Didzis Šmits in conversation with Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia, and Pauls Rēvelis, editor of zemeunvalsts.lv.
How have your first weeks in office gone? What are the things or issues you have noticed in these first few days that require special attention?
The situation with the Green Deal and climate issues is far worse than I had previously thought. Firstly, there is a vast volume of information and documents; secondly, there are many contradictions between the Green Deal and climate goals and tasks, for instance, between biodiversity and its preservation and CO2 sequestration.
For example, if we look through the documents and analyse the data available on Latvia's forests from the perspective of CO2 sequestration, a logical and farsighted decision would be needed – to rapidly harvest old forests (essentially, to get rid of them) and plant new ones. It is clear what would happen if environmental organisations were invited to discuss such a conclusion. Therefore, it is very important to identify these contradictions in decisions and resolve them.
What are the conclusions? The first is that we need data showing the real situation. Let us assume that civilisation is changing the climate in a “bad” direction. If we look at the situation philosophically – what is the root of the problem, and who is the biggest emitter of CO2? Man. The large number of people on Earth, as well as our – human – demand, reduces biodiversity and increases CO2.
Speaking of Latvia, what is the demographic situation and the demographic curve in Latvia?
Downward...
So, if we take into account the planet's main source of CO2 – people, we, with our small population, are at the forefront of slowing down climate change. This, of course, happened accidentally, unintentionally, but the fact remains.
If Latvia has a downward demographic curve, our territory is more than 50% forest, these forests accumulate CO2, and we have a small, stable, non-polluting economy, how, looking even at these three points, can we not be among the leaders who have fulfilled everything necessary in solving climate issues? It has to be that way!
If we evaluate it philosophically again, it will be difficult for others to catch up to or overtake us in this regard, let alone Germany or the Netherlands... Our task is to prove and explain this obvious and clearly understandable situation to others, while at the same time warding off any potential new “ideas”.
The number of regulations in the pipeline within the European Union is growing; they are contradictory, and some people are getting tired of the overload of information, while others are giving up: “Let it be as it may!” That is not a good sign.
Green issues or green politics can be considered a modern religion, often justified by science. This fact highlights very serious problems in education, because it seems many think that the layer of topsoil reaches the centre of the Earth. Religion and science, however, are two different things. But the new religion is very popular, especially among the youth, and is also financially supported. It must be remembered that humans are prone to both making mistakes and not wanting to be on the wrong side of history, let alone if this person is a politician who finds it very easy to conform and ride the wave. If someone says to him – “Listen, the wave is carrying us towards the cliff!”, we will hear in response – “Perhaps, but the cliff is still far away...”
Or perhaps they don't even exist...
Exactly! At the moment, it is neither popular nor in line with the “correct” stance to remind people that the climate has changed before, that there have been several ice ages, etc. If you say something like that, you will immediately be branded an “anti-vaxxer”, a climate sceptic, or worse...
Continuing on defending and strengthening Latvia's position – this requires data and explanation to the public. If you want someone to listen to you, you have to create your own clear, data-driven wave of information.
The explanation must be understandable and very simple.
Some time ago, there was an interesting report on TV24. If you remember, I believe it was in 2018, there was a loud campaign against logging, #100 clear-cuts for Latvia. I don't remember the participants of the show, they weren't people from Riga, but people whose daily work is connected to the land, the forest, and trees. They explained that “a clear-cut is a platform for new trees and a new forest”. “Listen – have we completed this task in our district or parish?” Yes, despite the clearly negative message of the campaign, the people who work there every day – close to the land – perceived the negatively intended campaign differently – as an incentive to work.
If it hasn't been forgotten, we have lived for thousands of years using what the land provides, using what the forest and the bog provide, etc. By the way, many things can be forgotten quickly enough – just stop teaching certain things in schools for a while and – lo and behold, the result.
Not so long ago, during the Cold War (in the 70s and 80s), there was a tendency to frighten people with nuclear war, frequently and in many places calling out: “Peace in the world!” Fear can be manipulated quite successfully. What is being heard now? “The world is dying!”
