Blurring the details
Katrīna Zariņa, LTRK board
The National Development Plan (NDP) is one of the most significant strategic mid-term planning documents in the country. Expectations for the implementation and success of the measures included in it are always high; however, at the same time, the NDP also serves as a planning document for European Union fund investments, and NDP2020 was no exception. Consequently, in a sense, we already know while writing the NDP that it must be adaptable to the common priorities of the European Union and must indirectly ensure that the measures included in the plan are appropriate and can be funded by EU funds.
In the view of the LTRK, the NDP2020 lacked a clear goal; the document was "blurred", suggesting the possibility that "everything for everyone" would be possible, that funding would be available, etc. As a result, strategic plans were adapted to political needs – sometimes forgetting that the fundamental necessity is an economic breakthrough. At this point, it is difficult to say that this has been achieved. Latvia still lags behind the European Union averages in many indicators, and it must be understood that other countries are acting in the same way as we strive to improve the situation in Latvia. It is an endless rivalry where Latvia must find a competitive advantage over other countries. In the LTRK's view, Latvia can be a place that attracts talent, and this could become the overarching goal of NDP2027, to which others are secondary. Unfortunately, even in the development of the NDP2027, there is a visible desire to "blur the details", forgetting the goal and the main priorities.
Looking from the LTRK perspective, two sections of the NDP2027 draft should be prioritised – competitiveness and education – along with the directions of action defined within them. Overall, the directions are correct; it would be hard to object to a plan to increase productivity, strengthen innovation and the commercialisation of inventions, improve the business environment, reduce the shadow economy, strengthen workforce skills and knowledge, and find solutions to the labour shortage during economic growth. However, the measures listed here are by no means unique and were also found in the NDP2020! Perhaps we should evaluate how we, as a country, are able to follow our set goals and act accordingly to achieve them. To avoid returning to the question of whether goals have been met as we approach 2027, we should agree on a much smaller number of targets. The plans and actions to achieve them must be much more focused; otherwise, rapid economic growth and the ability of our companies to compete in global markets will be limited.
The conversation about the NDP2027 must certainly continue, as there is room for a number of improvements in the prepared version. What is included is significant, but are these the answers to the question of how to provide Latvian residents with a standard of living in line with the top 10 European countries? We tend to answer that, rather not! This is a time when politicians, by listening to their partners, need to make bold and innovative decisions.
Many unanswered questions
Aiga Grasmane, Executive Director of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia
I expected that the experts from the Cross-Sectoral Coordination Centre (PKC) would offer analytical, data-based information that would serve as a core platform for solving real problems. The work proceeded differently: the invited experts from each sector identified problems (from their own perspective). With this approach, the essential can be lost in the task list if someone does not mention it, or unimportant things can be included without justification.
The described approach prompted many discussions, and agreements were difficult to reach. In my opinion, such a plan must be based on data! If you look at the mid-term assessment of the NDP2020, the areas where Latvia significantly lags behind the set goals during this period are visible in the graphs next to the indicators. There are still fundamental areas affecting society where progress is unacceptably slow.
We view national growth and human well-being on two levels – one is the prerequisites for the state's existence, the other is the prerequisites for development. In the first, I see the ensuring of national independence and the residents who live here and, through their work, ensure the existence of the social system, which would be the minimum. We are talking about demographics, income levels, and labour capacity issues. In the second, I see development issues that are most directly related to the quality of education and new knowledge coming from talented teaching staff at all levels, as well as research and innovation. In all these areas, problems have accumulated due to a lack of funding. Money "becomes more" in two ways: if someone pays more into the budget and if it is not spent where it is not needed. Moreover, part of our society still poorly understands where money "originates" in the state budget.
We cannot afford corruption, inefficiency in the workplace, unjustified fighting against producers, unnecessary spending, and losing people. I hope that this NDP will finally put priorities in the right order and allocate funding to urgent areas accordingly – and as much as they require today!
