Latvia must make maximum effective and productive use of its land resources, securing economic benefits – export earnings, jobs and tax revenue for the state budget. Such conclusions emerged from the discussion “The European Green Deal 2.0: public awareness and involvement”, organised by the magazine “Dienas Bizness” and the Latvian forestry and related industries portal zemeunvalsts.lv. All interest groups must be involved in taking decisions of national importance, while at the same time explaining the positive and negative aspects of implementing every possible future scenario.
No shortage of problem situations
“The peat industry has been facing continuous challenges ever since 2020, when the question of using this resource, particularly in energy, came to a head and funding was allocated for transforming the sector. At the same time, despite international upheavals, the growth rate of peat substrate exports remains unchanged,” explains Uldis Ameriks, Chairman of the Board of SIA “Laflora” and a member of the Council of the Employers’ Confederation of Latvia, backing up his words with the fact that demand for peat substrates continues to grow. The question of the long-term availability of peat resources remains topical.
“It has been stated clearly that we will not get any new peat extraction areas, which in practice draws a thick line through any future prospects; a colleague’s harsh conclusion fits well: prepare for a dignified death,” adds U. Ameriks. In his view this is absurd, because Latvia has 1.7 billion tonnes of peat, of which only a tiny fraction is used, yielding around EUR 300 million in export earnings each year, which is no small amount of money, as well as jobs in the regions and taxes for the state budget. “Latvia should think very seriously about how to deal with its own resources meaningfully in the current difficult geopolitical circumstances,” stresses U. Ameriks.
Time to change attitudes
Uldis Biķis, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of AS “Latvijas Finieris” and a member of the Council of the Employers’ Confederation of Latvia, highlights the root of the issue, namely how society (people) use natural resources: “The trend in population change over recent centuries has come with growing – large – resource consumption, yet for several decades now the talk has been about consumption, whereas we ought to be thinking about how to bring the circular economy to life, how to make greater use of bioeconomy products and less use of non-renewable resources”. In his view, resource use will have to be looked at ever more seriously, but the issue will lie in bureaucracy – in the creation of regulations and in developing the principles they contain.
“Initially, when the concept of the EU Green Deal was taking shape, the forestry sector received it very supportively, because alongside it there were projects on resource mobilisation – growing forests faster in the future and allowing a significant volume of resources to enter economic circulation, but as time went on this second part disappeared, and as a result we are focusing more and more solely on restrictions on economic activity,” assesses U. Biķis, acknowledging that this direction has not changed over the years even in the context of significant changes in the geopolitical situation. “In a situation where regionalisation is gaining force, which may reduce trade between continents, we should be thinking more about the security of supply chains, particularly in supplies of food and basic resources. In Latvia we have not got that far yet,” concludes U. Biķis, adding that the time has come to change this attitude.
“I agree with what has been said, but at the same time, if the EU Green Deal is an EU green deal, then it has to observe parity, which we see nothing of,” says Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, setting out his view. He points out how widely sustainability is emphasised, resting on a balance – a parity – between the environmental, economic and social spheres, yet in Latvia, because of the aims set by EU policy, we are taking a peculiar path. “Given the foundations of Latvia’s economy, the rational and sustainable use of natural resources was and will remain a significant field, yet for decades now we have been focusing on all manner of restrictions that often lack scientific justification or logic, that are excessive and that frequently look like a project for absorbing money,” says a critical M. Liopa.
Uldis Biķis is quick to add that, when it comes to land use, on one side there are clear criteria for taking significant areas out of economic circulation and giving them back to nature, yet in practice there is no conversation about the other side of the scales – productivity – about how we can get more from one hectare of land.
It is hard to defend yourself
Although the land use sectors are powerful (significant employers, major generators of export earnings and taxpayers), in Māris Liopa’s assessment their voice is still very quiet: “There is the Latvian forestry and related industries portal zemeunvalsts.lv, where we try to inform the public about the situation and to explain what approach might be taken and what results it would make it possible to achieve, what the potential benefit would be for everyone in terms of state budget revenue and jobs.” In his view there are several groups of people (those who lack knowledge and understanding and who rely on self-appointed authorities, and those who are clever and able to use the former for various purposes, including to absorb funding) who are “looking for the Congo” in Latvia.