Of course, in billions of years, the Sun will go out, humanity has some time left, but in my opinion, it should be devoted to promoting progress, for example, so that when the Sun fades, there is a possibility to move elsewhere.
There is also new leadership at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM), and a new ministry has been established. What is happening with the coordination of climate issues?
What works and goals will emerge in the newly formed ministry is hard to say yet. It is clear that there will be goals. Regarding the situation with climate issues, I personally have a feeling that until now almost everyone has been waiting for something: the forestry sector hoped the farmers would be responsible for something, the farmers hoped for the peat sector, the peat sector hoped for transport, and so on.
I have on my desk a document in the drafting stage from “Latvijas valsts meži” about peat, which reminds me of what was said before – you need to count, study, and analyse – you need data. We will not achieve anything in Brussels if there is no data and evidence. I will add that even credible evidence may not be enough because there will certainly be people in Brussels who will not want to hear anything, but if you are ready to fight and you do so, evidence is necessary because without it, nothing will succeed or move.
An example from my work experience – sprats and benzopyrene. The European Commission made a decision based only on data – if there hadn't been a “box of science” (documents) on hand, nothing would have worked.
The data and evidence exist; our biggest problem is the reference – the starting point.
I see it clearly – the reference year was chosen deliberately to create a distinction between Eastern Europe and the so-called “old” Europe. You can clearly see where the beginning of the economic battle lies, because, for example, in UN climate documents, the reference years are from 1990, which would suit us very well. In the global view, our situation is excellent, as soon as we move to Europe, which set 2004 as the reference year, when the 11 new EU countries had spent only half a year as part of the EU...
Agriculture in Latvia was on the rise, agricultural land was being cultivated, and more plant protection products were being used, but... if we look at it, we use them per hectare on average 2 times less than the EU average, but more compared to 2004. This is a deliberate policy, and I think that in this way it conceptually threatens the European Union and its integrity. If all the prepared plans, regulations, and directives are to be implemented as is currently happening, if it is all continued to be “pushed and shoved”, at some point, political reactions will arise in the member states. We in Latvia realise that we are not very big, etc., but at some point, a foot can be put down quite loudly, for example, by Poland.
I would like to add that one must not confuse the concepts of the European Union and the European Commission. The EU is a union of countries, the EC is something else. Back in the day, M. Thatcher remarked that the concentration of power in Brussels could destroy Europe (Europe, not the EU!).
Two years ago in Finland, while meeting with their Parliamentary committee on sustainability (Commission of the Future), the Finns openly expressed that the creation and promotion of this type of policy could end the EU. The Finns explained that they are seriously concentrating on Nordic cooperation. Of course, the Finns will not leave the EU, but they see serious problems in the policy promoted by the EU and contradictions between what is happening and the ideas of the EU founding act on equalising the economies of the member states, which is currently not happening.
The situation is not simple because... If the actions of the EC were influenced by the national interests of Germany or France, thus subjecting the small EU countries to the dictates of both major powers, that would be one story. In my opinion, the worst case is if, through Germany or another country, in the context of the Green Deal or climate issues, countries outside the EU become involved in the game. For example, Russia (and not only Russia). Russia's influence in the closure of nuclear power plants in Germany and the gasification of the country is obvious. A great many things happening in Europe are happening precisely in the interests of Russia. Yes, the horrific war has disrupted or halted many of the schemes that were in operation, but now they are becoming clearly visible.
Germany's manufacturing wood industry has relied heavily on natural gas (around 90%).
I have well-founded suspicions that the EC participates in and shapes policy to a large extent that is not only unfair to the member states but is dangerous for the EU as a whole. The EC apparatus is enormous.
Speaking of these problems, I want to remind you that I am not criticising the European Union, but rather the quite monstrous institution of lobby influence (the EC), where member states have very little influence, which is not normal. If you want to change something, you must be able to convince the EC, whose power is quite uncontrolled... It is not for nothing that about 15,000 lobbyists work in Brussels daily and about 4,100 lobby organisations operate from their headquarters there. That is more than in Washington.
Like the Finns, we are unlikely to be the ones changing the rules of the game, but we must participate and look for ways to adapt. And for Latvia to successfully play, for example, the Green Deal game, the given values must first be clarified so there is clarity.
