In discussions to date regarding the European Green Deal and its practical and bureaucratic aspects, it can be concluded that entrepreneurs have approached the issue seriously and with foresight, having carried out a great deal of practical work, whereas representatives of state institutions, including politicians, continue to speak in fine-sounding phrases. When can we expect these phrases to potentially translate into action, and will they be clear and understandable?

When speaking with Latvian entrepreneurs about European Green Deal issues, comments are heard that the entrepreneur is ready, has worked, and has thought ahead, but state institutions are lagging behind in the preparation of laws, regulations, or other necessary documents. Are state institutions coping with the tasks related to the Green Deal?

Both in the public and private sectors, we are facing major changes. I would like to commend Latvian entrepreneurs for their involvement in discussions – on how best to introduce and implement the Green Deal, as well as in solving practical issues and identifying problems – so that we, in turn, working in state institutions, can offer our solutions, of course, through joint effort and cooperation. Every sector certainly has its own distinct, problematic issues. To ensure better understanding and consequently better results, and for it to become clear in strategic terms where and when investments are needed, I have created a 'climate neutrality round table,' where we meet almost every month with entrepreneurs, scientists, representatives of non-governmental organisations, and other stakeholders to discuss current issues that need resolving at that moment. For example, last week we talked about the climate law, how to bring it to life, and how to improve the existing regulation. Sufficient funding for climate change issues has been allocated both in the European Union Recovery Fund and in the EU multi-annual budget, including in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, and serious interventions are planned both to adapt to and to mitigate climate change as much as possible. It is important to realise that the Green Deal is our shared and inevitable path, which we have only just begun to tread. Thank you for your question, because at a moment like this, while discussions are ongoing on how to help Latvian residents and entrepreneurs reduce their energy bills, we must be ready to take decisive steps in the wider use of renewable energy resources, including biomass, so that the figures written on the bills decrease and our energy independence is strengthened.

The price rise in Europe has sparked predictable discussions about what should be considered a green energy source. There is a desire to frame both natural gas and atomic energy as such.

I think atomic energy, as a long-term energy source, has great potential. Of course, the question immediately arises: 'What to do with radioactive waste?' The problem with it is known and clear, but there is no solution yet. It is important to prevent possible risks and increased danger to the environment. In my opinion, we need to move 'more rapidly at the state level' towards solar energy and wind turbine parks. In the ministry, we are preparing a proposal on how to do this faster and more simply, so that entrepreneurs do not encounter administrative and bureaucratic hurdles. Speaking of natural gas, we see in various assessments that it has potentially less impact on air pollution, but... it is still a fossil resource and, as we are seeing right now, its price can be easily manipulated. Even if the European Commission were to classify natural gas as potentially 'green,' strategically – in the long term – both Latvia and the European Union must 'move away' from the use of natural gas. The longer we stick to this 'needle,' the longer we will talk empty words about energy independence while effectively failing to achieve it. The 2021/2022 winter has very clearly shown us the path we must take – away from the use of natural gas in order to truly become energy independent.

If today, 19 January 2022, your friend's gas boiler broke down, what would your advice be?

If a gas boiler suddenly breaks in January, it is clear that it must be repaired; otherwise, it would be quite difficult to heat the house during the winter season. As winter comes to a close, I would suggest thinking about the aforementioned path away from the use of gas. On the part of the ministry, we are preparing support instruments so that residents can replace fossil fuel-based heating equipment.

In connection with the Green Deal, many different documents are being drafted in EU cabinets. Is the ministry managing to review them and look into them? Must all documents be reviewed?

It is clear that both VARAM and other ministries must be involved in this process. If we do not notice or miss something essential, it could have a negative impact later on. I know the people and experts in my department; they work with documents both in Latvia and in Brussels, they are all top-tier specialists, and I would say their workload is often superhuman. By comparison, in the large EU member states, there are even ten experts allocated for one or two important issues, whereas our pool is relatively limited. The workload is significant because it is necessary to clearly understand the impact or assessment, which could have a serious effect on our national economy and society as a whole. I know other ministries work in a similar way. Currently, cooperation between ministries is taking place, but it must become closer every day to jointly understand the possible benefits, risks, and problems. The Green Deal is the joint responsibility of all ministries, to be included in the laws they draft, in their planning documents, and in their vision.

Continuing about documents. One of the fears of the 80s (and the Soviet era in general) was bureaucracy and mounds of paperwork. Do you think that with regulations, rules, etc., things are currently being exaggerated?

I find it difficult to compare anything with the latter half of the last century. Am I satisfied with the volume of documents? The question is simultaneously simple and quite complicated. The state administration has gradually developed since the 90s, and our understanding, requirements, supervision, and control have developed as well. Brick by brick, we have tried to build this house of administration so that it serves for a long time and is stable and, of course, reliable for the country's residents. Both while holding the office of Minister and before that in the Saeima and as Parliamentary Secretary, I have defined and tried to ensure that various types of policy documents and support mechanisms for local governments and residents are simultaneously easy to understand and easy to administer. For example, the deposit system that started operating in Latvia on 1 February. Looking at it from the residents' perspective, it is very simple, convenient, and understandable – when you buy a bottle of a drink in a shop, you pay 10 cents, and when you return it, you get these 10 cents back. Things that are very simple for the user conceal quite a few different processes; many laws and regulations or even the finest details are needed to specify the relevant action. This is needed so that the system works without hitches.

