A year ago, shortly after the war began, Māris Zanders harshly criticised the work of various European experts, think tanks and public sector employees in an article, concluding that it was useless because no serious concerns, forecasts or warnings about an actual war had been voiced. In Latvia, attitudes towards the European Union’s policies are noticeably uncritical, reminiscent of a “the masters have spoken, we obey” approach. You have studied political science. During your studies, did you gain any knowledge on how to evaluate and analyse information?

Political science studies were broad and general – we were given a little bit of everything. Looking back at my studies subjectively, I conclude today that I could have ignored about 60% of my course material, because I haven’t needed it and still don’t. Public administration and lobbying, on the other hand, are quite useful. I consider one of the main problems to be the fact that so much is “crammed” into three years of study, but there is not enough time or opportunity to discuss technical matters – for example, whether one must always obey every law, if it is possible to take a stance “against”, what needs to be done to change something, etc. We were taught that there are different levels of legislation – laws, Cabinet regulations, binding municipal rules, EU directives and regulations, etc. – but we were not told about or taught to analyse the mechanisms for how one could influence decisions at an EU level, for instance. Even when we did touch upon that, it was very superficial. It would have been important for me to have been taught during my studies to develop a mindset that “beyond petty-bourgeois obedience to every regulation, especially if it is foolish, there is a second option – to change and adapt the regulation so that it is logical and serves people’s needs”, by technically demonstrating a normal lobbying plan with examples. Theoretically, we were told what happens and how, but practical application was missing.

Upon finding a job, I had to learn a lot through self-study and carefully watch my more experienced colleagues to see how lobbying actually works in real life. Of course, there are things and issues where my studies helped – I didn’t have to have it explained or told to me how bills move through the Saeima or how amendments are made to Cabinet regulations.

Unfortunately, universities do not fully prepare strong, socially active people who want to go out and change things; at least as much must always be learned in practice. However, if we treat university only as a springboard for the future, it is worth learning the theoretical part.

On social media, one often sees deputies of various levels, officials and socially active people expressing a desire for correctness and predictability, or compliance with something, while emphatically disparaging professionals who describe the situation in a more colourful, sharper or different way.

I personally like a rather definite, correct and predictable future, but I would tend to disagree that there is a desire for predictability on social media. Instead, I observe revolutionary ideas and proposals on social media to wipe everything existing off the table. Partly, these people can also be understood. A predictable daily routine is boring but stable. Describing it will be boring, very cautious and conservative. With such an approach, one cannot expect rapid leaps or changes, so there will likely be no opportunities for rapid national growth, but – on the other hand – neither for a recession. I think that for a large part of society, unpredictability and radical ideas are attractive, especially in times of crisis, because they offer something new, something unseen; it gives hope. Furthermore, I do not believe that the radicalism of ideas is always linked to right-wing or left-wing ideology (in Latvia, however, radicalism is often attributed to the Progressives or the National Alliance). An example would be the US elections where Joe Biden ran – he doesn't come from the most conservative wing, but is rather level-headed, thoughtful and rational. Opposite him is Donald Trump, who boasts about nuclear buttons and money, and offers completely revolutionary ideas – China as the US’s greatest ally, withdrawing from international agreements, etc. We don’t know what to expect from him, but hope is being given, and that is why a large part of people liked it. To many, it seems like a real party, but often someone has to come and clean everything up after that party.

I invited you for a conversation after your article* on social media assessing the “Don't eat the planet!” campaign. A typical situation in Latvia (I must say – unfortunately) – as soon as you defend the people who do the work (as opposed to the activists), one of the arguments is “your opinion is surely being paid for by some industry”. You are a farmer. When you go to your farm, do you see only coins and banknotes in the fields and forests instead of ears of corn, meadows and trees?

That is certainly not the case! It is as far from the truth as it could possibly be. Yes, we manage land because that’s how one can earn a living! People won’t live and work in the countryside just for the lifestyle or as a hobby; there must be an opportunity to earn an income and ensure the same living conditions as in other sectors.

