Raivis Kronbergs is interviewed by Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, and Pauls Rēvelis, editor of zemeunvalsts.lv.

On current affairs – green and 'greening' issues in Latvia and Europe, the differences and similarities between ministries, the local desire to document as much as possible for subsequent auditing and control, and just a little bit about choir music. Raivis Kronbergs began his role as State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture on 3 January. It is time for a conversation.

The topical theme in Europe is 'green' (and greenery). How to use this word correctly and what to label as green. In Latvia, one might smirk at this.

In my opinion, the word and concept 'green' is perceived and evaluated here in a way that is inappropriate for the situation in Latvia. Yes, this word has a different understanding and dimension in that part of Europe to our west, but that is their story, not ours. We in Latvia are different: we think green, we work green, and we use what we can use in a green way. For example, our farms are green by their very nature. We do not have polluting industries. The green story in Latvia should be told differently from how it is accepted elsewhere, namely, the way it actually is.

Greenery is being viewed very broadly and in minute detail. For example, reading the articles* by Oļegs Krasnopjorovs in the magazine 'Ir', we see that urban greenery is also being associated with noise, dust, light, etc., that is, very, very broadly.

Other countries cannot compete with us in terms of greenery; we are superior. There is talk of some uniform criteria, which have not yet been approved, but (this is already known) ours will be different, taking into account Latvia’s geography, area, and specificities, which we repeat over and over again – Latvia is a small country with regional differences within it. For example, if we compare Kurzeme and Vidzeme – different soils, weather conditions, etc., Zemgale and Latgale... and we could go on.

Soil mapping is currently underway, and as it turns out, we know very little precise data about them.

When Latvia joined the European Union, we understood very little and were equally ill-oriented in the specifics and nuances of the bloc. Over time, we have had enough carelessness and errors that now have to be painfully and laboriously corrected. In various translations, clarity has been lost and inaccuracies have crept in.

Work at the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Agriculture – one surrounded by laws, the other creative, significant, and vast... How is the work going in your new role as State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture?

I feel very good. I recently participated in the LOSP general meeting, where we talked a lot about the problems related to the consequences of Russia's aggression in the food sector. Farmers are quite worried, which is well understood. As I was leaving, I wanted to say something positive and mentioned that I have not regretted for a moment coming to the Ministry of Agriculture, because here I am dealing with real content, real people, and the real implementation that we encounter every day. There is a lot of work, it is interesting, there are many problems, and I will repeat, it is the real everyday life of Latvia. At the Ministry of Justice, we dealt more with an immaterial environment and normativism.

Normativism as Latvia's long-term bogeyman.

That is true! There is a visible desire, even a strong will, to regulate and dictate as much as possible.

Does the political will to change this exist, and where is it hidden?

Is it really necessary to transpose everything into Latvia's normative acts? Often, while preparing draft laws, the sentiment arises in the process – 'this provision is already included somewhere, and this regulation is already in such and such a document'. But it is precisely in these moments that a persistent desire to regulate extensively and strictly manifests itself, and talk begins that 'this and that' does not comply with the scope of 'this and that' regulation, etc. Why? ...

There are institutions in the country that are in a constant state of readiness to rap the knuckles of every doer, asking: 'Where is it written?' It seems that many ministry employees work for the State Audit Office, implying the predictable – during an audit, the State Audit Office will ask: 'Where is it written, where is it stipulated, where is such and such a decision, why is there such a practice, why do you think it is correct? (...)' In order not to hear such questions, many and a great many normative acts and documents are created.

Another problem, known for quite some time and discussed often enough, is the narrow competence of ministries in a situation where public administration works for one society and one country. 'This is not within our competence, that is the responsibility of another ministry, that (not represented by me) ministry could answer for it,' etc. Often it seems it would be easier to merge all ministries into one or three large ones, which would certainly reduce the volume of regulations... One must not forget that every ministry has its own normative documents, and furthermore, speaking of competencies – if it is necessary to transpose an EU regulation or directive into national normative acts, the division of competencies begins. Who will be the lead? They cannot decide, so everyone prepares. There you have it!

Responsibility is a matter of honour. At least that is what they say.

Those who take on or are ready to take on responsibility are then beaten, with phrases echoing about the misuse or not quite proper use of taxpayers' money.

I do not want to intrude into other fields, but there are far too many control and internal security services in Latvia, whose functions could be perfectly well handled by any law enforcement agency.

