Māris Liopa, Chair of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia (LMSP), and Pauls Rēvelis, editor of www.zemeunvalsts.lv, speak with Jānis Grasbergs, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture

Various discussions show that when deciding on important issues in Latvia, the situation is rarely looked at or evaluated in a broader context. For example, when talking about the use of bisphenol A in food packaging production, it is clear: it will have to be abandoned. How? Someone in Latvia wants to be the “first in Europe,” forgetting (or not knowing) that elsewhere (in Europe) such rules do not yet exist. What could happen? A Latvian entrepreneur would immediately lose their competitive edge against a foreign counterpart.

I believe that many issues should first be coordinated and approved at the European level. If a decision that directly affects people's daily lives and work is adopted in Latvia before it is decided in Europe, it effectively means shooting ourselves in the foot. By acting this way, we worsen the competitiveness of Latvian manufacturers and directly give preference to others. We corner our own people, while others continue to operate as usual? Is that the goal?

Everyone understands that bisphenol will have to be abandoned, but... the European Union is navigating carefully, creating “corridors,” extending deadlines, but we – straight away – stop! That shouldn't be the case. Unless, of course, the desire for such an initiative and its true purpose is to harm Latvian manufacturers.

Similarly, we must “look” at the use of plant protection products. A reasonable balance must be found in Europe on this issue. For example, every now and then when I go into a store, I see that the volume of organic products is increasing. I also observe: the product is marked with an organic certificate, everything is understandable and seemingly in order, I read: producing country Chile, China, Argentina... So, the European Commission's trade policy, for which Valdis Dombrovskis is currently responsible, needs to be seriously rethought and analysed: if we want to develop the “Green Deal,” it also means a very careful assessment of external borders and whether we can keep them so open. We are putting handcuffs on Latvian farmers, manufacturers and entrepreneurs, while kindly opening the door to those outside the EU. Just let our own people struggle... Would that be a “green” goal? Undeniably, climate change is real, it affects the whole world and also our Latvia, our residents, but we must not create or agree to conditions that expose local entrepreneurs to disproportionate competition risks. Local products must be strengthened, the value added of these products must be grown, and exports must be promoted by supporting our farmers and producers even when new environmental requirements are being decided. More than once, Minister of Agriculture Kaspars Gerhards has emphasised that environmental requirements must be proportionate; they must not create an unbearable burden for agricultural sectors – moreover, if ever new environmental and climate targets are set, the support mechanisms or funding must also be appropriate.

We must think seriously about Europe and the place of domestic manufacturers in both the local and international markets. Of course, there are international trade agreements, Europe needs fuel, ore; if we change the rules for food imports, the rules for the things we need will undoubtedly change, which will not be beneficial. Finding a middle ground will be difficult, but it must be found.

Both in 2020 and this year, there is serious concern about changes to various laws and the latest potentially incomprehensible requirements in the financial field.

Yes, indeed! A draft law on changes to the “Law on the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity and Terrorist and Proliferation Financing” (1, hereinafter – the Law) is still under discussion, in which a provision was incorporated whereby almost all NGOs and cooperatives could be considered financial institutions in Latvia. Moreover, it would be possible to confiscate a company’s capital shares due to a lack of impeccable reputation.

I am talking about financial or accounting consultations, regardless of remuneration: “Regardless of the frequency of the consultation and the existence of remuneration.” You can become a subject of the law even without receiving payment, but just by giving advice.

Why worry? For example, a non-governmental organisation to which a forest owner turns for advice on legal or accounting issues. In the case provided for in the draft law, any NGO would be considered a subject of the Law if it consults its members or provides accounting (financial) services. In this way, everything that applies to a bank would be applicable to an NGO.

Do any international institutions require this?

The requirements depend on the national translation. For example, “Moneyval” sends mandatory requirements, the rest is local (Latvian) interpretation and work. In Latvia, requirements are usually “above” the framework provided by international or European institutions – stronger and more detailed.

Are stricter requirements than necessary invented by lawyers and Ministry of Finance officials, or is it a broader collaborative effort?