Speaking of “clashing” with activists, first of all, I would like to say that I don’t like loud slogans. The Twitter post was written spontaneously. One can drip one piece of nonsense after another on society, one can put up with it, but at some point, the straw breaks the camel’s back. It seems that before that, I had written very little on Twitter. Of course, opponents resorted to standard counter-arguments – look where he works, look where he comes from, etc.!

First, I know very well where I work, that is no secret. Second, livestock farming is not the sphere I deal with daily, so tying it to my business’s lobbying would be incomprehensible. Theoretically, as a producer of crop products, I should be supporting “Don’t eat the planet!” with all my might, yet I cannot support something that is illogical and wrong in many aspects.

Speaking of farmers as evil, mercenary money-grabbers – we see money in our wallets or bank accounts in the autumn when we sell our grain, or a little more often in livestock farming. I have thought a lot about whether I would continue to farm in the countryside if every year ended up at zero financially. And funnily enough, the answer would be – yes! Understandably, one would need a certain income to live, but a large profit (which often isn’t large at all) is not the primary factor. I like it if and when the work goes well – the soil is prepared, the seed is sown, satisfaction comes from the wheat that has tillered and the beautiful green grass, there is joy in the spring – when what was sown greens up beautifully and grows.

Yes, an artificially cultivated idea dominates in society that “a farmer will flatten any hill or clear-cut any forest, poison bees and do everything to get even more euros into his pocket”. These are nonsensical things that, unfortunately, find listening ears.

One – we, the farmers, live in this environment ourselves. Two – we are not interested in short-term gain because land is a long-term resource that our ancestors passed on to us and which we will, accordingly, pass on. If I buy land, take out a loan that must be repaid in 20 or 30 years, what would be the economic justification for depleting this land in five years? I will still have to pay for it. Talk of money only is a deliberately and artificially maintained thesis that might seem correct to those who cannot see beyond their own noses.

During the budget approval process, we see a clear contradiction from the side of deputies and socially active people – it is listed at great length what money is needed for (and it is actually needed everywhere), while at the same time activities are actively being spun to limit the cash flow into the state budget without putting anything in its place.

That is absolutely stupid, narrow-minded and, to quote an activist, “idiotic” thinking. Unfortunately, these types of ideas are being actively and widely promoted. One party or another has roughly this style of thinking – do we need exporting industries? Definitely! But! There should be no place in exports for grain and timber, better to export IT and other services. I would even agree to a certain extent that we must work on strengthening the export of IT and services. Like it or not, one can observe a trend – the more developed a country is, the smaller the share of agriculture and forestry in GDP. However, there is one significant factor I do not agree with. To develop the export of IT and other services, we do not have to stop the export of agriculture and forestry. Those things can happen in parallel! That is why I am particularly angry when newly elected deputies say “agriculture and forestry are archaic; we should rather export services”. Yes, a very good idea, let’s export services, but why on earth must we stop the existing exports? Here, I will quote a professor from the University of Latvia who explained that agriculture is a great industry with huge potential, which unfortunately seems “unsexy” to society. Young people want to be lawyers, programmers, creative directors, but no one wants to be a dairy farmer or a combine harvester operator. So, we can close the “unsexy” industries, we can spit on the 3-4 billion earned from exports and then build something from scratch...

One can argue about the efficiency of agriculture, but... even those who do not work in the countryside themselves, but are always ready to object, not only want to eat, but also need to. One can order lunch online, but virtual lunching has not yet been heard of.

The fact or understanding that breakfast, lunch or dinner comes from agriculture has unfortunately long since disappeared from the minds of part of society. Conceptually, there is an understanding of where products come from, but it is often not connected to themselves – we have experienced cases where a Saeima deputy explains to colleagues that there is no need to produce anything because you can just buy it in the shop; if it is in the shop, why produce it...

I would link this detachment to the fact that we have lived well for long enough and there has always been enough food (I am not talking about the 70s and 80s), we do not know real hunger. The feeling that food might run out has disappeared for a large part of society.

