Latvia has every opportunity to capitalise on the prospects offered by the bioeconomy, but success will depend on whether various interest groups can reach an agreement.

This was the conclusion of the final discussion at the 4th International Conference 'Forestry – A Pillar of the Latvian Economy in the Context of Bioeconomic Sector Development'. Undeniably, there are contentious issues where reaching a compromise between opposing sides often feels like an impossible mission; yet, it is precisely the lack of consensus that may be the main obstacle threatening the anticipated benefits. Specifically, there is still no unified opinion on matters related to nature conservation, while at the same time, without internal 'unity', it will be difficult to defend Latvia's collective position in the European Union arena.

The legal framework is already in place

“One of the greatest challenges of the 21st century will be providing food products for a growing population, as well as goods and energy resources derived from renewable materials. At the same time, Latvia possesses vast and still largely untapped potential in agriculture and forestry, which are the foundations of the bioeconomy,” emphasised Baiba Rivža, President of the Latvian Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences. She noted that Latvia’s Sustainable Development Strategy until 2030 points out that Latvia's natural capital is in relatively good condition, yet it is underutilised and poorly managed. Furthermore, in December 2017, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the Latvian Bioeconomy Strategy 2030. “Only 47 countries have such strategies, and many EU member states, which the European Commission has urged to adopt one, do not have them,” notes B. Rivža. The aforementioned document outlines goals – promoting and maintaining employment in bioeconomy sectors; increasing the added value of bioeconomy products to at least 3.5 billion euros by 2030 and increasing the value of bioeconomy export products to at least 9 billion euros by 2030. “There is also a horizontal priority – research and effective knowledge transfer for the development of bioeconomy sectors,” emphasises B. Rivža. Specifically, increasing the value derived from land management, including sustainable soil use, plant productivity, livestock productivity, sustainable and productive forest cultivation, and the management of forest biotic risks under climate change conditions, as well as the development of innovative, high-value-added niche products from wood, traditional and non-traditional agricultural plant and animal raw materials, and the full utilisation of wood biomass for chemical processing, energy, and construction. “Last year, the bioeconomy sectors contributed 40% (20% – forest sector and 20% – agriculture and food production) of Latvia’s export revenue, while the contribution of these sectors to the added value of goods produced in Latvia reached 55%,” explained B. Rivža. She reminds us that Latvia is one of the most forested countries in Europe, and growing forests can positively influence climate change mitigation by removing CO2 from the atmosphere that is produced by transport, industry, and the like.

Expecting an increase in demand

Guntis Vilnītis, Secretary General of the Farmers' Parliament, pointed out that by 2050, global demand for food will increase by 50%, simultaneously creating incomparably greater pressure on the use of agricultural land, food production volumes, and the demand for a wider variety of food segments. At the same time, regarding climate and environmental challenges, it is predicted that by 2050, CO2 emissions will increase by 50%, primarily due to growing energy consumption and economic growth in developing countries. “We will have to think about how to compensate for the harmful impact of emissions,” says G. Vilnītis. He acknowledged that the development of the bioeconomy “goes” hand in hand with jobs in rural areas.

The importance of science

“Forest areas have nearly doubled over the past 80 years,” emphasised Jānis Eglīts, Head of the Office of the Minister of Agriculture, reminding that in 1925, forest coverage was only 27%, but in 2019, it was 52% of Latvia's territory. In recent years, the volume of export revenue from the forest sector has increased, while the harvesting volume has remained at similar levels, which means higher added value – the export of more expensive products. For the sector to develop, new knowledge is needed, because the only alternative is to harvest forests more. Forest science is the foundation of the entire sector, upon which the production of increasingly new, higher value-added products can be based. “It is no art to create a basic product; the art is to create added value,” emphasised J. Eglīts. He considers the national forest monitoring programme a great success, which has been funded from the state budget since 2019 and serves as a source of objective and scientifically based information about forests. The focus is on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and all data must be based on scientific research and its findings. “Without them, you cannot get anywhere, because claims based on assumptions and myths can cause us greater losses than we can imagine today,” stressed J. Eglīts. He points out that this is why work must continue – research is needed to objectively justify the situation in Latvia. “We need objective data on GHG emissions from peat and peaty soils,” emphasised J. Eglīts. He noted that there is currently a lot of speculation about this field because there is no truly clear methodology, and work must be done to develop one. “Research shows that forests do not have a greater impact on GHG emissions than peatlands untouched by economic activity,” explained J. Eglīts. He emphasised that research confirms: regardless of the land use type, GHG emissions are lower than those attributed by the Climate Convention. At the same time, solutions must be sought to significantly increase CO2 sequestration on forest lands. As a forest gets older, CO2 sequestration decreases, and even an old forest begins to emit.