I can mention an example: a “Moneyval” report stating the need for reputation for specific people (employees) in the financial sector. In Latvia, they hear it, listen, and... the translation of the requirements begins. In Latvia, international institutional requirements usually transform, for example, creating fifteen requirements out of four...

During the discussion of the aforementioned provisions of the Law, the Ministry of Agriculture asked for them to be removed from the draft, because – an association or other NGO (even in sectors not related to the Ministry of Agriculture) will have to hire a lawyer to ensure a documentary base so that operations comply with the Law. If an association consults, it becomes a subject of this law. We must not subject local NGOs to such requirements. It is clear that members call and ask, whether it be LOSP, the Farmers’ Parliament, LMSP, the Forest Owners Association or any other NGO.

There are so many different daily issues in NGO work; for example, imagine a situation – a farmer, while reading the latest amendments to laws or regulations, realises that it might not be one hundred percent clear to him, so he turns to his NGO for a consultation or advice, asking: “Look, new amendments to the accounting regulations! How should these be understood?” The organisation accordingly contacts the ministry or the State Revenue Service (VID) to ask for comments and clarification. This is one of the functions of an association. To consult, help, provide information, etc.

Would associations need hired lawyers just for that? Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency in Latvia to “strengthen” laws and include everything possible in them, without thinking about the consequences, without thinking about those who will be forced to comply with them. Yes, in this way one can ensure that for the next five years, in “Moneyval’s” view, we will have no violations, because we have described and included everything possible in the Law! During the conversation, a representative of the State Revenue Service remarked that there are currently about 18,000 subjects of this Law in Latvia. If the scope of the Law is expanded, the number will increase significantly. Does the State Revenue Service need more of this work? Reporting, bureaucracy, responding to correspondence... “We, association GG, consulted farmer VV, forest owner DD and livestock farmer CC, informing them about sustainable property management.” That is not necessary and would be completely wrong!

Last summer, in an interview, the executive director of the Latvian Forest Industry Federation, Kristaps Klauss, remarked: “Latvian timber producers are less worried about what is happening and decided in Brussels, and more about what is happening and decided in Riga.”

Very accurate! In Latvia, they want to get by without a single reprimand or pointer (or criticism) from international institutions. Understandably, there must be no criminal activities, you must not be careless. But – we must allow entrepreneurs, associations, and society to breathe! A balance is needed, not extremes. Of course, there is the possibility that “everyone controls everyone.” But that is completely misguided!

Covid-era opportunities to create various legislative miracles. Is something like that happening?

In everyday life, the committees of the Saeima have not changed their working style, only the processes take place remotely. Currently, compared to the time before the restrictions, many more events are being recorded. Transcripts existed before, but short, concise comments did not make it into them, which is a benefit now. Has public involvement decreased? In my opinion, no! The circle of participants has remained, and it is an important fact that interested people, for whom the distance to Riga was often an obstacle, can participate more easily; distance is no longer a problem. If once, knowing the distance to Riga, it took an entire day to drive for an hour or an hour and a half to participate in a meeting, now – connecting online for the same amount of time is a different matter!

For example, if I have to plan my route and time from home to participate in a committee meeting, it will take at least five or six hours. Right now, it is easier. The conversation (discussion) itself is different, because there is a lack of the feeling of presence, a live connection, real emotions. So-called hallway conversations are stifled. There are often issues that can be explained by talking face-to-face. If we are talking about agriculture, sometimes you have to show a person everything on the spot – on the farm. I assume it is the same for issues important to the forest; it cannot be done remotely. I remember well the story about pine trees that was told and shown to us in the forests of Kurzeme: how pine trees grow in a sunny place, in a clearing, and how they languish in the shade, under large trees. Telling about centimetres while sitting at a desk and seeing these differences in nature are two different things.

How have farmers and food producers fared in 2020/2021? Has work increased?

Looking broader, food prices have risen. One explanation: people have much fewer opportunities to spend money, namely, there are no long trips, no entertainment, no cultural events, so they can spend more on food.

During the pandemic, many people self-isolated, many want to protect themselves and their families. Consequently, direct deliveries have increased sharply. Before that, I had seen this way of operating (direct deliveries) with relatives in London. “Let’s go to the shop. Why? Order it, and it will be brought to you!”

