A conversation with Aija Balode, Chairwoman of the Board of the Agricultural Statutory Company Association, and Edgars Treibergs, Chairman of the Board of LOSP

A.B.: I am offended by the way the State Audit Office has described the supposed audit. I am not a member of some little club, as is being suggested! I am an entrepreneur; I own a manufacturing company—a multi-sector farm. The members of our organisation (the Agricultural Statutory Company Association) in Latvia are producers and taxpayers, and to call us some sort of club is deeply insulting! The State Audit Office has neither seriously read, nor delved into, nor understood the documents we submitted, which outline the objectives the association aims to achieve. These are clearly understood by us and the Ministry of Agriculture alike. If the State Audit Office lacked clarity or understanding, I see no obstacle to meeting up and asking or clarifying things. All necessary documents are included in the annual reports, and at the end of the year, we also indicate the goals that have been achieved. The State Audit Office report fails to grasp what agriculture is and what a multi-sector farm means in agriculture! The establishment of a consultative council, which operates under the Ministry of Agriculture, is well-thought-out because: with whom else should one consult if not with those working in the sector? We have no alternative organic agriculture, we have no second LOSP!

In short: as a person, a citizen, the head of an association, and a representative of my own farm, I am offended by the tone and style in which the State Audit Office report was published. Nobody has met with me or spoken to me, and the organisations are spoken about in the document in general terms. This is a form of inciting society against agriculture, which is extremely bad!

Openness and transparency. The report speaks of a lack thereof…

A.B.: Decisions in the association are made collegially, often after significant arguments. Opinions among members often differ. We—all the members of the organisation—are serious about our engagement in agriculture; we work and pay high taxes. There is no secrecy in our organisation! The money granted is distributed to serious producers. Currently in Latvia, the public is increasingly interested in quality products, and more than 10% of agricultural land is used for organic farming. This must be developed!

We represent the interests of our members, and we cannot represent anyone else! We have always stood up for all farmers—both smallholders and large-scale producers! A farmer is a farmer!

On the assessment. Experts are mentioned in the State Audit Office report. Who would they be?

A.B.: I assume that the State Audit Office refers to representatives from the Institute of Agricultural Economics as experts. We are not happy with the Institute's assessment, not least the statement that 1/5 of farmers receive 80% of investments. That is not a statement at an expert level! It does not mention that these 20% of farmers manage nearly 80% of the land used for agriculture and pay sufficient amounts in taxes. I think we ourselves are the best experts in the sector because we have the figures, we have our own farms, and we know the practical work! My farm grows grain and produces milk; I handle the sales myself and know my work “from the bottom up”. Yes, I do not always make the right judgment, but if anyone thinks I don't know the sector, let them come and talk! Even the conclusions of the State Audit Office, as I read them, are not logical, and some have arisen as a result of emotions. I will repeat, but I believe they owe an apology for the word “club”! There is no one in our organisation sitting behind a desk or wearing out a chair—we are all producers!

Having acquainted yourself with the State Audit Office document and recommendations, do you see an opportunity to reduce paperwork and bureaucracy?

A.B.: After receiving the report and reading it, we got together to understand how to comply with the State Audit Office's recommendations. They cannot be ignored… The recommendations will require a significant amount of paperwork! Unfortunately, those working in agriculture are already “burdened” with documents from head to toe; one has to report on everything! For example, for every load of manure transported on a specific date—where and when we transported it and where it is located… We have turned into a police state in terms of control and reporting! In 93 pages of the State Audit Office report, it is explained to us that we, who work in agriculture, don't really understand anything…

Requirements that are beautifully formulated as recommendations. Do they have any concrete justification?

A.B.: Following the State Audit Office recommendation… (it sounds beautiful, but there is no choice—the recommendations cannot be ignored…) we will have to spend extra time and resources to develop a new set of regulations, guided by which we will operate in the future. If we want to live and work here, we will not be able to ignore the recommendations!

