Despite the heat, many are justifiably angry about the changes to the tax system, while farmers are angry at the VARAM team; it seems this has been building for a long time and it is not just about one radio jingle.

It would not be wise to think that farmers can be angered by a single radio jingle; farmers are angry about the situation that has been created. The jingle was the final straw for our patience, as until now we have communicated and corresponded with both the previous Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Juris Pūce, the current one, Artūrs Toms Plešs, and representatives of the Environmental Protection Fund (VAF), pointing out our vision. We met with Juris Pūce on 7 November 2020, and one of the issues we discussed was the allocation of VAF funding to the media and how they cover agricultural topics using state budget funds. We discussed the article “Death Mist over Latvia’s Fields”, highlighting the established fact that people who had never previously written about agriculture had “suddenly” begun to do so. This situation could be compared to, for instance, a German baron’s sudden desire to excel in writing on a topic he knows nothing about, but wants and needs to write about because it is prestigious, and...

The media outlets that turned their attention to agriculture received corresponding funding for it. Undeniably, there were some good examples, where authors tried to delve into the topic or issue, to explain it, to research, to justify and to inform, but the majority of the articles prepared were geared towards negativity, bad news, and the actual smearing of the sector... In our opinion, this is not right, because the public is being both goaded and fed an biased, uniform opinion, meaning those already lacking knowledge are being misled and incited even further. If someone has sinned, the public should be informed about it, that is clear! However, if everything has been done appropriately, is it really necessary to publicly berate someone for it?

What benefit do state structures get from the circulation of false information? People need to eat; the European Union or the Saeima can, of course, decide that one can live on thin air and love, but such a decision, even if intended seriously, will not materialise. Everyone needs people to live and work in the Latvian countryside!

It is no secret that when Covid-19 restrictions began, borders were closed, etc., one or two supermarket shelves quickly became empty, and people were worried about what was coming: “Will we have anything to eat?” It did not last long, but buckwheat “disappeared,” as did pasta here and there, and what else, because it was unknown what to expect, what would happen, what the government would do, etc.

It was precisely at that time that representatives of leading agricultural organisations and major food production companies gathered at the Minister of Agriculture’s office to clarify whether it would be possible to provide food for the Latvian population over the coming six months or year. The answer was very clear: “Yes, we will be able to!” For most food product groups, we produce more in Latvia than we consume. For example, we produce twice as much milk, 2.5 times more grain (than we consume), and for vegetables and meat, we are close to self-sufficiency. If, for instance, pork were not exported or processed, the volume of fresh pork would already be very, very close to self-sufficiency.

Recently, an allegedly “correctly green” or “greenly correct” idea was published on Twitter: “If we produce and have leftovers, let’s not sell abroad, better to produce less!”

We have food product groups that we do not produce as much of as is needed; we must, of course, work on that. If we look at Latvia’s export balance, our most important export goods are timber and agricultural products; we no longer “export” services (transit, banks) as we did before. Many goods and services that previously made up the Latvian economy have shrunk in volume or vanished entirely, which does not improve the country’s economic situation. Therefore, we must find a way to use every hectare of land effectively, wisely, and thoughtfully; how to produce a product, how to create jobs, how to earn for ourselves and for taxes. How to create an environment in which people want to live!? In the public sphere, there are many philosophical reflections on people leaving the countryside (how to stop it), discussions about creating jobs in rural areas, about children being born in the countryside, about the need for schools and kindergartens in the countryside, but...

If some wiseacre decides: “Let’s produce less!” Does that mean (suddenly) we don’t need people in the countryside? If there is no work, where will people go? To Latvia’s “waterhead,” Riga. What will they do there? Work in a shop, deliver food, repair streets... Or go abroad... There, less-qualified workers are still in demand. The English once remarked: if employees in Latvia are paid more, they will pay “even more,” because in England they can afford it and the English really need such employees, they cannot do without them.

