What is the position and plans of the Ministry of Agriculture regarding European Union agricultural policy for the coming years?
Agricultural policy covers a very wide range of issues. In Latvia, the most important task is for our farmers to be competitive at the European (and not only) level. Can we achieve this with the European Union fund resources currently available? I think we can! It will undoubtedly require serious and extensive work in the preparatory phase to distribute the available funds wisely and correctly.
“To distribute correctly” sounds quite frequent and... What exactly is meant by that?
At the moment when agricultural programmes are being prepared and organised, there must be clarity so that they are also implemented correctly and understandably, taking into account not only loud and popular slogans, but also using common sense and reasoning. At present, part of society, for various reasons, tends to get carried away with ideas that, in Latvia, given our different situation compared to other (though not all) European countries, are neither applicable nor justified. For example, in Western Europe, agriculture as an industry has been developing for at least 70-80 years, while for us it has been 30 years. In France, agriculture has completely different goals and guidelines, in Germany – other principles, taking into account the size of these countries' farms (a large farm in Latvia is an average farm in Germany). To maintain the competitiveness of our farmers, it is necessary to direct funds towards development and, of course, environmental issues. We currently cannot afford to make popular but wrong decisions; we must decide in such a way that the long-term benefit is for all of us.
Jānis Grasbergs, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry, critically evaluated the desire expressed in recent years: to be the first “somewhere or anywhere”, regardless of the consequences. What does it cost and can we afford it?
I will repeat: in practice, we cannot afford to be populistically popular; we must act in a sufficiently grounded and reasonable manner, as far as the situation allows. Rushing to be at the forefront at any cost... The question, in my opinion, is different: in which areas should we be the first? In prosperity, in available support for producing farms and companies; later, when prosperity indicators have been achieved, we will be able to move elsewhere, to think about other directions. It must be said that during Kaspars Gerhards' time in the Ministry of Agriculture, the average wage in the sector has increased by 100 euros, the growth of exports has increased by 20%; this has happened in the situation in which we are currently and of which we are well aware. Namely, no matter how much one would like to jump very, very high, we are jumping as much as possible, moving towards achieving the set goals. This goal is prosperity! That is where one must start, that is what one must think about!
Latvia's main wealth and resource: land and everything related to it is being sold to foreigners... Such a sentence and its message creates worries for many...
In the perspective of the next 5-10 years, the land will remain in the ownership of Latvian citizens; we will try to ensure this with all available means. But! For that to be the case, everything must be done so that the citizen gets a return (benefit) from the land. Recently, there has been an excessive preoccupation with prohibitions, bans, micro-reserves, which essentially makes the desire to be a master and manage the land uninteresting. What kind of master are you if you cannot manage your own land? The question is loud, but one must imagine the situation and try to answer it.
If one looks at the trends in part of society, especially in the public sector: to restrict, to prohibit, to not allow are quite popular calls. This is by no means related to the Soviet times, as is often stated, because in the last 30 years there was a period when talking about banning or not allowing something in daily life happened very little. The desire to ban has returned and not because of Covid-19.
I can only repeat: at the moment we cannot afford to be populistically popular. The trends mentioned in the question are indeed observable right now: “ban economic activity to ensure biological diversity”. To some, this sounds very beautiful and others applaud it – well, that will be it! How has relatively biological diversity in a place arisen or formed? People before us, several generations ago, obtained land and forest for participating in the War of Independence: they managed it, cleared it, cut it, maintained it, ploughed it, sowed it. Even earlier, our ancestors' ancestors cleared the forest. Through their work on specific plots of land, they have ensured and created good enough conditions for both woodpeckers and lesser spotted eagles, as well as martens, for a bear to wander in, and for an anthill to diligently bustle, etc... If we now “impose” a ban on these fruits of labour created over decades or centuries, so that an imagined biological diversity might form there... Nothing, nowhere, has been formed from nothing! Everything we have, what we own, what we are proud of, is directly related to human work and care. Currently, we see the opposite process, which has arisen for two reasons. Firstly, if we take off rose-coloured glasses and look with clear eyes: some people do not want to do anything. As soon as a “clever” person appears, for example, in the Saeima, who says – we will ban doing this and not allow that, everything here will grow on its own... This is how a clearly visible reason is created for an excuse why something is not being done: because, you see, it is forbidden. “I am not doing anything because I love green nature!” Is it so? Nothing will grow if it is not maintained! Loving and creating greenery and nature by doing nothing will cost us very, very dearly in years to come. The whole society will pay for that...
There are slogans, callers, and there are industry professionals...
An example, slightly departing from the topic of forestry and agriculture: recently in the media, one could read the position of Saeima deputy Karīna Sprūde regarding Covid-19 vaccines. At the moment when the deputy was asked to justify her claim, the answer followed: “That is my conviction!” Conviction varies, but... false information is publicly voiced by a Saeima deputy, who, while working in parliament, must approach every issue very responsibly. There are enough Saeima deputies who gladly love to use popular slogans, for example: “We must be the greenest country in the world”. The greenest country in the world, honourable parliamentarians, will not produce anything! We will import everything and give away the money earned in Latvia, if there is any, to the Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, Belgians. In this way, we will not be building the prosperity of our nation, but that of other nations. Instead of providing ourselves and our children with food, work, and other necessities, we want to become consumers. Moreover, consumers who do not earn and spend, but simply slack off and do not earn... That is the silliest mistake possible.