“The colours are laid on thick – about problems with biodiversity, about excessive volumes of timber harvesting, deliberately and pointedly calling them volumes of deforestation, even though Latvia has no such problem. Surprisingly, the public media also often take a negative view of the economic activity of the land (natural resource) sectors,” assesses M. Liopa, which in his view only confirms that the land use sectors do far too little to inform the public.
“The issue begins with involvement, which is not really working out. As an example I can mention the story of Gauja National Park in connection with how the environmental and economic aspects were considered in future planning, specifically on the part of state institutions,” explains U. Biķis, pointing out that landowners were not even invited onto the supervisory group, so they were not given the opportunity to take part in balancing interests.
“If there is an outside view or there are guidelines, but people are not involved, they lose faith in the future. People who live – work and plan development – in a particular place must be present from the very outset, right from the setting of the goal itself,” explains U. Biķis, citing as an example the idea of amending regulations so that trees may not be planted on forest land, which essentially changes the definition of forestry across a wide area. “Do the people who live (and work) in the territory of Gauja National Park understand the substance of these changes and their impact on the future? Certainly not!” Uldis Biķis points out that in essence there is also no common stated goal that we want to achieve; instead there is a fight over ideas, in which an individual and a small business find it hard to defend their interests, because in essence they have been left alone.
“That is not an equal partnership or a balanced building of relations, even though the EU has a regulation on how the groups in society that are (will be) affected must be involved in decision-making,” explains U. Biķis. In his view, simplifying matters from the outset and failing to create a discussion generates confrontation. “Claiming that one person loves nature more than another is not right, because that is an emotional judgement,” assesses U. Biķis.
M. Liopa points out that one group of the population is often set against another: “Interested parties are sought out and found who could obstruct resource extraction, land use and so on. In Estonia, for example, in the forest certification process an indigenous people – the Setos – was ‘found’ (by interpreting the term), as a result of which different conditions were imposed on forestry in that region and the losers were the foresters of that particular region, followed by the timber industry and ultimately the state budget. In fact, as a result of the work of particular activists, the inhabitants of the territory concerned did not gain either.”
In U. Biķis’s view, society is still at the stage of development where fundamental values are being reassessed. “Ultimately the question is what kind of state we want to build – a democratic one or a totalitarian one. There is a definition for a situation in which groups in society squabble among themselves and their leaders are destroyed. For us as a small nation (population group) it is very dangerous to exaggerate and to blacken others, and so the most important question is how to restore trust while respecting the fundamental essence, which for the economic bloc, for example, is productivity,” explains U. Biķis. In his view, if society does not expect pay rises to come from the economic bloc, it is unclear how it plans to earn money – for wages and taxes. Or does it hope that someone will lend or gift the money? “Is money really given as a gift? Not at all, because as we can see, even war-torn Ukraine is being lent part of the money,” analyses U. Biķis.
“In one interview, Professor Ojārs Spārītis aptly pointed to a part of society – the Green Deal’s hired hands, who live off and depend precisely on green propaganda,” adds U. Ameriks, recalling that today we live in a situation where natural resources – land included – are of decisive importance and it is very important to understand what is truthful information and what is propaganda.
“Unfortunately, looking at the media environment, I see 95% propaganda and only 5% valuable information,” says a critical Uldis Ameriks, pointing out that in developing a wind farm project he has had to face a situation in which individual people (in order, it seems, to get elected to some local council) organise associations to oppose the project’s implementation – and therefore to oppose raising Latvia’s energy security.
“I would like associations to be FOR rather than AGAINST. In my view the greatest challenge in Latvia is to put an end to brainwashing,” stresses U. Ameriks. As an example he cites conversations with his own company’s employees, because when people celebrate a holiday among friends or relatives they are asked about their workplace; on hearing that it involves peat, the others immediately declare loudly that this line of work is going to be shut down. “As Mark Twain said: reports of my death are greatly exaggerated, they are not true. That proves that you have to talk to people directly and at first hand,” explains U. Ameriks, setting out his own recipe.