I remember in my early childhood, my great-grandmother would sometimes visit us; she had once been deported to Siberia, where there was real hunger. She would peel potatoes with a very, very thin peel, and if a product went bad, she could cry about it for half the day. Currently, that is not topical; we do not know hunger and do not believe that it could ever return, so – why not restrict Latvian farmers and reduce production? After all, food won’t disappear!

The war started by Russia created a shortage of grain in the market. There are continuous and unresolved problems with food shortages in Africa. Is it so far away that it is not being heard?

I truly do not understand this! I thought that politicians and activists who steadfastly stand for the eradication of poverty, social justice and an equal society would, at the moment when Africa is threatened by real hunger, say – let’s do everything, let’s produce as much as possible to help. What happened? The rhetoric changed – we have heard something about hunger in Africa, but there is no need to exaggerate, food will be there after all... “We won’t produce more, there is no need, the ‘evil’ industry is simply sowing panic, everything will work itself out.” I will add that another circumstance is forgotten – perhaps it is not that there is such a shortage of food in African countries, but that its accessibility is problematic because the products are too expensive for the local population...

Remembering not-so-distant events, 1991 and the longing of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for international recognition of their independence comes to mind. Such a passive style – not deciding, waiting, not acting – continues, even though we have felt it on our own skin, not being happy about it at all.

That is how it is; Western countries, even though we are in the same European Union, think quite differently than we do – much more idealistically.

We see this more broadly in the context of the Russian invasion – the Baltic states, Poland and Scandinavia knew what kind of neighbour we live next to. The invasion and the subsequent murders, rapes and torture were very real in our eyes and memories, while in the West the view still prevailed – “not in this day and age, not today, stop it, you Balts, you are ridiculous!”

A similar difference in thinking exists between politicians and officials in Brussels and the farmers who are forced to implement these politicians’ ideas.

For example, in the regulation for the Strategic Plan of the Common Agricultural Policy, a proposal appeared – fields with hills and slopes may no longer be sown from one end to the other, but all slopes must be sown perpendicularly. So, the field will have 10 different sowing directions. At first, we thought it was a joke; now we have started to seriously signal to the European Commission – stop it, this is not serious, it is not realistic! I cannot imagine what would happen on the hills of Kurzeme or Latgale, using large agricultural machinery, making turns on the slope of a field and hoping that the machinery won’t overturn. Unfortunately, politicians are once again idealistic – “stop it there in the Baltic states, it will work out, don’t panic!”

What is the justification for such a proposal?

The possibility of reducing soil erosion in winter and spring. True, there is an important fact: when winter crops sprout, their roots “do not allow” any erosion. But – this practical (real) circumstance has not been taken into account.

The example is very poor – a politician has a vision or an idea that seems good enough, but the politician doesn’t think about or doesn’t know that implementing it practically is impossible or that its implementation is pointless. That is how it is, it happens, and it cannot be called anything other than a massive detachment from reality.

If the Baltic states call for producing more of something, the pressure from EU Western countries, especially those with a larger number of voters, is high. In these countries, the majority of the population lives in cities; it is the voices, interests and positions of those people who do not understand anything about land management industries that prevail in politics. But – “it seems to them that this would be right”.

For a breakthrough to occur in this way of thinking, I think a truly serious crisis is needed, which, however, I would not want to experience. There is a small hope that society is beginning to tire of the Green Deal. If we were living very well, as in 2019 or 2020, weariness would hardly be felt, but now, when money is being counted, turned over in fingers and only then spent, people are beginning to get “fed up” with this type of “greenness” and the subsequent increase in costs.

More than one industry practitioner emphasises that the Green Deal is a good idea, but its meaning is lost in regulations, directives and, as you mentioned yourself, nonsensical ideas.

I can only agree – the idea of the Green Deal is clear and correct. For example, in agriculture. If Europe has been like the world’s breadbasket and a major food producer until now, currently we see that Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, which now have access to technologies and resources that are not available in Europe, are beginning to catch up with us economically. Europe has a question – the world’s population is growing, demand for food will be there, but maybe it is possible to think of something special so that we don’t have to compete with third countries? Maybe we will leave this mass production to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and focus ourselves on something else, a more luxury market – we will produce little, but good things. The thought would be commendable if a farmer could continue his work and stay in the market, maintaining stable financial indicators. Unfortunately, no proper market and business research has been carried out on the part of Europe. So, currently, we are heading at a fast pace towards something unknown.

