why must this be done? People use antibiotics when they are ill. Similarly, antibiotics for livestock, which are very expensive, are not given because someone wishes it, but only when needed, and in the exact amount necessary for the animal to recover. Reducing the use of antibiotics by 50% means that a portion of the livestock will simply not be treated. It is absurd. That is exactly why every decision must be well-founded,” says G. Gūtmanis. As another example, he mentions a discussion at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development regarding the new tool intended to identify which areas will be designated as green areas (to the extent of 30%) and which will not.
“We asked why green areas must be exactly 30% and where the economic justification for this figure is. The answer was: we were tasked with developing 30%. No one can clearly and understandably answer why there must be exactly 30% green area coverage,” explains G. Gūtmanis, concluding that such requirements lack economic justification.
“The new government declaration contains a point about the need for economic justification, and I hope that will be the case. Up until now, it felt more like we were doing things because we had to, not because there was any foundation for it,” says G. Gūtmanis.
“Land is our most important resource, but, unfortunately, reckless decisions or thoughtless agreement to conditions drafted in Brussels will have consequences in Latvia,” concludes Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Land Use Committee of the Latvian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia. He points out that in Latvia, where forest cover exceeds 52% of the country's territory and there are fertile lands, agreeing to a requirement to take 30% of land out of management forces us to answer how we will live going forward. “Will it be by constantly borrowing money and increasing debts, which have already grown significantly in recent years? We cannot be comforted by phrases that Greece or Italy have borrowed more compared to us,” says M. Liopa. In his view, those authorised by the people to make decisions must hold not only a patriotic but, especially, a statesmanlike position.
Returning to 70 years ago
“The worst thing is the lack of a critical approach, where ‘something’ has been recommended ‘somewhere’ by ‘someone’, and this ‘something’ is already being written into a draft document that does not align with the interests of the state and those living here,” M. Liopa points out, citing the Nature Restoration Law and its contents as an example of having no connection to the real situation in Latvia, which is one of the greenest countries in the European Union.
“I don't know what Germany or France will do if they actually have to restore the state of nature as it was many decades or even hundreds of years ago. Will they break up concrete and asphalt, eliminating infrastructure and buildings in those countries? Will the Nordic and Baltic states, as well as Poland, have to bear the heavy burden not only for themselves but also in place of Western European countries? That should not be the case,” M. Liopa explains.
U. Ameriks points to what is written in the regulation—that we must return to the past 70 years ago and restore habitat conditions to how they were 70 years ago. “This position has been evaluated at the European expert level. Latvia's position in this regulation project was aimed at the possibility of implementing it, which would remove very large land areas from economic circulation—for farmers, about 50,000 hectares,” says U. Ameriks. He notes that a great deal of attention is being paid specifically to peat soils (formerly referred to as organic soils), which are considered the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore, in his opinion, the policy on land use for these areas must be fundamentally changed.
“In these lands (peat soils), the restoration of the hydrological regime (rewetting) is planned, which would return Latvia's meliorated lands to the past 70 years ago, which is the opposite process to melioration,” says U. Ameriks. He adds that, considering Latvia's climatic situation, where precipitation levels exceed evaporation levels, this will mean the swamping of Latvia.
“Essentially, this is a regulation for the swamping of Latvia, and for people, as well as for agriculture and forestry, there will be no place in such an environment,” says U. Ameriks. He explains that it is also intended to restore the hydrological regime in peat extraction sites. “At the Cabinet of Ministers meeting where this issue was discussed, the LDDK (Employers' Confederation of Latvia) explained its inconsistency with the Latvian situation, and it should be radically revised, balancing environmental and economic interests and development. Both the now-former Minister of Finance Jānis Reirs and Minister of Defence Artis Pabriks stated at this meeting that the human factor comes first, so I hope that we view all regulation and other document projects from that position,” says U. Ameriks. He draws attention to the fact that the proposal effectively makes a portion of Latvia's assets unusable, which, in turn, makes development impossible.
“The essence of the document is simple—if something was wet 70 years ago, it must be under water or in water from now on,” says G. Gūtmanis. He points out that agricultural non-governmental organisations submitted proposals on what Latvia's position should be: the document should be converted from a regulation into a directive, and each country, based on its real situation, should adapt it individually to its possibilities, needs, and development.
“The issue is one of competitiveness. We talk a lot about how we will compete in Europe and what the competitiveness of European producers will be in the global market. Unfortunately, with the good intention of living greener (reducing emissions), competitiveness in Europe is being lowered, especially if the rest of the world does not act in a similar way,” G. Gūtmanis points out. In his view, we must look more broadly, as we will not be able to save the world's climate at the expense of Europe or, even more so, Latvia; namely, even if we live very, very green lives, we will buy food from those who do not.
“We are constantly trying to patch the world's large hole, but Europe is only a small part in terms of both territory and, even more so, population,” adds M. Liopa. It seems that here in Europe, and also in Latvia, it is convenient, profitable, or otherwise for someone, but paradoxically, we have been looking for the “Congo” for some time, ignoring what is actually happening in Africa and Asia.
“Can Latvia really patch a world-scale hole so that we do not have such problems with environmental protection (pollution) as, for example, in one of the most populated countries in the world—India?” wonders M. Liopa.
The issue of peat soils
70 years ago, the area of land used for agriculture in Latvia was significantly larger than it is now; accordingly, the amount of forest-covered land was significantly lower than at present. “That is how it is,” explains G. Gūtmanis.
“Well, no, that is absurd!” M. Liopa answers to the question of whether, to restore the situation as it was 70 years ago, Latvia would need to (irreversibly) cut down about half of its current forests. He points out that, on the contrary, there is constant talk about forests and forestry being certified according to market requirements.
