The State Audit Office has prepared a critical report regarding the cooperation implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture with non-governmental organisations in the agricultural and forestry sectors. In the report, it alleges non-transparent decision-making, which it claims does not reflect democracy.

Every state institution, just like public organisations, has its own tasks and areas of competence. When these are ignored or violated, it leads not only to misunderstandings but also damages the perception of the organisation as a whole, eroding trust in its activities. Currently, both the State Audit Office and the society "Delna" appear to be operating beyond the boundaries of their competence; they seem to have decided, hand in hand, to turn against organisations of farmers, foresters, and hunters, attempting to cast a shadow of doubt over those who continue to work and produce goods for the subsistence and well-being of the country's population, despite economic difficulties and at times unjustifiably hostile attitudes from certain parts of society.

Haralds Barviks, Chairman of the Board of the Latvian Hunters Association, believes that the wave of negativity began six or seven years ago. These "splinter-seekers" have gone so far that, in trying to find problems in a well-functioning mechanism, they fail to see truly glaring facts about millions in irrational expenditure, which resembles a well-polished method for "siphoning off" huge sums of money.

"Over the last six or seven years, the institutions that use funds from the Hunting Management Development Fund have undergone three State Audit Office inspections. This is very interesting, because the hunting sector is quite insignificant both in terms of financial volume and the level of public interest. If previous reports noted that everything was very good and transparent, the current attitude of the State Audit Office has changed diametrically, even though the hunters' activities have remained unchanged during these years. This surprises us!" concludes Haralds Barviks.

"Funding in the Hunting Management Development Fund is, to put it mildly, 'meagre'. We are surprised that the fact that hunters have been robbed in relation to this fund for ten years does not appear anywhere in the report! It cannot be called anything else! The procedure established by law is not being followed, and the fund's resources are being used for other needs. That was understandable during the crisis, when the state had to survive! There is no longer a crisis, but nothing has changed, except for the appetite of the officials. I do not know why, but it seems to many that hunters are the part of society that needs nothing! Even though hunters use their own resources to protect both forestry and agriculture, including livestock farming. Nobody allocates funding to hunters for these activities!"

We, the hunters, are very unhappy with the current situation, as it looks like everything is being done in a very biased and directed manner to slander those non-governmental organisations that bring together people who supply Latvia with agricultural and forestry products and take care of Latvia's development as such. Attacks are taking place against farmers, foresters, and also hunters – the productive and working sectors that create jobs and pay taxes.

It is surprising that, contrary to us, the Environmental Protection Fund is presented as a "good example", even though its management: "elects themselves and votes for themselves (in principle a non-democratic process)", and the fund's head allocates projects worth one and a half million euros to his own family for implementation (the so-called hoopoe project at the Ādaži military base). If this is presented to us as a good example, one must start thinking about the objectivity of the State Audit Office.

The next thing that raises doubts about this institution's objectivity is the attempt to become the same kind of entity that the party committee was in Soviet times – namely, an organisation that points a finger at whom should be prosecuted and whom should be maligned.

This institution is significantly exceeding the boundaries of its competence. How? For example, by getting involved in "solving" the issue of sixteen-year-olds in hunting. That has nothing to do with the State Audit Office! An attempt has just been launched to get involved in setting limits for certain game species. Specifically – an increased interest from the State Audit Office regarding the lynx hunting quota. How could that be linked to the institution's sphere of activity – the control of state expenditure?

("An expert in their field is a person who has accomplished something and can show for it, is known and recognised in their sector, and other representatives of this sector recognise them as an authority. Three things! If this person (expert) says something, we can rely on what they say; we do not need to verify it."
From an interview with Egils Levits, June 2019.)

Consequently, one must begin to strongly doubt the independence of the State Audit Office! Politicians and members of the Saeima should certainly evaluate the activities of the State Audit Office leadership.

Another nuance – in the Gauja National Park, live, growing trees were peeled for 800,000 euros. This happened despite the fact that the volume of dead wood in Latvia has increased by at least four million cubic metres over the last three or four years. It is difficult to see the justification for such actions, and we would like to see a precise breakdown of them. According to the information at my disposal, there have been huge, irrationally inexplicable costs. But the State Audit Office remains silent about this and pays no attention to whether millions of euros have been spent correctly and usefully…

Speaking of the newly involved organisation "Delna", I can say that it is the height of incompetence! People act without understanding what they are doing! If one arrives at a meeting with farmers, foresters, and hunters, it would be useful to at least familiarise oneself with the topic, rather than delivering empty speeches without substance. They would be just as suitable for newspaper and ice cream sellers.

The involvement of this organisation is also biased and should be evaluated by competent authorities that investigate whether there has been sabotage against the Latvian state. This organisation itself also has problems with the use of funds and "transparency", for example, 360,000 euros for the supervision of a "cemetery tram project". This money has, in principle, been squandered! What have they supervised for this money? Themselves?