There are too few people who evaluate developments in Europe critically. Someone will read our conversation and shout loudly: “Look, eurosceptics have landed in the Ministry of Agriculture!” It is not considered good tone to criticise or analyse European decisions.
Eurosceptic, by the way, is a positive assessment.
In the 90s and at the beginning of the millennium, I worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was a time when Latvia was preparing to join the EU, which was an absolutely correct step. We had no other choice! When we joined, we should have immediately started defending and lobbying for our interests, as others did. What happened? In Latvia, blind obedience to regulations was not slowed down, and little was done to properly defend Latvian interests.
What should have happened?
“Latvia is now among the European countries, and everything that happens must be viewed and evaluated in the light of Latvia's interests.”
Our interests are still not defined, and it is still a cause for celebration in ministry corridors if we are the first to uncritically implement some regulation or directive. That is considered a success.
In my opinion, it is more important to be a guardian of Latvian interests than to blindly obey the European Commission's lobby. I am definitely not a eurosceptic; I believe that it is necessary to restore the weight of national states (member states) in the European Union, leaving the EC in its designated place – as an executive institution. If this situation is not changed in the near future, there may be serious changes in Europe. We should be building a Europe that Great Britain would want to join again, rather than one from which someone else would want to leave.
This attitude must be in every ministry!
I think that the capacity and power of the Latvian civil service are sufficient, that is all in order. What is missing is a state task for civil servants to work and evaluate what is happening through the prism of Latvian interests. The ability of our civil service to ward off issues and write letters can be called almost fantastic. Only – there is one rule – in the name of Latvian interests, these abilities should be directed towards the EC. For example, if we had an internal strategy and plan in Latvia for what to do with the Green Deal and climate change, our civil service would deal with it perfectly. The abilities of civil servants must be directed from Latvia towards the EC.
Will fellow ministers and officials in other ministries be happy with that?
That is the beginning of the journey, that is what needs to be started with!
In 2019, after participating in the presidential candidate debates, all three of you (Juris Jansons, Egils Levits, and Didzis Šmits) were highly rated by political scientist Vita Matīsa. People in the media have forgotten this quite thoroughly...
I have not analysed myself and my work from this perspective. If someone working in politics is constantly or heavily and at the same time groundlessly attacked, it is part of the new religion we mentioned in our conversation. I don't think anyone should be blamed for this. I think one should not be afraid of discussion and opinions; one must express one's views and defend them.
I don't think and I don't expect to be very well understood.
If I look back, in 1999 or 2000 I was the same, only I was lucky to study in France and work in the diplomatic service, and to see that the world is a little different than what is taught at the University of Latvia. That helped me work as a lobbyist in Brussels for 16 years. Working there, you understand that the implementation of any serious initiative in Europe takes about 10 years. If a thing or process or idea continues to live for 10 years, it very rarely remains as noble and fresh as intended. Maintaining the topic, maintaining the currency requires money, requires paid people who work on it daily. Money, in turn, is given by someone who has an interest in the relevant field or sector. For example, there are no obstacles to wanting there to be the same railway gauge throughout Europe; when it was decided, one must remember what gauge rails were chosen, which country had them, and who produced them...
Do you remember the issue about sprats and benzopyrene? Who in Europe would have an interest in the level of benzopyrene in smoked products? I searched, researched, literally dug through articles, descriptions, etc., starting with the chemical formula, continuing with its presence in food products, why it is harmful... I read it, I understood, but it didn't become clear why such an initiative has existed for so many years. In the end, we received an explanation from Spain, where our embassy worked brilliantly, which helped clarify who “stands” behind the benzopyrene issue – the German food equipment manufacturing industry, wealthy, large, sufficiently influential, for which the classic competitors were the Italians and the Poles began to nip at their heels, who successfully entered the market. The Germans began to measure and define differences in smoking ovens, finding that in their ovens the benzopyrene number is lower compared to the Poles and Italians. Success – this number had to be “pushed”. Is benzopyrene carcinogenic? It is! Is it necessary to set its maximum permitted level in food products? Yes, definitely! Let's act fairly – within a year we will ask the other member states for the relevant data. Did other member states understand why this data is needed? I doubt it. From, for example, 5000 data compilations, 4900 were submitted by Germany... To whom as a result does the solid average number “agree”? The Germans.
