Environmental organisations recently voiced alarm that the Ministry of Agriculture had drafted new amendments to the regulations which would supposedly intensify the felling of Latvia's forests, posing a threat to the forest ecosystem and to the sustainability of forest management as a whole. I would invite people to look at the question differently – even now, because of excessive requirements, large volumes of quality, usable timber resources are lost every year, or, to put it more precisely, are left to rot. The situation ought to change, and the Ministry of Agriculture's proposal to amend the rules is the right one – a step in the right direction.

The view that environmental organisations actively put to the public – that forest areas in Latvia are shrinking, that forests are being managed badly and cut down, that biological diversity is being destroyed and so on – is tendentious and populist. For undeniably any normal person, including anyone working in the forest sector, is in favour of preserving natural values and forests. But for that to happen, forests, like any other resource, must be managed properly and sustainably. And Latvia's foresters have both the knowledge and the practical experience, and the forests are managed sustainably. Whereas before the Second World War 26% of Latvia's territory was forest, that figure has risen to 53%. Unlike in many post-industrial countries, forest in Latvia has not shrunk over the past 100 years – quite the opposite, its area has grown considerably. What is more, they are home to many dozens of protected and biologically valuable plant and animal species, and that is an indicator that many generations of foresters have managed them with sustainability in mind, and that diversity in the forests has been preserved to this day. It should be noted that the populations of some protected species have not declined but in fact grown. The lesser spotted eagle is one example. And if the public is being populistically drilled with the message that everything is bad, then a rhetorical question arises – if forests in Latvia are managed so badly, while elsewhere in Europe they are managed correctly, then why has this diversity of species survived in Latvia's forests and not in the places where "everything is done correctly"?

Undeniably, for nature to recover in the developed and densely populated post-industrial countries of the European Union, conservation intervention really is necessary, but we must not measure out the action needed in Latvia in the same way, because here the opposite has happened. Moreover, the regulations lay down what must be done, and forest managers duly comply with them – felled forest is restocked to a high standard and on an industrial scale.

Meanwhile, in Latvia excessive requirements mean that every year thousands of cubic metres of quality timber are left to rot across several thousand hectares of forest, because final felling is prohibited in various kinds of area with restrictions on economic activity (nature reserves, national parks, various protected zones and so on). A hectare of quality timber is worth roughly 22 thousand euros. This timber simply passes into oblivion without any benefit or use whatsoever, and as it rots it produces thousands of tonnes of CO₂ emissions, which can by no means be described as friendly to the environment and the climate. Every year the state could receive additional funds amounting to several tens of millions of euros, if only these excessive and at the same time pointless requirements did not exist.

But why does no one talk about the impact this excessive creation of restricted areas has on the economy, on the development of industries, on the development and prosperity of the regions, and ultimately on the state budget as well? Because it is precisely the economy, production and jobs that fill the state budget through taxes and make it possible to solve the problems we hear and read about in the media every day – raising teachers' salaries, the national defence and healthcare budgets and so on. As the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Latvia, Arvils Ašeradens, said only moments ago, next year's state budget will be submitted to the European Commission with a deficit of 2.999%. He explained that, given the serious challenges in the field of security, the decision had been taken to draw up a "very tightly stretched" budget.

The budget situation in the years ahead is said to be challenging too, and we must "hope for the best, but also be prepared for the worst-case scenario". Hope is a fine thing, but perhaps at national level it really is time to move from words to deeds, easing the burden of assorted restrictions and bureaucracy – as several speakers stressed to decision-makers at the conference "Prosperity and long-term development of Latvia's regions", held at LBTU just the other day: "let us get on with our work".

And in all of this context I too would like to ask whether, under conditions of a "very tightly stretched budget", we can even afford conduct as irresponsible as letting resources rot away, which at the same time solves not a single environmental problem? Perhaps, if these resources were used rationally, they could deliver a return and create added value, ultimately contributing not only to the state budget but also to the development of the regions. A great deal is said about regional development, but regions are developed not by talk but by deeds – by developing production, jobs, a well-ordered environment and infrastructure in the regions. Then the countryside will not die out either. The approach must change, the excessive prohibitions must be eased and, of course, the excessive bureaucracy and control must be reduced.

If there were no bureaucratic burden, it would be possible to act faster in the catastrophic situation that has arisen in Latvia with the European spruce bark beetle, which has literally multiplied en masse in protected nature areas and is spreading from them into commercial forests. Again one may ask rhetorically – will devastated, dead stands promote biological diversity and the sequestration of carbon dioxide? The effect will probably be the opposite… Until now the situation has been dealt with by issuing a special State Forest Service order each year to contain bark beetle damage. Now the measures needed to contain bark beetle damage have at last been included in the amendments to the regulations proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture.

I urge people to think rationally, balancing the development of the economy with nature conservation. Because Latvia's development and prosperity can be secured by developing production in the regions and by sensibly managing Latvia's most important resource – its forests – which is why I support the regulation drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture: it is a sustainable solution that will not only reduce bureaucracy but also foster the development of the sector and of Latvia's regions, while at the same time caring for the environment.