("…perhaps I will be a little heretical here. I was reading with a heavy sigh a few months ago - I think Alvis Hermanis had expressed such a thesis: "You know, back in the day, there was no big difference between those exile activists and the party activists. I felt a certain relief, yes, I am not the only white crow who has seen certain character traits that are very similar to those who very willingly scurried about in official exile circles, and those who very willingly scurried about in the Communist Party…"
Vita Matīsa. Dialogues. Power and Culture. Latvian Radio, 21 August 2019.)

I, working for the Latvian Hunters Association, do not receive money! Instead, we try to save resources to do at least the minimum that must be done. Yes, also by using internal reserves and not giving someone the opportunity to receive an inadequately high payment!

The State Audit Office report questions the usefulness of participating in international organisations: FACE, the leading organisation representing hunters in Europe, which works online with the European Parliament and the European Commission, and the CIC (International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation), which unites 83 countries and covers practically the entire civilised world. The question is raised: why attend the organisation's board meetings. Firstly, it is a great honour that our representative is on the board. Board meetings must be attended, which is not questionable at all! For the sake of cost-saving, I personally, as the head of the organisation, unlike colleagues from other countries, do not attend general assemblies. Our trip is planned according to the absolute minimum costs. Last year, the State Revenue Service demanded a detailed breakdown of the use of funds for a trip from us. Upon evaluating it, they did not have the slightest doubt about the objective use of the funds.

Thanks to our international cooperation, we have been noticed in the European Union. We are invited to lead seminars at the European Commission and in other European Union member states, specifically speaking about African Swine Fever, which is a threat to all of Europe. If the usefulness of this kind of cooperation is questioned, we are left to question the competence of the State Audit Office.

Most likely, there is a person in the institution's leadership who wants to pursue their personal ambitions and simultaneously hide the slackness of the Environmental Protection Fund, the Nature Conservation Agency, and other similar organisations, for example, spending funds on tasks that could only be performed by scientific institutions, rather than by an ornithologist's or some other association, which is a public, not a certified scientific organisation. If this is deliberately overlooked, there is work here for competent authorities.

("I would like to remind you of the four brotherhoods that still hold the former Soviet space together. They are: the former party and Soviet nomenclature, Komsomol workers, secret police officers (Chekists), and organised crime, so-called thieves-in-law. These four types feel at home everywhere – in Moscow, Dushanbe, Kiev, Minsk, or Riga.

There is also a fifth brotherhood, but it operates globally and is similar to the former Comintern. It is an agency of influence. For example, all sorts of “independent experts"…
From Dmitry Savin's interview with “LA”, 22 August 2019.)
http://www.la.lv/parmainas-bus)

All that remains is to wait for the next wave of slop and lies from various yellow tabloid pages, which have become an integral part of empty-headed sensation-seekers.

Zemeunvalsts notes on the article:

1.    Regarding the State Audit Office. The State Auditor General's loud press statement differed sharply from what was said by State Audit Office representatives during a meeting with LOSP representatives. If the State Audit Office is an independent state institution, is it appropriate for it to engage only in loud proclamations intended for unclear goals, which confuse the part of society that is not familiar with the issues? Did the State Auditor General realise what the public would perceive from her loud statement and will a large number of people look for the text of the SAO report and compare it?

2.    The State Audit Office uses the word “expert” in its report without specifying the expert's qualifications, knowledge, and name. It cannot be found in the references either. Apparently, some of these experts in the respective sectors are not, however, as competent and experienced as to have the courage to reveal themselves in the report under their own quotes... Peculiar, when talking about transparency. Moreover, this is happening in a situation where in Latvia, many can call themselves, and are called, an expert!

3.    There is a strange desire on the part of the SAO not to create things itself, but to force someone (in this case the Ministry of Agriculture) to prepare documents so that the SAO can better understand the use of money... In our opinion, the SAO works for the benefit of Latvian residents, not that Latvian taxpayers work and invest to facilitate the work of the State Audit Office. Or perhaps the SAO should announce to the public that its employees are "paper people" (people whose duty is to know how to read), whose work requires an increase in bureaucracy, unnecessary and very significant consumption of time, and an increase in the costs of agricultural and forestry production!

4.    Unfortunately, the meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture suggests that, step by step, a peculiar culture of conversation is being imported into Latvia, in which concreteness is being eradicated (or is not intended). Namely, the reaction of "Delna" on social networks indicates a desire to hear the same phrases in "open conversations" that "sound beautiful" but have nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Openness and transparency cannot be an end in itself to hide a lack of understanding, knowledge, and competence. It is fashionable in some places to talk about transparency, but farmers, foresters, and hunters work with tangible things, not with phrases and embellished desires.

5. It is evident that some state institution employees demand, strictly and insistently, that Latvian taxpayers adhere literally to regulations that the demanders themselves by no means follow and choose to ignore. The law, which in the minds of its authors is intended for everyone, in the minds and actions of certain officials often does not apply to them or applies differently. This is a bad and unacceptable practice!