If it occurs to someone to produce less in Latvia, will the locals in Latvia pay more for it? Will the proponent of such ideas compensate the farmer’s investment in development, land, machinery, infrastructure, and environmentally friendly farming? We should be glad that we produce more, because it means that our people get good, high-quality, fresh, healthy local produce!!!! Buyer surveys show that in Latvian shops, they look for the local product first.

The pandemic and earning: how have farmers fared?

Variously. There is no short and clear answer as to whether the pandemic influenced the agricultural sector badly or well! The sector is very broad; some are doing well, some not so much, some are doing very badly. For example, a home producer who had previously been geared towards selling directly to the end consumer had the right time to develop and sell more, developing direct deliveries, etc. During the restrictions, people spent more time at home, they had the time and the opportunity to devote this time to cooking. Thus, the sales of fresh meat increased because restaurants were closed and cooking was done at home. At the same time, if cafés and restaurants are closed, agricultural cooperatives that had cooperation with caterers and wholesale bases had a very difficult time; they had to look for new sales markets.

Milk purchase prices fell. Why? Cheese consumption decreased in Western Europe. Statistics show that the average Italian goes out to drink wine with friends every second or third day, and often snacks on cheese. If cheese is needed, the sales for milk are good. If the place to enjoy wine and cheese is closed for an indefinite period, cheese consumption falls, and so does the price of milk.

If we speak about grain, its price increased, which is more related to grain exchanges and the situation in the USA and Australia. Of course, as I mentioned regarding buckwheat and the beginning of the pandemic, if a longer or shorter “mass psychosis” breaks out regarding a product, the price of the product “swings” accordingly. A well-known example to us is oil; the same happens with food products.

If a farmer, in addition to farming, engages in rural tourism or catering: during the time of restrictions, people could not travel out of Latvia and began to travel more actively around the country, looking for any opportunities for entertainment. On the other hand, home producers who focused only on markets had to look for other opportunities very quickly because markets were not taking place for some time. For example, a beekeeper I know, who already had an online store before the pandemic, said that trade “through parcel lockers” was a “resounding success,” and he could barely keep up with packing and shipping.

The milk sector suffered the most in the months of the pandemic, where, as I mentioned, prices fell, and what is important – in a situation where we already have the lowest milk price in the EU. Prices fell for beef because... restaurants were closed and the demand for steak meat in the market dropped. Of course, one can say, cook at home, but – how many of us at home, and in winter or early spring, will cook a steak?

Another topical theme for the summer of 2021: habitat mapping. You have been following what is happening. Anxiety about what was coming was noticeable 3-4 years ago; VARAM representatives kept “hushing”... “Let us finish the work, then we will think”

In the past, to become an expert, one had to acquire knowledge for 6 to 8 years in a certain field, then work for a while, get a master’s or doctoral degree. Now an expert needs a sofa, a smartphone, and the time to fiddle with them. ...

The habitat issue certainly affects farmers as well. When a habitat is found or designated on a farmer’s land, they can still carry out some economic activities. Basically, farmers encounter grassland habitats, which can be managed, for example, by grazing sheep or cattle, or by preparing fodder. This would be the most correct way of management. One must certainly think about how to compensate for the restrictions on farmers whose properties are found to have habitats, which is understandable and correct. Habitat management and nature conservation in Latvia must be balanced and reasonable. I know that there are rural entrepreneurs who own a herd and are actually happy if a habitat is found on their property. That would be one perspective.

Until now, the compensation money for the existence of habitats has been taken from the Ministry of Agriculture’s Rural Development Programme, where the finances are primarily intended for other needs. The common money pot is not so full, because, in fact, this is money taken from farmers for direct functional needs. In my opinion, it would make sense if the compensation money were provided by VARAM, which could reach an agreement with the landowner on this issue. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Agriculture’s finances could be directed to direct payments or creating added value, etc.

