Unfortunately, these differences in approach are not usually obvious. For example, this year marks the conclusion of the inventory of European protected habitats, which reveals a long-known truth – what is a rarity elsewhere in Europe is quite widespread in our commercial forests that have reached their harvesting age.

(...) I am well aware that protecting every EU-protected habitat found would mean that the Latvian timber industry will follow the same path as sugar production or fishing – we would pay compensation to forest owners using European funds, but significantly reduce Latvia's already small manufacturing industry, taking away jobs from tens of thousands of people.

As the person responsible for the development of the Latvian economy, I cannot support such a scenario in any way. I am also observing with concern how, by appealing to the need for emission reductions, the Latvian peat sector will be reduced. Elsewhere in Europe, peat is used quite extensively for energy production, which, in my view, is also not sensible. But why should Latvian peat product manufacturers, whose clients are horticulture and plant nurseries, have to suffer for this?