The local government factor
“I understand why local government land is counted as state land, but in theory the property of a local community is not quite the same as the property of the whole state, yet in the context of the Green Deal it is a synonym, and restrictions often affect land belonging to the local community (and to the state). The value of this property as an asset is not appreciated. The question is: in a situation where there are no means, can people live in these areas and what is the view of the local authority concerned,” notes U. Biķis. In his view, local public organisations have plenty of work, roles and duties, but again the question is whether they are ideological or supportive of local communities, so as to build discussions between people who think differently, or whether the balancing force is the civil service and academia, where analysis and future modelling are produced.
“We understand far too little, using figures and modelling, about where we actually want to end up,” reflects U. Biķis. M. Liopa recalls that at one time an assessment was made of how local authorities were getting on with managing their forests, when it emerged that forest management plans were absent, which meant that valuable assets were being left to their own devices. “On carrying out a more detailed study, we had to conclude that often it was not an unwillingness to manage valuable assets – forests – but a fear of dealing with these assets, because reproaches were expected that ‘everything is being cut down’,” says M. Liopa, acknowledging that hardly anyone who wants to be elected to a local council would like to hear the label “doing harm to nature” aimed their way.
“It is strange if local authorities (their leadership) do not stand up for management – for work. Can there be a situation in which people live in some area but there are no jobs?” U. Biķis assesses the situation, recalling the working group on activities in Gauja National Park, where the local authorities did not stand up for management, apart from tourism. “I follow what is happening in local authorities. I have to conclude that they have taken the position of being a recreation zone (let us develop tourism, ecosystem services, nature trails and the like) rather than a production zone,” says a critical U. Ameriks, drawing attention to the mistaken arguments that are often heard, that the timber industry is worth nothing compared with ecosystem services, which are said to have an absolutely enormous value.
“What can we expect if even at ministerial level the message is heard that the state can gain a billion from the forestry sector, but a full three billion euros from ecosystem services. The question of where and how the state can receive these three billion went unanswered,” adds M. Liopa. U. Ameriks recalls that the main development document in local authorities is the territorial development plan, but during consultations on proposed economic activities several non-governmental organisations voice narratives aimed at restricting economic activity.
“Democracy is a good thing, but at the moment when it comes into conflict with national security, development and, all the more so, the survival of the nation, one has to say STOP! Everyone has the right to express themselves, but a decision must be considered and in line with the national interest,” stresses U. Ameriks. U. Biķis points out that groups in society which oppose economic activity must be able to answer clearly what they will give up, because there will be less money to fund services that matter to society.
The weight of information
The level of public knowledge and understanding is of vital importance. “Two sociological surveys have been carried out which show that people know about peat extraction and about the products made from peat and support peat extraction, but the younger generation is a cause for concern, as it lives in a different information space – a virtual reality that is detached from the real world or bears little resemblance to it,” concludes U. Ameriks. He points out that this is precisely why work is being done with the younger generation. “A public media feature about wetlands, which supposedly have to be created almost everywhere – in allotments, on agricultural land, because, look, it turns out we have polluted our land in Latvia, is astonishing. Such a statement was essentially an own goal, even though the reason for the deterioration in soil condition is the absence of liming,” explains U. Ameriks.
“Young people have a good command of English and also obtain information from abroad; the roots of the call to ‘Save nature!’ are to be found in other countries. The question is one of a critical approach, because many countries genuinely do have problems with deforestation, with biodiversity and with nature protection. There is no such problem in Latvia, where forests cover almost 54% of the territory, where the population has moreover fallen significantly, where there are no polluting production facilities and so on. Latvia and the Baltics do not have to be a substitute for the natural values once lost in Western Europe,” M. Liopa is convinced.
Comparison reveals reality
U. Biķis points to data that allow us to see where Latvia stands against the background of other countries: “How large is GDP per capita in Latvia, and how many hectares of protected areas are there compared with other EU member states? On one indicator – the removal of hectares from economic circulation – Latvia will be among the leaders, which our country certainly will not be on welfare indicators. Are we assessing Latvia’s land resources correctly, particularly at moments when major goals are being drawn up for the whole EU? Does Latvia appreciate its own importance and place in fulfilling EU goals when those goals are being shaped?” He allows that what a forest owner receives is a small piece of what society can gain.