Therefore, at the moment, the people of the Ministry of Agriculture are working so that the potential financial distribution in agriculture is as rational as possible, so that it can be invested in development, and at the moment when we are producers and exporters, we will talk about a developed country that can afford not only to spend and borrow, but also to find compensation for those owners whose properties contain those natural values that need to be specially protected and maintained. I particularly want to emphasise the word “maintained”, because only in a tidy environment will forest animals and birds happily linger: they will not like a dirty, overgrown swamp. That must be understood!
Regarding compensation, the thought often sounds: “Some will ban, but others will take care of (earn from) the compensation”. Very little is said about the fact that someone has to earn it...
Setting prohibitions is simple enough; one only needs to “press the right buttons” and trigger certain mechanisms. Then a series of not very clear questions begins: how to maintain the interest of the land owner in being a master and ensuring the maintenance and care of the property. The compensation must be appropriate so that the land owner does not have to pay for the desire of a group of like-minded people to restrict...
For example, Natura2000 territories, where economic activity in forests is prohibited. The position of the Ministry of Agriculture: we provide for a certain financial volume for compensation, clearly knowing that it is not sufficient. The other part of the compensation should be provided by that ministry which also calls itself the Ministry of Environmental Protection and... (VARAM). VARAM, it turns out, does not care about the solution to the compensation issue. The slogans exist, they are popular, that is enough. If the leadership and those responsible for the ministry cared about a solution to the situation, if it cared for those who call themselves the creators of development and progress policies, an opportunity to resolve the compensation issue would arise quickly. It does not happen! What can we conclude? It is loud populism at the expense of other people's work, time, and property!
In a recent conversation, when talking about the experience of neighbouring countries, the interlocutor emphasised that, for example, the Swedes plan forest management for 50-100-150 years.
That is sustainable management. When creating the aforementioned support programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture, one must take into account not only how we look right now and this year, but one must think about those generations that will live in Latvia in 100 years and more. One must think about development policy, otherwise no laws, regulations, or rules will ensure that people will want to live here. If money is given away for various popular things that will not bring benefit in the future, Germans will live here, a Liechtenstein lawyer, and others who will receive money from a Dutch bank, investing it here. Our goal: for Latvians to live here after 100 and 300, and... years, and for the Latvian language to be heard. One must think further and longer than one or two European Union planning periods. Plans are created for at least 50-100 years. So that people are needed by the state, the land, so that they can manage it, earn from it, invest in it, and feel good. One cannot stop at loud and popular speeches while doing nothing!
Citizens' initiatives on restricting clear-felling and stopping logging during the bird nesting season. What is the ministry's position?
These initiatives can be described with the lines of Imants Ziedonis' poetry: “Shall we jump into the pit, shall we jump into the pit, let's see who will pull us out?”
It is exactly like that with initiatives. When talking about restricting clear-felling, one must remember what a forest is. By managing it sustainably, the forest is a resource with the help of which we can build, obtain necessary things, and it is an environment where we can relax. This is possible because someone is taking care of the forest and someone is managing it. The one who is taking care has the right not only to take care but to gain a benefit. Gaining a benefit can also be linked to clear-felling. We can discuss what the volume of this cutting is, how it is done, when it is done. We must think about ensuring that, fearing new bans, the forest owner does not do foolish things “on the spur of the moment”. Legal certainty and legal protection must be ensured so that a person knows that they will be able to gain benefits from their property (and not just from the forest) next year, in 10 and 20 years. In my opinion, a complete ban on clear-felling is unacceptable; we can talk about the volume. Regarding a potential ban on forestry work during the bird nesting season, one must remember Latvia's climatic conditions. If we take into account the last few years, it is often impossible to carry out felling in winter because one cannot enter the forest. It is similar in autumns, when it tends to be extremely wet. In certain cases, it is necessary to carry out forestry work at a different time. Every clever master understands that birds are necessary for the forest and the forest for the birds, and will not intentionally carry out forestry work during the nesting season. I believe that our forest and land owners are sufficiently responsible towards themselves, their children, and would not do foolish things. Society as a whole must trust the owners because they know how to act correctly. I have never taught medics how they should work. And I very much hope that everyone knows how to do their work, and trusts that the forest owner also knows: how and what to do so that there is a benefit for all.
During the Covid-19 restrictions, we often hear harsh words directed at those ministers who urge caution but not to sit idle. What is wiser: to do, not to do, to fear, to worry, or nevertheless to keep moving?
Definitely – to do! One must think about how to produce and how to maintain production! The Minister of Agriculture recently proposed introducing support payments for people who help farmers with seasonal work. Until now, that was not the case... Knowing the shortage of labour in the countryside, we concluded that support for sitting at home could create a very grim situation in many sectors. Support recipients can help with seasonal work, receiving payment and not losing the downtime benefit. That was the least we could do so that people would not lose the desire to work. Moving away from the Covid-19 crisis, it will not be easy for many entrepreneurs because downtime benefits often exceeded the level of wages. How so? If compared with other countries in Europe, our entrepreneurs have a low level of income. An entrepreneur in Latvia cannot ask for adequate payment for their service because the people of Latvia only have as much money as they have (namely, not much)! If we do not produce, but only consume, resources will flow out of Latvia. If that happens, our prosperity will not increase!