As you mentioned in your question, they also explained and told us: “We will map, look, evaluate... and then we will sit down to deliberate and talk about what we preserve, what we can finance, etc.” There are areas where the existence of a habitat is understandable and justified; not all farmers have sheep or cattle and not all are ready to engage with them. There are places where the location of a habitat is not very logical, for example, on reclaimed areas or large fields where livestock have been grazed until now, but the owner has had other plans for the future. There are cases where a farmer stops engaging in livestock farming, ploughs up pastures and... look, the institutions wake up: there was a habitat there. Then begins the correspondence with the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) and the Rural Support Service (LAD)... No one had either told or informed the owner that a habitat was there. Such correspondence can last for years. Not every owner has received clearly understandable information about the existence of a habitat on their property.

To maintain a habitat, there is not always the opportunity to think in parallel about economic contribution. It is more correct to act so that everyone is satisfied: you get the habitat, I get management and income. Of course, there are conditions, for example, regarding livestock density, because habitat areas must not be overgrazed: this can destroy the habitat. Management in habitats is possible, but burdensome.

Currently it is like this: habitats are being found, and more and more are being found, but the funding remains thin. At the meeting on 29 June*, no one received an answer to the question: “What next?” The habitats are there, there are many of them, and it is said in meetings that the funding will be enough for the support of 65 ha. What will happen to the rest of the areas? There are areas where there is a habitat, but they are not being maintained, they are not being paid for... Where an area has been maintained for years, the owner is forced to come to terms with it. Currently, the most appropriate and reasonable approach would be the opportunity to reach an agreement: how much and what we need. For example, perhaps here and there we graze cattle and mow grass, but in good, fertile land we plough and sow grass or rye, or plant an apple orchard.

God forbid if the farmer also owns a forest where a habitat has also been found! Often, in years of poor harvests, the forest is a known relief or help for this same farmer when, willy-nilly, one has to look at how to keep the farm going. I consider the craziest thing in this situation to be: farmers starting to be taught by those who have neither property nor the skills to farm, but who do have a firm opinion that the advisor has the right to determine what to do and how to do it in the countryside. And again we return to the situation: how to create conditions so that people willingly live in the countryside, so that children are born, so that schools function.

Within the VARAM ministry, it seems, they often forget about regional development, primarily focusing on environmental matters, inadvertently passing plans for regional development to the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Economy.

The forestry sector is waiting for an answer from VARAM: how much and what do we need. How long can the situation remain unclear? Does VARAM believe that in this ministry people and their work are not needed (that it is needed by others)?

During the time of Covid-19, we got to know various prohibitions, what is allowed and what is not. It happened: a farmer, being a contact person of an infected person, was carefully monitored and could not work. There were sectors that were paid so that people would sit at home. Who will earn the money to give it back? Of course, the rest! Taxpayers will be forced to chip in for all of this. Where will the money come from? Not from Riga, where we primarily provide each other with various types of services... One must produce and export, money must be brought in from abroad.

I want to hope that on the issue of habitats, the ministers will find a reasonable compromise. Intense discussions have taken place in the Ministry of Agriculture’s working groups with environmental protection representatives; we have suggested proposals that have been important for the preservation of habitats. For example, in our opinion, the best preservation of grassland habitats is grazing, not mowing, and accordingly, we should pay more to those who have livestock. Environmental organisations did not support it. Why? ... As soon as a reasonable proposal from farmers appears, preference is given to something else (as in this case, mowing, not natural grazing). Not a single discussion has taken place: how large an area of protected land we can maintain, how much we can afford. I will repeat, during the habitat mapping, VARAM representatives mentioned more than once: the work will be finished, we will sit at the table, we will look; if there is a lot of a certain type of habitat, perhaps we can manage a part of it differently. We are waiting for this and such talks!

* Meeting on the informative report “On the results of the identification of the distribution and quality of protected habitats of European Union importance and further action for ensuring the favourable conservation status of protected habitats and balancing the development interests of the national economy sectors”