In the working group on the "Nature and Environment" priority, in which I participated, the result I saw makes me ask questions again. It is good to see NDP priorities that speak about human well-being and growth. If we read how these priorities can be implemented, in all sections we see financial investments behind the words "strengthen", "invest", and "improve". How can the NDP be realised if the "working space" of the bioeconomic sectors is, and is planned to continue to be, threatened? The NDP emphasises the bioeconomy as the basis and "saviour" of Latvia's development. How are entrepreneurs to decide to invest in productivity improvements, wage increases, and workplace improvements if their capital is exposed to serious risks for the sake of biodiversity, for which the state still has not defined goals – what and how much we must preserve, and what resources the state will use for it? Why is one task devoted to an obvious and data-supported problem – waste management? In contrast, it is planned to continue fighting the land management sectors with "biodiversity headlines". Furthermore, things that are difficult to measure have been chosen for the indicators, such as the improvement in the status of protected habitats and the bird index. The bird index is an indicator influenced by factors beyond our country's borders. Conversely, indicators obtained from the National Forest Monitoring, such as the amount of dead wood in forests, which has been systematically measured for 16 years and indicates biodiversity, for some reason has not been a sufficiently good indicator to be both measurable and comparable, and countries often use it to describe biodiversity trends. In public communication, PKC representatives claim that the plan is realistic. As well as the fact that there is no point in setting concrete goals if the necessary funds are not planned and allocated during the implementation of the plan, and if the envisaged tasks are not fulfilled. Moreover, if we include indicators of unclear impact, there must be measures to ensure the achievement of goals and the finances for their implementation. If this work had been done, it would become an obvious fact that, by achieving the goals in the "Nature and Environment" priority, the goals set in other areas are not, or are difficult to, achieve.
In bioeconomic sectors, useful human time must be increased by turning raw materials into products. To achieve this, manufacturing companies make substantial investments, invest in research to produce new products and make production more efficient and environmentally friendly, and invest in people. Investments are based on company strategy, which is planned based on the future human resources and raw materials available to us. If the "path of non-cooperation" continues in the future, where nature is protected only for the sake of protection rather than a process aimed at achieving specific goals linked to human growth, the implementation of the priorities included in the NDP will be just as unsuccessful as in this period, when demographic, labour capacity, and development goals are not being reached because there is again too little money in the budget and a lack of political will to place these issues at the top of the agenda. Why is there concern about the inclusion of the bird index and the implementation of biodiversity measures? This year, habitat mapping is concluding not only in protected areas but also throughout the country, thus affecting all sectors related to the management of natural capital and the processing of raw materials. And, despite the fact that the media reminds us every day how poorly the Latvian nature is faring, hundreds of thousands of hectares with species habitats have been found in economic territories. Likewise, the search for the lesser spotted eagle has undoubtedly met with success, and "Latvijas Vēstnesis" publishes notices weekly about ever-new territories taken away from production. The NDP not only fails to calculate these risks but does not even name the measures to be implemented to achieve the goals. The forest sector's strategic goal is to increase forestry productivity by 25% and processing efficiency further, multiplied by 6, so that the sector retains competitiveness and the ability to contribute to human well-being both through budget contributions and the provision of decent jobs. This proposed and well-measurable goal is not found in the final version of the NDP. Currently, the chosen criteria and indicators do not reflect the opinion expressed in the working groups regarding their scientific basis. Especially interesting is the fact that non-governmental organisations are involved in the implementation of the VARAM Environmental Monitoring Programme, which are not state institutions and cannot be found in the Register of Scientific Institutions. Consequently, these organisations are not subject to the observance of the regulations and quality control rules that apply to the requirements of the Law on Scientific Activity regarding the scientific qualifications of personnel. Therefore, both the results of the monitoring implemented so far and the report on the status of habitat and species protection in Latvia are questionable.
• Air monitoring – LVĢMC, VVD RDC
• Water monitoring – BIOR, LVĢMC
• Soil monitoring – LVĢMC, VAAD
• Biodiversity monitoring – BIOR, DU, LVMI “Silava” and the Latvian Ornithological Society, the Latvian Botanists' Society, the Latvian Fund for Nature (non-governmental organisations)
The indicators of the NDP priority "Nature and Environment" reflect the raising of the quality of the environmental condition but do not reflect the conditions for evaluating sustainable natural resource management.
(Opinions first published in the newspaper "Dienas Bizness". Photographs from zemeunvalsts.lv have been used)