As we learn and understand more about what exactly is meant by the Green Deal in the cabinets and corridors of the European Union and elsewhere... far, far away from the lives of ordinary citizens, it seems that from its initially praised and highly lauded "great opportunity," it could become the biggest brake on agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, and the producers connected to these sectors. Specifically, this concerns the sectors that manage the land.

In European offices, the fate of land managers (owners), including those in Latvia, is being decided. The most important question right now concerns the position of our representatives and delegates, as well as those of other countries, and their subsequent - unerring and reasonable - actions in crucial votes. It can be considered that the current situation is revolutionary because, unfortunately, land management in Latvia over the coming decades will depend on what is decided in Brussels and Strasbourg. One cannot simply think: we survived the Soviet times, we will survive this too, and... wave it off. Land managers and the associations, unions, and other organizations that unite them must be present and participate everywhere, as well as monitor and oversee decision-makers and the creators and speakers of positions (opinions) at all levels. We must know what they are doing and how. Just as importantly: what will Latvia decide, and what stance will it take – that is, the Latvian government. What decisions are supported by the representatives of Latvian voters – Members of the European Parliament. One for, another against, the third abstains?! We will achieve nothing that way!

The initial enthusiasm for the Green Deal as a new opportunity for the economy, for land management, and for the "liberation" of regions from human-stopping, human-saving activists is slowly fading, as information from European offices is drawing Latvia closer to the future of a nature reserve rather than a flourishing country. Is prosperity possible in a reserve?

The less, the better!

Undeniably, the "extra-greening" of already sufficiently green forestry, by imposing higher and unfounded demands on foresters, will reduce the opportunities for small forest owners to manage their forests, even forgetting the restrictions on economic activity popular in Latvia, which the employees of VARAM and DAP insistently call "cooperation with the owner." The desire to increase the size of land and forest areas where any economic activity is prohibited is evident. There is talk that the "amount of untouched areas must be larger," without any justification. And what is more...

Latvia is home to many "ultra-greens" who believe: the less you do, the better. Admittedly, the speakers of such views by no means live in an earthen dugout or a restored post-war bunker in the forest, or in a pine-branch tent, hunting with stone slings or snares while using home-grown potatoes, turnips, and beetroots. No, Latvia's "greens" live in a city or town, in a flat with central heating, use electricity, and possibly use gas, not a wood stove, to cook food!

There is a movement in Europe whose participants believe that the area of protected territories should be significantly increased, "removing" tens of millions of hectares of land from economic use in Europe. In the context of forestry, a Germany-based scientific institution has calculated that roundwood production will fall by approximately 30%. Will Europe become climate-neutral if timber production decreases by 30%? Will timber be imported from other countries and regions where such "clever ideas" are not popular? How "green" and sustainable will that be? Or will the use of wood in construction in Europe decrease? Most likely, no! Most likely, every EU member state will have its own unique Green Deal.

I wonder what kind of "vaccination-style nonsense" our representatives are preparing? If, as the "ultra-green" nature defenders sound their trumpets ever louder, they breathlessly explain how Latvia's economy is ruining biodiversity and very soon there will be a biodiversity "desert" here... If anything is done, birds will "leave" Latvia, the lesser spotted eagle still needs saving, etc. Since the majority of Latvia's population lives in larger or smaller towns or close to them, where trees and bushes are in a park or walking area, where birds are a kind of "decoration" to be fed, it is no surprise that a certain part of society "gets hooked" on what is preached by the "greeners" (remember the traveling missionaries). Scientific findings are ignored, and in their place rings the slogan of propagandists – they want to clear-cut all of Latvia. It is even more paradoxical if wood is accumulating in Latvia's "green warehouse," and a large part of it rots without any benefit. But perhaps, by letting wood rot, Latvia will be able to become climate-neutral?! By the way, I have not noticed our "greeners" actively going to countries or regions where deforestation is a very serious problem for both the environment and the local inhabitants. Where they are needed, the greens are not!

Green paradise or desert?

In 2021, the results of the nature census should see the light of day. If the previously voiced concerns prove to be true, namely that the potential area of forest-related habitats must increase by approximately 350,000 hectares, and if people are allowed to pick plants for tea in these areas or are not allowed to do anything at all, it will be a very serious blow to the entire forest industry and especially to jobs in the countryside. And, naturally, to the Latvian economy! Those responsible will, of course, "cooperate." "Comrades" do not hide their wishes, as confirmed by statements such as: "habitat quality has deteriorated." But!!! There is no desire or it is not profitable to answer and explain why this has happened – due to human activity or, in fact, due to natural processes. Moreover, "comrades" in their explanations often like to quote themselves: "As I have said, as I have written, as previously stated," forgetting that an "activist" and a scientist are not exactly the same thing.

It is said that about 630 species of moss have been found in Latvia (about 30% of those known in Europe). It is interesting what this could mean: that Latvia is exceptionally green or a desert-like place in terms of biodiversity. If the former, the "greens," who tirelessly scream about genocide against the living nature in Latvia, should not only be declared purveyors of disinformation (liars) but also "put in their place." Or maybe we don't know: the so-called European championship is underway, in which propagandists of this style participate, for whom an award-winning place means a tidy sum of money, some of which will be felt even in their already quite thick pockets. What will happen to jobs and people in the regions? Let others think about that!

The consequences of greening agriculture – life without dairy products?

The potential greening of agriculture threatens other consequences for every citizen's stomach. Because the "greens" need food too! They talk about reducing CO2 emissions in agriculture, without explaining what that will mean for both farmers and buyers in shops. If cattle are large CO2 producers and the "polluter pays" principle is introduced, costs will be included in the sale prices of milk and meat, which buyers will see on shop shelves. Will milk, cottage cheese, cream, butter, and beef become exclusive goods that only very wealthy Europeans can afford? Will we move dairy and beef farming out of the EU to some country outside the EU? One can increase the total hectares of organic farms with the help of "ukases," but what will happen to food prices, the level of which is currently provided by ordinary (called harmful) food production? How many people in Latvia can afford to buy, for example, ten eggs that will cost 3-5 times more compared to the current price (for example, 5-6 euros)? The same can apply to potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, cucumbers, and the rest. Without reasonable agriculture with pesticides and fertilizers, we must talk about hunger and the problems associated with it; moreover, when deciding on artificially created additional burdens for agriculture, one should not ignore the possible consequences of the restrictions. "Green propagandists" some time ago organized events aimed against the consumption of animal products. Many people considered this to be correct, although they hardly thought and understood that animal products are not just meat and its derivatives, but also milk, cream, butter, cheese, cottage cheese, and eggs. It is doubtful whether there was and is an understanding of what food shop shelves look like without animal products. Perhaps they can reach an agreement with shopkeepers that, when "brewing" the next action of this kind, there are NO animal products in any shop on a specific day. Such a solution would be the best understandable agitation. Perhaps then people's eyes would open and common sense would kick in regarding what sunny future ideas mean in the harsh execution of life's reality.

Decision-makers, off you go, to school!

Latvia is close to being a climate-neutral country. Latvia's emission reduction compared to 1990 is 57%, which is more than in any country in Europe. The rest of Europe should catch up to Latvia in this indicator, rather than us trying to set new records that other countries will not follow, only praise in words. Decision-makers in the European Parliament, the Latvian government, and ministries must mandatorily involve land managers in any decision-making process before any decisions are made. In turn, land managers need to organize courses to increase knowledge and understanding for members of the European Parliament and the Saeima, ministers, and civil servants. If such activities do not take place, the harvest of the Green Deal – the berries – will be bitter and unusable.