The power of research

Ainārs Lupiķis, a researcher at the Latvian State Forest Research Institute Silava, admitted that in the coming years, failure to meet climate targets in a forest-rich country could be very costly. A study on GHG emissions was conducted for peatlands (all organic soils) because Latvia is rich in them. “Soil is the largest carbon store on land, and 30% of carbon is stored specifically in organic soils, which have a relatively large share in Latvia,” emphasised A. Lupiķis. He reminds us that there have been constant changes in GHG inventory reporting so far because every member state that has ratified the Climate Convention must report GHG emissions from various sectors (energy, transport, waste management, as well as land). It should be noted that knowledge about the formation of GHG emissions is still small, even though it is increasing. Latvia must use international guidelines: which economic activities cause GHG emissions and report their amounts. The GHG emission volume reported in 2003 was 1.46 million tonnes; then new guidelines were created, and this GHG volume for Latvia increased to 3.88 million tonnes, but following subsequent guidelines, this volume has already reached 10.32 million tonnes – this is almost 10 times more than what was reported at the beginning of the century. “The changes are not related to any significant management shifts, but to the figures changed in reports, because Latvia did not have its own data (research) and had to accept what was set out in the international GHG guidelines,” explained A. Lupiķis. He admits that thanks to research, it is evident that the GHG emission volumes indicated in international guidelines are higher than the actual emissions. “Organic soils emit 6.5 million tonnes on average per year; that is as much as the entire energy sector combined,” reminded A. Lupiķis. Research shows that the largest emissions are caused by arable land and grasslands; afforested areas and berry plantations look better. “Afforesting arable land located on organic soil can reduce CO2 emissions,” noted A. Lupiķis. One solution for reducing emissions is growing cranberries. “By including the obtained research data, the reported volume would decrease by an average of 25% across the entire land-use sector,” emphasised A. Lupiķis. To have these obtained data taken into account, Latvia will still have to fight, but at the moment, unfortunately, it must use the “assigned” GHG emission amounts, which by geographical location correspond more to Germany or France than to Latvia’s latitudes. J. Eglīts believes that Latvia is by no means the only one facing this problem, as exactly the same situation will be faced by other Baltic and Eastern European countries, which could join forces to achieve recognition of their research data and thus change the initial emphasis regarding the necessary GHG reduction volumes. True, to achieve this, a lot of effort and work must still be invested.

Charting new horizons

The currently debated Latvian Development Plan for 2021–2027 charts new horizons; it is important that it includes issues important to the bioeconomy field. “We can make this plan an open book where everyone can find everything, or one that contains concrete things we are working on, so the question is which direction we will take,” noted J. Eglīts. In his opinion, this harbours the danger of including very popular things that have no practical application. “From the Ministry of Agriculture, we have sent our objections, and we will continue to work so that the Latvian economy can grow and develop,” says J. Eglīts. He emphasised that work is currently being done to ensure it does not become a protocol of good intentions, but a concrete action plan. “This is the third NAP – the first had the motto ‘people first’, the second NAP motto was ‘economic breakthrough’, and the third has six priorities, yet the fight for this plan is still ongoing. There are several options – include realistically achievable tasks with attainable indicators, since enough of the current NAP will not be fully implemented, or write what ‘could be’,” says B. Rivža. Aiga Grasmane, Executive Director of the Latvian Forest Owners' Association, had expected a data-analysis-based approach from the NAP. “I can remind you that growth is necessary, but growth is not infinite, and it must grow intelligently; furthermore, growth must not happen at the expense of natural values and environmental quality. The NAP should have goals that are reachable for preserving environmental (nature) quality. Also by measuring whether economic growth measures do not leave a bad impact on nature,” says Lelde Eņģele, a council member of the Latvian Fund for Nature. She emphasised that the NAP cannot be anything that contradicts climate and environmental goals. “It is better to excellently implement a mediocre plan than to poorly implement an excellent plan,” says lawyer Artūrs Surmovičs. He admits that in this context, the ability of various public interest groups to reach some agreement will be important. “A compromise should start with everyone stating what they would be willing to concede,” says A. Surmovičs. Looking at various restrictions, in A. Surmovičs’ opinion, one should talk about reasonable compensation for those who are restricted in something.