An interview with Jānis Dombrava, member of the 13th Saeima
The European Union (EU) is quite broad, with different nations, languages, experiences, and views. How easy is it to shape policy in any sector without simultaneously 'losing Europe' while remaining independent?
In an ideal scenario, I would like to see Latvia as one of those European countries that shapes our common policy. Unfortunately, we see that over time, many EU regulations and directives have been designed either in the interests of major powers or various international corporations. As a result, here in Latvia, we have sold, or have been forced to sell, a large part of the capital that previously belonged to us. If we compare, for example, the situation regarding natural resources 'before' and 'after' joining the EU, and look at how much belongs to locals versus foreign owners, the situation has worsened. The same has happened with various enterprises, which are increasingly ending up under the ownership of various international corporate networks; we see how financial institutions have 'departed' from Latvia (we no longer have any significant local capital financial institutions), taking away a tidy profit from Latvia every year. These trends have emerged as a result of EU operations because, as I mentioned, regulations and documents are often prepared and written in the interests of large countries or international corporations, not, for example, in the interests of Latvia.
Not all regulations and decisions need to be accepted 'to the letter' and literally. Is there anything we can do right here in Latvia to adapt these requirements for ourselves?
Yes, there have been instances in the EU where countries have consciously moved towards infringement procedures! I myself, at one time, proposed stricter criteria regarding restrictions on the purchase of agricultural land so that foreigners could not buy land from us so easily; I urged my colleagues in parliament not to fear an infringement procedure, because the potential losses could be small or non-existent – we anticipated years of litigation that, presumably, would result in nothing. However, we would have had the opportunity to keep land ownership under our control. My colleagues were not ready for open infringement procedures. The economic benefit would have been greater: if we had to pay one or two million euros in fines, we would have kept several tens of millions for ourselves. The gains and losses here would not be equivalent. Many EU member states deliberately violate certain rules, pay the fine, and uphold their national interests. Of course, such a system is not structured correctly – one has to break rules and pay fines in order to protect or defend the interests of the local market or local residents. But if the regulatory framework is built this way, one must certainly look for the most advantageous solution for oneself.
Your words suggest that policy is being made shortsightedly, for the short term, without thinking about future generations…
That is a problem for both Latvia and other European countries! While there are countries in the world that think at least a hundred years ahead – about how the nation, the state, and society will develop – others look at least ten years ahead. But there are countries, Latvia included, that face the problem of looking further than one year… The maximum time period for which anything is planned in Latvia is four years; that is the election cycle. This situation is not only observed in politics; we see it to a large extent in society as well. It is not for nothing that we see absurd advertisements, such as: 'Want a Christmas gift? Here, have a quick loan!'. 'Live it up today, you can think about it later…' People are not encouraged to think about how and after how long they will be able and need to pay back the loan, or whether they even need it, but rather to please themselves and others without thinking about the rest! That is a problem!
In the first week of the year, many were surprised by information that the issue of the potential privatization of the state's large companies, even if partial, is being discussed in government formation talks.
A very active discussion about these issues took place last year, when the New Conservative Party (JKP) put forward its candidate for Prime Minister. This was one of the points in the negotiations that was unacceptable for us (NA) to sign and approve. One must take into account the fact that the JKP could not specifically explain what exactly they meant and were planning with their proposal. Of course, we can look at and talk about listing a portion of a company's shares on the stock exchange, but one must understand – what size portion of the company, over what time period, what conditions are envisioned, and who the potential owners will be. There were no answers, and the question – whether this would be the first step towards privatizing profitable companies – remained.
If we look at statistics, forest areas in Latvia were around 27% of the territory in 1935, and currently, they are already at 52%. Unfortunately, the forests are aging. Have the recent loud cries that 'Latvian forests are being clear-cut' also been heard in the Saeima? Is this justified?
It is not justified! Studying history in my bachelor's programme, we also covered economic issues, and the differences are noticeable. Essentially, we have returned to times or a situation similar to what existed in the territory of Latvia in the 18th century, where forests covered about half of the territory (I am not talking about the quality of the forest). The people who maintain and support such campaigns could be divided into two groups. Some derive material benefit from the publicity and campaigns. As for the others, I would not want to cast blame; these people emotionally feel the pain of a situation where their surroundings change. They are used to something: there is a wonderful forest near their home where they can pick mushrooms or go skiing; and then one day an entrepreneur fells the forest and builds themselves a house, or the forest has reached the age where it is time to harvest the trees. The person's accustomed environment is being changed and disrupted, and often a general feeling arises – not just 'near me', but that 'everything is being cut down'.