Another serious problem, which I already mentioned, is wishful thinking. “We will set a political goal and everything will happen!” In the end, the market and its situation are determined by the consumer. If the consumer doesn’t buy the organic or climate-friendly carrot harvest, you will be all alone with a big bag full of carrots... They will buy one, the rest, for them to be usable, will need to be given away at any price.

I have no objections to organic farming – let it develop and work, I support it. But – if a goal is set in Europe – to produce 25% of food in organic farms, but this goal is not followed by the market (currently the international consumption of organic products is about 2%), where will we put these products???!

The EU sets many goals in percentages...

Are people talking and thinking in percentages in Europe? For the most part – yes! Are these percentages calculated? No! In short – we look at the direction of the wind and set the percentages.

Does support for percentages, which are scientifically unfounded numbers, degrade the idea and at the same time (indirectly) also science?

That is ideology. If you are very caught up in, even obsessed with, the idea that these percentages are needed – you will do everything to achieve them.

For example, the goal of climate policy in the country (also in forestry and agriculture) is to reduce GHG emissions by such and such a percentage. From the point of view of forestry – excellent – we grow trees, tend to them, as soon as they reach full maturity, we fell them and plant new ones. Fantastic CO₂ sequestration!

However, for the biodiversity strategy, this is not acceptable, because it envisions these trees “living” until they rot.

It is similar in agriculture – a large part of GHG emissions comes from the soil. GHG emissions must be reduced, so the soil must be worked as little as possible. Good – we put the plough aside, we take discs, cultivators or direct seeding machines. Fantastic GHG emission reduction. However – in untilled soil there are weed seeds, there are disease pathogens, there are excellent habitats for pests, etc. So, fields must be sprayed more, which from a climate point of view is not a bad thing, but... it is again not acceptable for the Biodiversity Strategy. How to head towards two different goals at the same time? We cannot arrive in Riga and Liepaja at one and the same time. Politicians usually answer, being led by the ideology closest to them...

One must choose – climate or biodiversity. In Latvia, for some reason, they think that this concern of farmers is also “nonsense”, and that what is desired can be achieved quite simply. How? Proposals haven’t been heard.

It is a very simplified perception of the world – solving complex things with simple methods. That doesn’t happen in life. It is not clear how, for example, to achieve all goals with existing agricultural technologies. I allow that it would be possible with some technological innovation, which, unfortunately, does not enter the market so quickly.

To move towards the goals of the Green Deal, we must address the “elephant in the room” and determine what is more of a priority for Latvia – focusing on GHG (climate) issues or biodiversity. I see a problem in the fact that people are emptily enthusiastic, not actually delving into the complexity of sustainability.

In this regard, I am amused by the titles or names that people – experts and politicians – come up with to designate themselves or their activities – during the last European Parliament elections, we met with potential candidates; from one party, a young person arrived who called himself a “sustainability expert”. After this meeting, I thought for a while – how smart and experienced must one be for a person to be a sustainability expert???

I study sustainability in agriculture; I think I know about 20% of what I would need to know to call myself a sustainability expert in agriculture. If a person calls themselves a sustainability expert, it means that their knowledge covers energy, agriculture, forestry, etc. What does that mean? Practically – nothing – “Youtube Academy studies”, no more... For some reason, individuals of this type think that there is only one truth, there is only one solution, it doesn’t matter that they haven’t delved into the situation and they don’t care that, by helping the climate, they reduce biodiversity or vice versa. These people are self-confident, often – loud and completely incompetent.

In Latvia, there are a series of people working in politics who do not hide that only one opinion is important to them, ignoring the others or considering them simply incorrect. If a private entrepreneur wants to ruin something this way – that is one thing; if a Saeima deputy or university faculty member thinks this way – that is already very, very sad. Activists have no responsibility for the correctness or incorrectness of activities, there is only the conviction – being active is good.