“The emphasis is placed on organic (peat) soils. It is not about restoring the state as it was 70 years ago, but about placing many topics—climate, biodiversity—under ‘one roof’. Peat soils are most abundant in Latgale. Will this mean yet another blow to a region that has already suffered greatly?” asks U. Ameriks. He points out that alongside the emerging emission certification system, there exists a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which means that both large and medium-sized companies will have to prepare sustainability reports, where the issue of emissions will be raised. “An action plan for emission reduction will certainly be necessary, and every company will have to be climate-neutral,” emphasises U. Ameriks. He draws attention to the fact that everything is being done to establish an emissions market.
“This will mean that, for example, a large Western European company will look for opportunities to cover emissions generated in the production process, which, for example, will be very profitable in an emission store (flooded land) ensured by a hydrological regime in Latvia. Alongside land areas (as an economic asset), there will be land areas as carbon sinks, which is effectively the removal of land from economic circulation,” explains U. Ameriks. He reminds us that when irrigating land—creating swamps—one must not forget that swamps are large emitters of methane.
“Methane has 25 times the impact on global warming and related processes than CO2, so there must be a balance between creating swamps and afforestation, which is the best solution,” emphasises U. Ameriks. He believes that creating new swamps when there are already so many is neither useful nor necessary, as approximately 140,000 hectares are already protected, while extraction takes place on only 25,000 hectares of peatlands.
“In almost every document, based on the 2013-2018 report, it is written that the environment—habitats—in Latvia is in a very poor state. How can there be such a huge difference between what is written in the mentioned report and the data from the so-called nature census, which shows a diametrically opposite result?” points out U. Ameriks. In his opinion, this only confirms the need for clarity regarding what the actual state of habitats in Latvia is. “Even more so, if it is precisely in the protected Natura 2000 areas that habitat conditions have deteriorated. There is much information here for reflection,” says U. Ameriks. He reminds us that both now and in the past, he has called on officials and politicians to inform the sector about the draft documents and ideas coming or being created in Brussels. “Unfortunately, in the context of the Nature Restoration Law project, it was also very difficult to get everyone to sit at one table, discuss the problem, and seek solutions. We want to help defend Latvia's position, but we are not really being let in,” says U. Ameriks.
A coalition with allies must be formed
“The situation is similar in the nearest neighbouring countries Estonia, Lithuania, as well as in Finland, Sweden, and Poland. In a sense, this highlights the story of a multi-level Europe. Namely, those solutions and questions that are strategically driven in Brussels and intended for the whole of Europe do not really fit Northern Europe,” concludes M. Liopa. He points to Poland, where 80% of forests are under state management, but European requirements will affect wood availability, which will automatically mean social problems that will transform onto the state.
“The European Green Deal provides that the amount of wood used in construction must be increased. But how can this be implemented if other EU conditions reduce the volume of available wood and do not allow for the use of renewable resources—wood, as well as peat?” says M. Liopa. G. Gūtmanis has just been in Brussels at the European Milk Board, where they talked about the new requirements. Farmers from other countries, to put it mildly, have not been enthusiastic about what is happening and see going out into the streets of their home countries as the only solution.
“In Latvia, we are relatively sluggish in this regard,” says G. Gūtmanis. He admits that solving problems alone will be impossible, so allies must be sought—in neighbouring countries and Scandinavian countries. “A coalition must be formed, and we must speak louder about what we disagree with and why, and what the consequences might be,” emphasises G. Gūtmanis. In his view, it is the final moment to understand that the Green Deal and green living cannot be at the expense of specific individuals. If we want a green—unprocessed, overgrown—territory, the state should buy (exchange) the relevant property as much as it can afford, rather than imposing restrictions on an individual regarding what they cannot do on their own property.
“It cannot be that green-thinking city dwellers say that nothing should be done in rural areas, although, in my opinion, agriculture and forestry should be practised in rural areas. At the same time, we should all agree together on those territories that remain untouched, where nothing is done, all while understanding what it costs and what we can afford,” proposes G. Gūtmanis.
U. Ameriks points out that with regard to peat, there is no European Green Deal, but there is a Green Deal. “There is hope for the new government, whose declaration includes significant points regarding peat. It is a resource that regenerates slowly, so a balance must be established—how much peat grows each year and how much we are allowed to consume annually. Peat is natural capital that can be valued and also reasonably used by producing products with the highest possible added value, including in the circular economy, where thermal insulation boards would be produced from dark peat, which is not usable for the production of agricultural substrates,” explains U. Ameriks. He admits that, seeing how other countries work in defending their interests in Brussels, it must be concluded that Latvia is the weakest.
“Latvia's representation in European structures must be strengthened, and the sectors must also participate in this process of defending interests,” says U. Ameriks. He reminds us that science in Latvia is very poorly funded and scientists are advised to attract European money in various research programmes.
“It must be remembered that funders have their own interests, so they serve certain paradigms that do not align with Latvia's interests. Therefore, the research agenda should be determined in Latvia, and the opportunities for attracting money from Europe must be evaluated very scrupulously,” advises U. Ameriks. He explains that there was a good project, Life Restore, where the State Forest Research Institute Silava worked, and its results regarding CO2 emissions did not please everyone. A continuation was developed—a new research project, Klimat peat, to conduct research and measure emissions, which was rejected because peat was mentioned, which, in the European understanding, is not sustainable.
“This does not align with Latvia's interests at all, because unlike other Western European countries where this resource is exhausted, in Latvia, it has been preserved. Furthermore—peat is increasing every year, there is biodiversity, and if EU money is not granted for the mentioned research, it must be financed from the Latvian state budget,” says U. Ameriks.
Discussion video available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KUVetjXcQ
Photographs from zemeunvalsts.lv used