A second example – the government approved support (subsidies) for the purchase of electric cars (Latvia was one of the last countries in the EU in this regard). Elsewhere in the EU, the system works roughly like this: you go to a state institution, fill out a pile of different forms, and you can buy an electric car. We chose the opposite path so that the service would be convenient, namely, a person goes to the retailer, and at the moment of purchase, the discount is applied automatically. The heavy lifting is transferred to the state institution's remit. These two, I think, are not the only examples where the system works. In my opinion, we must continue to do everything so that, in connection with any support mechanism, processing the documentation takes no more time than, for example, preparing a tax return in the EDS system. Simplicity and clarity will increase trust and cooperation with the state administration.

Support for the purchase of electric cars was harshly criticised as support for the wealthy: 'Like, how many people here can afford an electric car...'

I will not agree with the assessment about sharp criticism; in my opinion, criticism was heard for a longer period about the lack of such support: 'Why aren't you doing anything to motivate people to switch to lower-emission cars?' I think it is understandable that in the foreseeable future we will continue to travel by private car as well, but we must stimulate a change in habits by starting to use public transport and bicycles more, or other more environmentally friendly ways of travelling. In my opinion, such a step by the government was necessary; naturally, it will not help to completely replace the vehicle fleet, but it is also a signal to the electric car market to lower prices. If such a support programme had been started five years ago, I think electric car prices would be lower and more accessible. A large portion of electric cars bought in Latvia are second-hand, and their price is quite comparable to internal combustion engine analogues. Furthermore, for example, in Riga and Liepāja, there are various types of additional support for electric car users.

A question with a long, long beard: various restrictions for land and forest owners and small compensations, which are being deliberated for a very, very long time.

I completely agree and clearly realise that the historically set amount of compensation is certainly insufficient. Solutions are necessary. Therefore – both last year and this year – in the context of the forthcoming socio-economic assessment of 'nature conservation' and a more detailed, thorough analysis of the results, by offering clear solutions, a discussion will take place and solutions will be sought for changing the compensation model. It is clear – a sustainable model must be sought and created. The Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) is currently, within the framework of a LIFE project, gathering the experience of other European Union countries in applying various solutions for the preservation of biological diversity, including the issue of compensation. As it becomes clear how the system is set up and operates elsewhere and what the models for these systems are, we will be able to create something suitable for Latvia that would both work, provide the necessary effect, and provide support to those owners whose lands are located in specially protected nature territories. The problem is clear and understandable, and I am committed to resolving it.

It has happened that when asked about possible compensation money from EU funds, VARAM representatives avoid answering.

It is difficult to comment on this, as I have not participated in such conversations. No matter what solution is found, the main thing is that it works. If it is necessary to talk to the European Commission about specific support directions, we will certainly and resolutely do so. Such conversations with the EC are only and exclusively a normal process. But – we ourselves must do our homework – namely – how VARAM, together with owners and other involved parties, can arrive at a common vision of what needs to be done and what the direction is in which to create and develop this system. It will not be easy, as opinions are quite different, but a common denominator will have to be sought. The result must be there.

You are sceptical about the further future of the peat industry. But! In the European Union, it seems, they strikingly confuse peat as an energy source with peat for the production of substrate, as is the case in Latvia. Here, it seems, peat has not been used as fuel for a long time.

I agree, the use of peat in energy production in Latvia practically does not happen. There are places where it is still done to a very minimal extent, but the volume is negligible. If we are talking about the Just Transition Fund and investments for the peat industry, that is a matter of competence for the Ministry of Economics, which is responsible for business. How to plan investments for the peat industry will be best explained by colleagues at the Ministry of Economics. As for us, VARAM, I think we have worked side-by-side with representatives of the peat industry for several years to prepare policy planning documents on the use of peat. It was not easy, but I would like to thank both the industry association and the entrepreneurs with whom we found and created a dialogue, finding a solution so that entrepreneurs would have clarity and predictability for a longer period of time. As I understand it, representatives of the peat industry also well realise their involvement in solving climate issues and implementing the Green Deal, by offering their own solutions and initiatives.

Still, when talking about nature protection and the land owner, there is a huge difference between Latvia and Finland. Surely our owner is not greedier or less sensible than the Finn.

I think the attitude of forest owners and the way they view their forests in both Latvia and Finland are different. There are those who see only money; there are those who also see natural values. As I already mentioned, the DAP is currently gathering information about financial instruments in different EU countries, looking at Finland as well. I think Finland is a good example in habitat protection and cooperation with the owner. We are happy to listen and are ready to talk about ideas that would develop nature protection as a whole, make it more understandable, and truly help protect our natural values.

What, in your opinion, is the place of man in nature protection? Or, in protecting it, is man being forgotten?

Management, supervision, and control issues in the nature protection system are unimaginable without man. The question, however, is also philosophical: 'Is man a part of nature, or does he stand above everything?' As is known, opinions diverge here. In my opinion, we are a component of nature, part of a common ecosystem, and we should view other inhabitants of the ecosystem in this way. Man possesses great power to subject nature to his desired ways. By subjecting it, the balance of the ecosystem is disrupted. We must try to be or maintain balance. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, now the time has come when we understand what has not been done well, for example, using fossil resources in the volumes to date; the consequences of such actions can burden us ourselves in our future life.
Photographs from VARAM, Pixabay, zemeunvalsts.lv used