“At one time we calculated that in the timber industry another three euros are added to one euro, then around six or seven euros, and in the future it could be twice as much. In essence, one euro of compensation to a forest owner means a considerably greater loss to society in the form of value added that is not generated,” says U. Biķis, showing the system of weights of the impact. In his view there is never too much information, there is always too little. “Education?! Just as Normunds Bergs, Chairman of the Board of AS “SAF Tehnika”, urged: “Children, study physics!”, I want to urge: “Children, study economics!”. If you do not understand the paradigm of economic activity, neither an entrepreneur nor society can earn money,” answers U. Biķis when asked about the importance of education.
M. Liopa likewise takes the view that scientists and the results of their research are of very great importance, while at the same time in Latvia there is constant talk of a lack of funding for science. “Scientists themselves also have to be more active in explaining the results of their research and discoveries in language the public can understand,” M. Liopa believes. As U. Biķis sees it, the findings and conclusions of scientists should be broadened and levelled out across the whole Baltic region.
“On forest matters at European Union level, Latvia and the whole of the Baltics must stand together with Finland and Sweden, the largest suppliers of forestry products to the common European market,” recommends U. Biķis, pointing out that the Nordic countries can make one kind of contribution to the European Union, and the countries of Southern Europe another.
A scale of priorities
“I graduated from the Latvian Academy of Agriculture as a hydraulic engineer; such specialists are no longer trained today. We are fighting to prove that peat is renewable, to give obvious things a scientific justification, all the more so since peat has been extracted in Latvia ever since the days of Duke Jacob, yet the volume of this resource in our land has not decreased,” says U. Ameriks, pointing to the problems of education and knowledge. In his view, a situation has arisen in which almost everyone cleverly holds forth on anything at all, while lacking the preparation and competence that ought to come from school and university.
“We will have many people, including people with academic degrees, who are ready to talk about many and varied topics, but... in the current circumstances most of those can wait. The money that Latvia received from the Just Transition Fund should also be redirected elsewhere, for example to building a drone wall. Latvia has to come forward with its own particular position, because we are witnessing an escalation of the situation, and that is precisely why we have to think through what we fund. For example, the restoration of bogs, and not only that, can certainly wait,” U. Ameriks is convinced. In his view the most important thing is that people should not leave the country, especially since hundreds of thousands have already left.
The forestry sector – part of the solution, or a billion euros for security
“Aware of the critical geopolitical situation, we call for additional solutions to be sought so as to give the state the opportunity in the coming years to redirect funds to defence, while at the same time reducing the need to increase the burden of external debt significantly,” stresses U. Biķis, and one such opportunity he sees is increasing the forestry sector’s output over a period of 3-5 years by raising annual timber felling in state forests by around 2 million m³ (or ~15% of the average volume over the past 5 years).
“For comparison – this indicated additional annual harvesting volume is appreciably smaller than the volumes blown down in the most destructive storms in Latvia over the past decades: 1967 – 11.7 million m³; 1969 – 14.6 million m³; 2005 – 7.3 million m³,” explains U. Biķis, stressing that by increasing annual timber felling in state forests by ~2 million m³, the positive impact on the budget would be around EUR 200-300 million a year (direct and indirect taxes + an increased volume of dividends from state forest management). Over a period of 3-5 years that would be roughly one billion euros, or symbolically a “security billion” from the forestry sector.
“Such a positive contribution would make up a considerable part of the additional amount needed for national defence and would allow us to earn the funds for security ourselves in peacetime. In the current circumstances that would be a very rational solution – to use the benefit we gain from our own land in order to protect it from a potential external threat,” concludes U. Biķis, acknowledging that in the short term it would certainly compete with other forms of land protection – with the designation of new nature reserves within existing commercial forest areas.
“Even so – if a national choice has to be made in these circumstances, then the external security of our country is certainly the primary concern,” stresses Uldis Biķis, pointing out that by implementing this solution the forestry sector would once again demonstrate its flexibility and readiness to take on the role of a “strategic reserve” within the overall structure of Latvia’s economy. “It is society’s duty to do everything to protect its own state, democracy and European values,” U. Biķis is convinced. In his view, it will all come down to a political decision, the essence of which is whether in Latvia we are ready to use the assets that society has at its disposal.
A video of the discussion is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2A68S1kPM