It is easy to be an activist, and I think that is exactly why more than one young person counts themselves among the activist crowd. You do something, you see some result, in the grand scheme of things there are no serious changes, globally you are not responsible for anything; if your activities end tomorrow, nothing will change. Activism is a cool, fluid thing – you participate in something, you are more or less known, you are involved in something and you have no obligations, no responsibility. You just have to act. “If the party doesn’t work out”, you can go home, because someone will always clean up after you.

If a farmer, for example, decides – “I won’t sow anything tomorrow or I’ll be lazy this year”, first of all, they will encounter legal problems, because sanctions will start – double real estate tax, refusal of support, there will be no income, there will be no opportunity to fulfil obligations to the bank, etc.

I often have the question, where do young people find so much time to protest regularly? It is very good if people are socially active, but to solve climate change, if it is possible to solve, a council of extremely independent and very competent scientists is needed. Climate change will not be solved by a young person with a placard or a painting covered in soup. Climate change will not be solved by us calling each other poisoners or “killers”. Climate change can only be mitigated by scientifically strictly grounded and universally acceptable solutions.

Have you noticed an interesting phenomenon from allegedly “old times” – as soon as you start discussing an issue, instead of immediately agreeing, you are immediately “branded”.

It is most definitely a standard way to discredit uncomfortable opinions. My article about livestock farming made so many activists so angry... I was called a climate change denier, an evil lobbyist, a destroyer of the world, which is, of course, complete nonsense. Everything is fine as long as you agree with the activists! I think this is one of the reasons why these types of ideological summons have had such little opposition until now – if you don’t have a thick enough skin, a whole crowd of people will peck you apart, so it is better to stand at a distance. How the coordination of these people specifically happens, I don’t know, but for me, messages come on WhatsApp, to my phone, Facebook, email, etc. Logically, a person does not want to invite such a storm of attacks on themselves, so they stand aside. That is understandable.

If you take even the smallest look at social media, it is difficult not to notice that on specific issues – forests, logging, the Minister of Agriculture’s interview, your objections to the “Don’t eat the planet!” campaign, Alvis Hermanis’s reflections, etc. – step by step, a small but predictable circle of people becomes involved, who seem to have received the message – “express yourself on this – preferably angrily”.

I have noticed it. Heard through the grapevine on the tram that these issues are coordinated by several WhatsApp groups – “here is an article, here are the arguments to oppose with”. As I already mentioned before, it is not simple if “some 30 people are blasting” you through various channels.

Farmers and foresters, and representatives of other sectors who are chosen as targets for attack, do not answer sharply and directly accordingly. Why? We are not accustomed to that. We are accustomed to speaking clearly, logically and meaningfully. I would never dare to say that moving towards one or another production system in agriculture is the most correct, and everyone who objects is a “Nazi”. If something looks beautiful on the surface, deep inside it can be rotten – such large (even massive) things are very, very complicated.

An Interest Representation Law has been adopted in Latvia, but at the same time, it is well known how part of society evaluates the word “lobby”. “Industry lobby” is a social media classic if one of the politicians wants to emphasise that an opponent is not to be taken into account.

I will divide the question into two parts. I myself prepare an article from time to time and know perfectly well what important role imaginative descriptors play in a good text. For example, what we read about farmers – “industrial industry polluter lobby”, “pesticide defender”, “mineral fertiliser poisons”, “farmer ruins” etc. Strong statements have a big role in shaping public opinion.

They don’t write here – “farmers object to the restriction of plant protection products”. Rather – “large-scale farming industry objects to the reduction of pesticide spraying” or “the large farmers’ lobby wants to continue using pesticides” etc.

It seems my first Twitter post was like this: “Why do we say – business lobby on one hand, but on the other hand – friends of nature or environmental NGOs? It could just as well be business friends or business NGOs and the green lobby”. Environmental NGOs are often more powerful in lobbying than sector representatives, but in the context of environmental organisations, this word is deliberately not used.