Of course, there is a lack of being together, talking to the salesperson, browsing... A great benefit: the talk of “let’s support local” has turned into real actions.

Contradictions: the super-green and reality. An opinion has emerged that by using fewer planes and cars, a different burden has been placed on the environment. The new EU environmental policy and requirements contained in declarative slogans. What will be the pressure on? Won't that happen at our expense?

In this regard, when talking about food deliveries, electric buses have been seen here and there. In Latvia, we often observe good cooperation between neighbours: “don't go to the shop today, because I have to go, I will bring it to you.”

When talking about various requirements, the aforementioned proportionality is very important. Either we are “ultra-green,” which requires funding (who will earn it?), or if we truly want to achieve something, we act together. Looking at the EU as a whole, we, in Latvia, are very green compared to Denmark, the Netherlands... Furthermore, I am not talking about “green” percentages, but a difference measured many times over! Latvia’s geographical situation is in itself excellent: 1/2 of our territory is forest, the other half – land, but also lakes, rivers, swamps... Polluting activity is geographically limited. Moreover, we are 1.9 million people in a relatively large territory. Often, “nature conservation is sought or desired to be found” precisely in the forest or in a farmer’s sown field. In such cases, I tend to say that it would be worth putting a glass dome over a city and seeing what happens there.

The overzealousness or running ahead of others mentioned at the beginning of the conversation: “we deny this,” “we forbid that,” “we don't do something else,” “we will be the greenest,” is not the best way to stand out. We are already in the lead. If the EU determines something, those who are currently working very intensively would have to reduce production to the EU average level, which we have not yet reached in Latvia. Or else there are sanctions – you break the rules, you pay! Will that work in the long term? If you call yourself green-minded, but are prepared to pay a fine in the long term... What will that ultimately be? Paying your way out is not the correct method!

Furthermore, the EU should remember that the Earth is not just Europe, but there are many different countries in different parts of the world. Recently, at a FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) meeting, they talked about fisheries and plastic pollution. European pollution indicators, against the backdrop of the world, are so low that they are not even included in the significant pollution tables.

On the other hand, there are countries where there are indeed major problems with waste that ends up in the oceans, not in landfills. For example, China 8.8 billion tonnes per year, Indonesia 3.2 billion t per year, Philippines 1.9 billion t per year, Sri Lanka 1.6 billion t per year, Egypt 1 billion t per year.

We are fighting with our own indicators, where the real problem is elsewhere. Of course, we can be a good example and these things must be thought about, but will our own struggle solve the problem in the world?

Unfortunately, many in Latvia want to see Congo or Tanzania

I see the reason for disputes in the incorrect use of various data. Statistical data from somewhere in the world is equated to Latvia. Yes, there is a desire to look for the worst in Latvia by using data from other countries! That is unacceptable!

Speaking of plant protection product residues in fruit, there are tendentious studies where supposedly Latvian-grown fruits are analysed. However, when conducting studies, residues of preparations that are not registered in Latvia are found. Consequently, it must be concluded that these fruits were not grown in Latvia, but in some other land where the use of plant protection products is indeed overly high.

If we look at Latvian apples, the residues will be 0,... or 0. Yes, this is conventional fruit growing, where plant protection products are used, but often residues have not been preserved by the time of harvest. One must not forget Latvia and winter. Right now, nature is resting! Can we imagine what regeneration processes occur in the coldest period of winter, when outside the window it is minus ten and even more than -20 °C, the ground is frozen... Everything is happening, every spring we start anew, the earth awakens... It is not like that in southern countries, there summer is all year round. It is not comparable!

If we look at the past, there were definitely processes that had to be stopped! One of them: the style of waste management. In the 90s, you could go or run into the forest, look – there were bags here, bags there, somewhere building rubble, somewhere an old sofa. Currently, we observe such things quite rarely. If someone in our area, in Vidzeme, had thrown bags of waste into the forest, someone else would have definitely found, noted, and photographed them, and within a week the culprit would be caught, because a receipt where the “culprit” paid by card would be found in the bag.