This is just one example that allows one to understand the situation. We understood it and solved it successfully. A good result requires a lot of time, serious immersion, and understanding.
If I now see a situation where someone loudly advocates for something and does so for a sufficiently long time, the situation is clear. My task is not to look for what is hidden behind it, but it is a clear fact – it is important to someone.
If there is no such experience, one always wants to believe in the best and most beautiful... Of course, I in no way deny that something is also done in the name of good and noble goals.
It is similar with our sectors – forestry, agriculture, the peat sector – we are hit where we are stable and strong.
At the moment when (if) the European Union restricts peat consumption with a legislative base (and I am talking specifically about the use of peat in horticulture), for example, the Netherlands will not stop growing flowers – it will use the literally inexhaustible peat resources of Belarus and Russia – that is exactly what will happen if...
Trees will not stop being planted, tulips will continue to bloom, tomatoes will ripen, but...
A minister has other duties, but I have always considered it personally necessary to explain and explain that many “beautifully packaged” issues tend to be extremely cynical...
How long must the explanation last?
Until they understand.
“One must have endurance...” How should the agricultural sector cope with explaining in the situation of the “new religion”? At the moment, there is uncertainty with the Forest Support Fund and funding...
Everything is in order. As we already discussed, informing and educating the public is currently of inestimable importance, even decisive. One thing is to inform about the Green Deal, but (!!!) there are many other issues that need to be talked about. If the public opinion is “being directed” to limit logging, not to fertilise fields, to do less, etc., this, for example, reduces the interest of young people to come and work in these sectors.
If we continue to develop the opportunity to add value to wood in Latvia, to properly direct sectoral policy, in principle – if we count the cubic metres of wood growing in Latvia and the number of people in the country – Latvia has a serious basis to be a very wealthy country with its timber resources alone.
In Latvia, the total growing stock of wood is 687 million m³
Imagine if we get the maximum added value from it, we, forgetting other resources, must be very wealthy!
In a good sense, it is an Emirates story, only with renewable, not fossil resources...
Within the framework of the new religion – by counting everything accurately and using it correctly – the opportunities are very large. Everything depends on us ourselves; it is necessary to end provincial thinking.
“Plywood in Africa is also plywood...” Regarding the use of wood in construction, one must ask if there really is such a strong lobby of building materials that everything happens so slowly.
It is simpler that way, it is more habitual. Why should something be changed if it is good as it is? Here again, there is explanatory work ahead.
If we talk about politicians, we must again remember the lobbyist experience. Once upon a time, I had a list of 10 points pinned to my wall that need to be done when tackling the lobbying of an issue. “Addressing officials” is only the 8th point – one must talk to an official when they have already heard something from somewhere and want to solve the problem themselves. The problem is known to the public, and the politician feels that they will have to solve it, and you provide them with both the solution and the copyright. It is like that in all sectors. First, you must create a wave of information.
Remembering the old days – once a person came to consult with me privately: “Listen, is there a possibility to meet with the minister?” “There is, but tell me – do you want to solve an issue, or do you want to meet the minister.” It is not the same thing; such a meeting can even be harmful if you have not completed all the previous eight points. The best thing is if they call you from the minister's office and ask for help – “Do you know what should be done?”
A large, important structural unit of the Ministry of Agriculture is the State Forest Service (VMD).
Currently, the duties of the head are performed by Arvīds Ozols; I have not yet reached the VMD, but I know very well that the issue is extensive and serious, it is not black and white, modernisation must take place and must be meaningful. It must be tackled! By the way, one topic we just sorted out with the Minister for the Interior, Māris Kučinskis – fire fighting and extinguishing work. We don't yet know clearly what and how, but a solution will emerge in close cooperation between the State Fire and Rescue Service and the VMD; that is clear.
Has this solution arisen as a result of conversations?
Exactly! As far as is known, it is relevant in the Ministry of the Interior, also for us – precisely the VMD, and Māris Kučinskis and I talked about it and agreed.