E.T.: Until now, it was customary for farmers' organisations to discuss all issues and disputes within the organisation or the ministry. So to speak, we would argue and fight in our own environment (internally)! That, as is understood, must be left in the past because the State Audit Office wants us to be loud and demonstrative like some other NGOs—driving to Riga with tractors, cow heads, and the like! This method of operation, it seems, must be restarted!

We hope that State Audit Office representatives will come to us to talk about their recommendations and that the communication will not remain solely at the level of the press and media. I would gladly like to know how the State Audit Office chooses its employees, as we found them quite ignorant. Was there a competition for the positions at the State Audit Office? Does the State Audit Office have experts on every issue? At one point, one State Audit Office representative spoke with us, then another… Who is the author of the opinion? We do not know! During the meeting, the State Audit Office representatives nodded their heads: “Yes, we understand!” Upon receiving the opinion, we read plenty of nonsense! At least four State Audit Office representatives came to talk with us. For every question from the State Audit Office, we submitted copies of documents and printouts of emails. That was a gesture of goodwill to help them understand how the money granted to the organisations is spent.

What is your feeling when you read beautiful words and hear about loud organisations? What does that mean?

E.T.: The State Audit Office somehow failed to notice that we, LOSP, are members of the “Civic Alliance” mentioned in the report. So… I think if the State Audit Office representatives had come to us a few more times and asked more questions, the organisation's activity would have been understood more accurately. You won't include all the work done in reports. Our goals and tasks are determined by the organisation's members, no one else!

I have the impression that the State Audit Office is an organisation that comes and makes a noise! Without knowing what is happening and how it happens, one must express oneself loudly!

I know that institutions and agencies under the jurisdiction of other ministries have envied the farmers because there are no consultative councils elsewhere. I think that we also perform beneficial work for the ministry, as the policy-maker, because all information about the sector arrives and is collected with us. The ministry does not need additional officials to handle this. By the way, some time has passed since they started talking louder about the shortage of medical staff. It is the same in agriculture! We lack veterinarians, and there is an acute shortage of zootechnicians (there are very, very few of them). We are trying to attract the latter from among retired people who are happy to work and who know their job! Do these people need to waste time on papers, reports, and stress? No! They will refuse to work, enjoy their retirement, go fishing, look after their grandchildren, and attend the theatre! Where will we get others?

“Dobeles dzirnavnieks” and “Tukuma piens”

We reviewed the issue of support for these companies three times. There were disagreements, and serious ones! Only when both companies proved their plans with calculations and figures was the funding granted. These are projects that we call strategic. Namely—it is important for Latvia! Back in the day, when there was a crisis, the milk purchase price was 12-15 santims per kilogram.

I asked an old acquaintance and friend in the Kandava region: “How are you managing?”

“As long as “LKS Straupe” and “Tukuma piens” are working, we can live!” Those two paid farmers around 30 santims per kilogram for milk. In my opinion, entrepreneurs who supported farmers in a difficult moment deserve to be met halfway. While others were slaughtering livestock and liquidating their farms, the mentioned entrepreneurs walked hand in hand with the peasant farms. Currently, we produce more milk than we consume. We need to find niche products that are in demand and competitive abroad, for which our farmers get more money and the state gets more taxes! What is not understood here?

Future action plan?

The feelings currently are bad. Farmers consider themselves unfairly accused! If the State Audit Office had found thieves or money embezzlers, or cherry cake buyers using—our common—state money, but… I would personally suggest that State Audit Office representatives work for one week in a non-governmental organisation, travel around Latvia, participate in meetings, and only then evaluate the work of these organisations and the usefulness of their spending! There are non-governmental organisations that operate for lifestyle and hobbies. Our work has a specific purpose and plans!

(As there was no possibility of obtaining a photo of both participants in the conversation, we did not use any!)

The Republic of Latvia State Audit Office report, which is discussed during the conversation, can be viewed and read:
http://www.lrvk.gov.lv/uploads/reviziju-zinojumi/2018/2.4.1.-14_2018/Rev%C4%ABzijas%20zi%C5%86ojums_03.07.2019.pdf