One cannot create a situation where conventional agriculture in Latvia would have no place, because – do we have a market for organic agriculture if everyone were to produce according to this method? Probably not! Changes must happen gradually. How do I look at organic agriculture? It should develop on the basis of business (product), not subsidies. In that case, the end product will be seeds, oils, seedlings, various products. I know an excellent example: in the Limbaži area, there is a farm that grows blackcurrants. They have found opportunities to sell both berries and seedlings. They export seedlings, the farm is one of the few in Eastern Europe that offers high-quality, biologically certified blackcurrant seedlings. That is developing well, but can everyone do it? Subsidies help to develop faster if the recipient knows in what direction they want to do it. If there is no such vision, development does not happen. Biodiversity is not stimulated by being left to neglect. In meadows that are mown once a year, often only cow parsley remains to grow, because other plants have disappeared or perished. Meadows must be mown and the mown grass must be removed, therefore – one must manage them.

Do the current problems in the regions differ from those seen in Riga?

Undoubtedly, these are very difficult times for the beauty and hospitality sectors, which must be thought about seriously. Other sectors in our area are working. Living in the countryside, you still won't have a complete lack of socialisation (isolation) – sometimes you have to go to the shop, to the doctor, or elsewhere. But contact with others is definitely less than in cities.

I think the situation (with Covid19) could be solved with the help of regionalisation, because not everything that suits Riga will be good for Valmiera. For example, the different number of residents and density. By introducing a new system with specific square metres per person, you won't actually see long queues in Valmiera like in Riga or Jelgava; I don't know what would have to happen for something like that to occur. There are no overly crowded shops in our area. I think small rural schools with a small number of children could work. Because – these are the same children who play together or ice skate, or enjoy other winter pleasures in their or their neighbours' parish. Regionalisation would be very suitable for us. For example, my children’s kindergarten is in the same building as the school. Half the class lives in one micro-district...

What is the view on the government's work?

There are five political forces in the coalition in an equal situation. One ministry prepares a very good plan, but long and broad discussions begin in the discussion – one, another, the third one doesn't like something, the plan is changed, corrected, supplemented, and so the plan is adjusted and “patched” together until the final result is created. And it tends to be what it is... Yes, plans need the consent of all five government partners! The public is not always aware of what this plan was like in the beginning and who changed or supplemented what. Moreover, someone might at some point remember their political promises and... situations, opinions and goals begin to... skew.

However, we don't have the worst situation in Latvia! Using the opportunities to travel, when there still were some, and seeing different countries, I am very happy that I live in Latvia. We have been accustomed to change by nature; for example, in Southern Italy you wouldn't really distinguish the seasons. In Latvia, change is a natural thing; I think that in other countries, society evaluates its government’s work and inaction much more harshly.

Are people in Vidzeme optimistic about the administrative-territorial reform?

During the discussion of the reform, for a moment there was the idea of merging the municipalities “by” and “around” Valmiera, or: Valmiera separately and the municipality separately. Initially, it was not foreseen that Mazsalaca and Rūjiena would be added to the Valmiera municipality. However, if we look historically, these cities have also been part of the Valmiera district before. People in this area have a greater affiliation to Valmiera than to Valka, so the merger seems logical and self-evident.

Well-being and a sense of happiness for the residents of the municipality will depend on the management mechanism so that there are no outskirts in the municipality! Uniformity and balance in development are important! If one leader (parish or city) emerges that “shines,” it will not be good.

I think an important issue will be the development of several villages. In the Valmiera area, there is experience with villages where, by improving infrastructure and creating more favourable living conditions, the demand for housing also increases. This will be one of the most important tasks: to find a balance between cities and parishes.

Speaking of the municipality and the reform, I see it as we sing in the National Anthem, “Let us bloom in happiness there!”

For each of us, happiness may mean something different. However, it is important to seek the fulfilment of happiness. From the municipality's side, it is – to provide the maximum possible that relates to improving the quality of residence, culture, activities, and other things.

And we must do everything possible so that as many people as possible are satisfied with the environment around them, and can say – we are happy in our city and happy in our municipality.
1. Law on the Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity and Terrorist and Proliferation Financing