Overall, the lobby law, if it is reasonable, performs a necessary function. I haven’t fully delved into national legislation, but in Brussels, the lobby regulation is quite specific.

Does anyone also research it, or are they interested, for example, which politician met with whom?

Usually, they start researching it if something extraordinary has happened or a big fuss has been raised about something. For example, if farmers managed to ensure that permanent grasslands did not have to be restored, most likely, someone who was not happy with that would research who the decision-makers met with, and compromising material would appear. “Look, this person has influenced that person.” That is how it happens.

Lobbying is a normal democratic phenomenon; I believe that there is too little of it in Latvia. I would draw a red line at the moment when lobbying turns into corruption. We can go, talk and convince, and that is good, but if we say – “act this way and you will have money or support for your next campaign” – that is unacceptable.

If the official in charge has listened to us, saying a good word for them before the elections would not be a bad thing.

True, but saying a good word and paying or campaigning openly are different things.

If I were the sector minister and achieved what was needed for the sector, I think I would be disappointed if I weren’t thanked, but asking for “donations” and public support, while threatening to get even otherwise – is completely unacceptable.

What can sector NGOs do so that society feels the difference between green slogans and green-minded doers?

If anyone had the answer, I think more than one, including me, would be ready to purchase such an action plan. It is very pleasant and valuable to talk about sustainability with a person who is not ideologically obsessed, but is a smart and experienced practitioner in environmental and climate issues. The current speaking style from the pseudo-green side is roughly like this – “do as I said, I don’t care at all what difficulties or complications you have”. How to distinguish that, I have no idea!

Is the education system not suffering from a lack of practical experience also in very practical environmental matters?

That is a huge problem. But... I (again) have no idea how to pull ten thousand Riga pupils and students out of classrooms and force them to hoe potatoes or tend to a forest so that they understand and realise the reality.

In regional schools, it is different.

Here, it would be appropriate to use the state’s opportunities and funds. I have a big heartache regarding the funds administered by the VARAM (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development), where to raise environmental awareness, young people are not taken to the countryside or forests, but ideological materials are prepared. How to fix it? The desire must come from the ministries and ministers – for example – by meeting, the ministers of Agriculture and VARAM would agree that they should not spend a lot of money on pitting sectors and society against each other, but should give information so that society thinks and analyses for itself.

Detachment from nature and the environment is one of the reasons why people become ideologically stubborn and are not ready to listen.

Recently, I encountered a situation – people on Twitter were looking for help because a stork with a broken wing had been found. Of course, humanely, one feels sorry for the bird, but that is nature. If you are a true green, you won’t save the stork, because with this step you might take away a fox’s dinner. Nature is not always beautiful. Sometimes – a male rabbit kills the baby rabbits, sometimes – a cow gores and tramples its newly born calf. That is not nice, but it happens.

Those who are not connected with such processes, practice and experience daily conjure up nature as a legendary fairy tale – “walk through the forest, a little wolf comes towards you and greets you... Everyone lives friendly.” Nature is also very cruel, which is often forgotten.

Animals come into cities led by various reasons – there are very many of them, cities often have a table laid out, which doesn’t require effort searching for food. Waste management as a problem has been addressed for more than 20 years.

Most likely, with the increase in the number of people, the issue will not be resolved. Yes, statistics show an increase in the number of animals. The number would not increase if living conditions were bad, but – the number increases if life is excellent. That is the stark truth – farmers’ sowings are a “laid dinner table”, city waste is like a “gold mine”, logically the number of animals doubles and triples. It is easier, of course, to say “we see more animals because, you see, the forests have been cut down”, but those are nonsensical things.

Never in their life have animals in Latvia had such a grand “laid table”. In cities, there is food waste; in the countryside – winter crops, sown fields, sprouted rapeseed... Why should a deer go look for something in the forest if the farmer has sown a field of peas for it and it has temptingly greened up?
* https://www.la.lv/par-kampanas-neaped-zemeslodi-mulkibam
Photographs of Valters Zelčs and zemeunvalsts.lv have been used