Will the scale of normativism continue to grow, or will it one day collapse? Moreover, the State Audit Office should essentially orient itself towards the units being audited – not to ask, but to understand for themselves why the action was one way or another.

The State Audit Office has a specific system for evaluating results, and each group of auditors tries to do their work well by getting bogged down in minutiae instead of concisely pointing out – this and that should be improved... The quality of work in the state system is improving, but normativism is not shrinking, and it is doubtful whether it will shrink in the near future because there are still many external, i.e., EU, regulations that must be implemented. If documents are produced in Europe, they must also be produced here. Unfortunately...

What should a person do who has done their work professionally and to a high standard, but it does not comply with regulations?

This is work involving communication and explanation, which are necessary during any process. For example, the decision just adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers regarding joint ventures for wind farms – the merging of forces and capacity of 'Latvenergo' and 'Latvijas valsts meži'. I think we will have to explain long and hard why such a company is needed and what it will provide, how it will generate electricity and money. No one will read the law on the establishment of this company; they will listen to the explanation.

'We want cheap energy, but let the neighbour produce it.' LTRK recently conducted a study on purchasing power parity, which shows that in Latvia we have fallen into a hole, even though, as is known, the three Baltic states had equal starting positions in the 90s.

I admit that mentality has had its influence and, as is known, the choice of the closest market – Russia, Belarus. At one time, it seemed logical because this market is closer, meaning lower resource costs.

Brussels worries less, more – Riga.

The agriculture and forestry sector is 'packed and repacked' to excess with various regulations. It seems there is no other sector like this.

For example, they say that we have a surplus of agricultural products in Latvia, but... other talk arises about a possible famine. Are we working and producing to provide food for others? There is a very real possibility that the war in Ukraine will disrupt or cut off many food supply chains, or we will produce to provide for countries that will not receive food from Ukraine. First, we must take care to feed the people of Latvia, to employ the local labour force in the economy, etc. In pre-war Latvia, there was once a slogan – raise five bacon pigs for the country, export one. That, of course, is a regulated economy.

At the recently held EU Commission ministerial meeting, similar things were discussed a lot; I concluded that not everyone agrees with the plans of the European Green Deal. The Danes, Germans, and Dutch are very supportive. The rest? Some listen, some object, others want to curry favour with the European Commission, thanking it for everything, ultimately not understanding for what exactly. We objected a lot and loudly. For example, they promise us €4.2 million to mitigate the crisis, and we say: 'Thank you, but that is too little!' etc.

I must say, finally one can see that very many are dissatisfied with something; for example, it is not only Latvia talking about forest and peat issues. Wait, where were you, the now dissatisfied, earlier when we were objecting? If there was talk earlier about the end of the peat industry, now no one even utters such words.

What do I not like about the peat industry? Something was 'screwed up' badly in 2004, and these mistakes are now being corrected with all our might. In Latvia and Europe, they have now understood that national resources (smiling a little, the peat industry should have been included in some UNESCO list so that no one would touch it) are necessary and must be used.

But – as it happens – our own politicians, furthermore, from the previous century, having heard something and caught wind of something, start talking about war, about greening parameters, about the need to evaluate each country separately and... A Saeima deputy calls to 'leave the peat industry alone, because peat, look, can be burned'. So the person has not heard what we have been explaining and saying, namely, we will never burn peat. It is for export and our agriculture and forestry. The deputy has heard about the use of peat in energy in Ireland. Let the Irish burn it; the situation in Latvia is different. What causes concern? After a great deal of work and a huge volume of information, this kind of careless thought appears, which is also called a deputy's opinion and which industry opponents will not hesitate to use. Ignorance often costs dearly.

Neighbouring countries calculate peat extraction differently...

Calculations must be balanced; one cannot just grab something to please European Union institutions.

There are similar texts expressed by various activist associations regarding the diameter of trees: they will immediately cut everything down and there will be nothing left. What nonsense! Furthermore, if it is necessary to harvest forests more, the local producer must be provided with timber first. That is clear!

Everything will never be cut down, even some activists say so.

In every industry, there are wrongdoers; there has been a time when a person, having acquired a forest or inherited one, cut it down and subsequently did not care at all. Quick money, paid-off loans, luxury items, but... That cannot be applied to everyone! Cut down three trees, plant a dozen.

Starting any improvement of a Latvian park, wait for people with a magnifying glass who, before work begins, will start screaming: 'We know what you are going to do, that is not good, we know better!'

