To members of the 14th Saeima

On not supporting the draft law “Amendments to the Criminal Law” (No. 1325/Lp14) at second reading and returning it to committee for revision

Dear members of the Saeima!

On 11 August 2026 we took part in a sitting of the Saeima’s Legal Affairs Committee, at which the draft law “Amendments to the Criminal Law” (No. 1325/Lp14) was examined. Unfortunately, when considering the proposal to amend Section 115.2 of the Criminal Law, the committee decided to reject that proposal and to advance the draft law to second reading. We call on members of the Saeima not to support this draft law at second reading and to return it to the Legal Affairs Committee for thorough revision on its merits.

This is not a technical or formal matter. It concerns legal certainty, the business environment, and the ability of thousands of people to work lawfully in forestry, agriculture, fisheries and related sectors without fear that lawfully conducted economic activity could lead to criminal proceedings against them.

We must not criminalise lawful farming and forest management!

At the sitting of the Saeima’s Legal Affairs Committee, there was extensive and substantive discussion specifically on the wording of Section 115.2 of the Criminal Law. The discussion clearly revealed a significant problem – the provision is too broad and allows for differing interpretations.

Practical examples were also discussed. For instance, if a forest owner has obtained a felling permit that complies with regulatory requirements and, while carrying out the permitted activity, damages or destroys a specially protected plant, the view expressed at the committee sitting was that criminal liability would not arise in such a case if the person objectively did not know and could not have known that this particular natural value was present on the site.

But such a theoretical explanation is not enough.

In practice, the question of a person’s guilt will be resolved within the criminal proceedings themselves. A person may be accused of having needed to know about the existence of the particular natural value, of needing to carry out additional checks or to obtain additional information. The final word may rest with the courts.

This means that a person may first face criminal proceedings and only afterwards have to defend themselves and prove that they are not guilty. And this process could well last several years.

We believe that this is neither a proportionate nor a legally clear approach.

The same legal uncertainty could affect a farmer who cultivates their field in accordance with all the rules, or a fisherman carrying out lawful economic activity under issued permits.

If specially protected species, habitats, fungi, lichens or other natural values are located on territory owned, held or used by a private person, the state must provide clear, complete, timely and reliable information about the location of these values and their protection regime.

It is unacceptable for a person to be held responsible for information that the state itself has failed to provide!

Criminal proceedings are in themselves already a punishment with serious consequences

Even where a person is acquitted, criminal proceedings can mean an enormous drain on time and financial resources, legal costs, reputational risks, restrictions on professional activity and other significant consequences.

For a farmer, this can threaten the operation of the farm. For a forest owner, it can threaten planned work and investments. In the fisheries sector, it can threaten the ability to continue professional activity. In certain cases there may also be consequences for obtaining permits, for hunting-weapons licensing, for service in Zemessardze, or for other areas of professional life where an unblemished reputation is required.

Latvia’s legislature has not only the right but also the duty to create a regulatory framework that does not destroy legitimate expectations regarding permits and rules issued by the Latvian state.

We expect clear action from the legislature.

We call on deputies not to approve regulation that has not been sufficiently debated and is legally uncertain, and which could create a risk of criminal liability for people acting in accordance with the procedures established by the state. Such fundamental decisions cannot be left to be resolved at the third reading.

We call for:

• not supporting the advancement of the draft law “Amendments to the Criminal Law” (No. 1325/Lp14) to second reading;
• returning the draft law to the Saeima’s Legal Affairs Committee for revision;
• carefully assessing the wording of Sections 115.2 and 115.3 of the Criminal Law and the practical consequences of their application;
• clearly distinguishing between intentional or grossly negligent environmental crimes and lawful forestry, agriculture, fisheries and related sectors;
• ensuring that a person cannot be exposed to the risk of criminal liability for damaging natural values whose location and protection regime were not objectively known to them, and about which the state failed to provide timely and reliable information;
• ensuring legal certainty for persons who farm and manage land in accordance with the laws and regulations and the permits and confirmations issued by the competent authorities.

We live in the countryside in harmony with nature, and we stand for nature protection. We stand for responsible farming and forest management. But we also stand for the rule of law, in which a person may rely on the law and on permits issued by the state.

Association “Cooperation Council of Agricultural Organisations” (LOSP)
Chairman of the Board Guntis Gūtmanis

Association “Farmers’ Saeima” (ZS)
Chairman of the Board Juris Lazdiņš

Association “Latvian Forest Owners’ Association”
Chairman of the Board Arnis Muižnieks