Regarding forests, it would be necessary to change people's thinking and its principles – one should separate commercial forests from those meant for public recreation, and from those intended for nature conservation, which we allow to age and where we protect virtually everything. If we could maintain balance and an understanding of which forests are which – that would be great! I certainly would not want to see a situation where the majority of forests are cut down; just as absurd would be the opposite situation, where Latvia would be shaped into a reserve where trees grow but no people live.
Forest owners and various regulations and restrictions. Are the restricted areas defined adequately? Can and how can we balance limitations on commercial activity with compensation?
This is a very broad issue to examine: where to draw the line between humans and nature. If we look at the past, Latvians had their own sacred forests and sacred animals. In these territories, people did not engage in commercial activity; they lived their own life. Often, before a forest block was harvested, it was carefully studied to see what was living there and where. That is the historical view.
Nowadays, the discussion continues. I do not think a bird or animal should be chased away or deliberately disturbed, but we cannot reach the absurdity of having to leave large, extensive tracts around a bird's nest so as not to disturb it. Forests dedicated to nature (protected) are another matter; there, one can talk about management and maintenance by following completely different rules.
In terms of compensation, one must look at the scope of the restrictions. If a person owns 10 hectares and 9.8 hectares are designated with a prohibition on commercial activity, it would be fair to seek a compensation mechanism. Whether that would be a land swap deal with 'Latvijas valsts meži' or another solution, it would not be right for a person to have invested work and finances into their property only to be told: 'You cannot do anything there!' I hope that those shaping forest policy in Latvia will create the best and most precise mechanism.
People have different understandings and views on what a forest is. For some, a forest is like a park; for others, it is like a dune area; for others still, it is just thickets. When building a system or policy, where and how do you find the middle ground?
I have already said that the aforementioned functions should be separable. Forests meant for recreation should be maintained and supervised with the idea that people will definitely be spending time in them, which must be taken into account. The situation for commercial forests is clear. Forests intended for conservation and nature protection processes should be relatively isolated from human commercial activity and presence. Here, society certainly must be educated – what is what and what is intended for whom. A person's experience and views are often formed by the environment or neighbourhood where they have spent their time. A resident of a Riga micro-district, who only knows parks and has only been, for example, to the Kleisti forest, will not understand talk about one type of forest or another. Educational work is certainly not easy! It is not made any easier by some environmental activist who loudly and regularly says: 'All forests are being cut down! Today they are cutting down one block, tomorrow they might get to the forest near your house!' Such cries emotionally appeal to people and create the feeling that they, too, might be threatened in their usual environment.
Are such cries heard often in the Saeima?
Yes! From the side of various organisations! The cases differ, because some activists have a genuine desire to take care of the preservation of some animal or plant, while speaking of others, one can see a desire to access some EU fund money without thinking about the country as a whole. There is nature, which exists and develops, and there is man, who lives and manages the land. I return to the concept of 'balance'.
'Accessing EU fund money'. Without talking about restrictions, should we look at the distribution of money more state-centrically – whether it needs to be implemented, or whether these are narrow interests beautifully described in a project, nothing more…
There are significant differences between environmental advocacy organisations. There are organisations whose work I value highly, which monitor, for example, that coastal forests and dunes are not excessively cut down and built upon, which can pose a threat to people. Others 'emerge' at the moments when an entrepreneur wants to develop or expand production, and they disappear just as quickly. In the Saeima, we have heard that an entrepreneur is asked for a 'compensation', and – either they agree to 'compensate' and the organisation does not interfere with the entrepreneur's plans, or the organisation starts active opposition, and the entrepreneur's initiative or plans are disrupted, rejected, or at least significantly delayed. Does society benefit from this? No! Does one of the 'fighters' benefit? Perhaps, but such conduct certainly cannot be considered good practice!
How to prevent the possibility of deliberately using legislation to slow things down? There is a lack of justification, but such a possibility is provided for in the laws…
That is how it is! Unfortunately… Of course, I would not want to see lawlessness, but many things in Latvia are moving and are being moved far too slowly compared to the economic development we want to achieve! Whether it be expert opinions on environmental issues or administrative requirements – the processes are far too long, the procedures are slow. It would be more correct if a person prepared documents in one day or, in more complex cases, one week, received approval, and dedicated the remaining time solely to the development of the initiative. Or, a negative response is received – the initiative is not meant to be realised. The processing of documents should not be dragged out for months without explanation and understanding of what to do with the planned funds, how long to wait, or whether to plan something else… That is not right and creates distrust in institutions, while simultaneously failing to foster development.