That might not sound very good, but – all the changes and transformations that the war has unfortunately brought to us in Latvia as well, provide an opportunity to evaluate – namely – things, processes, and people can be approached differently, one can trust more. Wind farms and the green energy story will implement themselves in practice if there are no other options. We will drive less because petrol will be outrageously expensive, we will buy as much food as we can eat because it will cost money, we will think more about not creating waste. Let us not assume that cutting trees in Latvia will suddenly lead to the disappearance of the forest, because trees will grow – both by themselves, and we will plant new ones. Of course, there will also be problems, because for €100 we will be able to buy less and less.

'Money is in the ATM (not something someone earns).' 'The Green Deal is good, even if we do not know its content.' It is time for a change of posters and slogans. How many people are well-oriented in all the volume of information?

Everyone looks at and evaluates greenery from their own position, guided by their own knowledge and perception. I have a good experience story from working at the Ministry of Justice. The building at Brīvības iela 36 has five floors, but its height is like that of a 10-storey building. Once the lifts broke down, and calculating the repair and related costs, I concluded that it would be better and cheaper to walk. The employees, of course, walked, even though they grumbled about how stupid and difficult it was. At that time, we received a letter from the Ministry of Health with a series of questions about ministry employees and a healthy lifestyle. Hm... Lawyers work at the Ministry of Justice, whose workplace is usually a computer and a desk... How healthy is that? We replied that we move around the ministry premises on foot, do not use the lift, etc. What happened? We got first place in the public administration in terms of a healthy lifestyle. 'We worked green' – one can look at this situation this way as well. At the Ministry of Justice, we gave up paper documents where possible, for example, especially sensitive ones cannot be 'changed' for a long time (over time, I plan to go through this same 'exercise' together with colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture). It did not go quickly – paper bins disappeared, printers disappeared so that someone would not be tempted to print something, etc. That is also green...

The Green Deal can be built step by step with such examples. At the Ministry of Agriculture, they have started supplying drinking water in bottles with a deposit marking – we agreed that we would collect the bottles for the deposit.

Green is a term that can be perceived differently – think, rack your brain, do not latch onto the Latvian national economy, leave one sector alone, but engage your own, personal, and only mind! For small Latvia, one can certainly find something special.

In Latvia, by the way, there are enough territories that are not being managed, but – strangely – protection is considered desirable precisely where someone has cultivated this area and farmed it.

Part of the habitats disappear or change irreversibly if they are not managed.

A significant sector for Latvia is land reclamation, so that there are no floods, so that funds are not spent on unforeseen cases, so that some areas are not accidentally flooded or something is not washed away, but... Land reclamation cannot work systematically because there are active, even fanatical people who explain: 'Now the birds are arriving. Now – they are mating. Now there are nests, now there are chicks, now they are preparing to fly away.' The only time, in their opinion, suitable for reclamation work is winter...

On other topical issues – it is as if society does not trust politicians, but as soon as a politician criticizes something, for example, a TV broadcast, talk begins about pressure, etc.

Politicians or public officials are more visible in society; their opinion can influence someone...

That would be clear, but for years in Latvia, public opinion polls have been discussed and published, where trust in politicians and political institutions is low. Is there a possibility that now, suddenly and in this particular case, they will trust?

A politician can influence the position or decision of such and such a representative of society. However, these are visible people who are trusted (more or less, that is another question), who would be considered opinion leaders. It happens that before elections, the very last promises or calls heard by the voter 'work'. It is not for nothing that we have a ban on candidates campaigning the day before the election and on election day, so that they do not promise the moon at the last moment and you do not vote for them.

For example, during C19: at first, many listened to industry experts Uga Dumpis and Jurijs Perevoščikovs; as time went on and the situation was grasped, such experts appeared at the political level (among politicians) as well, regulating and wanting to determine the agenda – how whom to act...

Another example – talking to people in the industry who want a state of emergency in the food sector, I explained that it would mean the direct involvement of politicians... Does the industry want that?

Is there time left for music and the choir?

Yes, I also have a choral conductor's education, but there is no time left for choral singing and the choir. After the 9th grade, I went to Liepāja, to the music secondary school, then studies at the university in Liepāja; in total, it will be 14 years. In that stage of life, I sang, conducted, participated in various musical projects, such as the play 'Kaupēn, mans mīļais!', as a backing vocalist also in 'Liepājas Dzintars' in the group 'Tumsa', etc.
Photographs of Raivis Kronbergs and zemeunvalsts.lv have been used
* https://ir.lv/2022/04/06/cik-zala-patiesiba-ir-riga/