Your previous experience at the Ministry of Justice will surely allow you to answer a fairly serious question. In the court rulings of some European countries we read that the government of that country, or other state institutions, have not done enough to address climate issues. Having looked into it more closely and spoken with people who greet these rulings with enthusiasm and elation, I concluded that nobody is waiting for the court to spell out how much will be enough, and nobody really knows what would be enough. Who will say, and who knows, how much is "enough"?
If someone defends their rights before that country's Constitutional Court (in Latvia's case, the Constitutional Court), has prepared an application and the court accepts and hears it, it is important to know what the legislative basis is and why such a situation has arisen. (This applies to other legal disputes as well.) Where can you stumble? Fundamentally, the court points to the regulation in force and to whether, in that particular case, it was applied in a way that departed from the constitutional spirit. So I would say that in such disputes the winner is often the side that was more sharp-eyed and spotted these contradictions, which also means that fairness does not always win. In the context of the state, the duty to ensure fairness falls first and foremost on the legislator, because the legislator must ensure a process that fosters trust in the state and in the law, and confidence that the chosen solution is fair. The legislator must find a fair balance between the interests of society as a whole and those of the individual, while ensuring the state's sustainable development. Fairness has only been talked about more loudly and insistently in recent years, because the question increasingly arises in society: where are the principles of fairness, or where have they gone!? Our President has also spoken out loudly about this.
In administrative processes everything happens simply enough — this complies, this does not comply with the regulation, this matter should be considered, this one should not... When it comes to fairness, a great deal of attention should be paid to those who prepare the documents that take cases or issues forward to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Saeima. Take, for example, the recently highlighted issues around violence, where the documents were evidently examined but the situation was assessed only formally. Delving into the matter, we ultimately conclude that the person (the abuser) is dangerous, has already breached a restraining order, and so on. Fairness also means a broader and more detailed view of the situation in question, not just of what someone thinks is correct because that is what the law prescribes or states.
Another peculiarity of recent times, increasingly noticeable in various discussions, including on social networks (and, moreover, in discussions with people connected to the political environment): "Why, in your view, should we act this way?" "What do you mean? That's what the law says!"
A person (at least most people) ought to understand what they are doing and how and why, because sometimes, when you act in a literally lawful way, the problems that arise can be considerably greater than if you had thought it through and acted according to the situation.
To put it figuratively, you are asking about the road and the ditches on either side of it... It often happens that the road is there, but the walker keeps ending up in the ditch. I can only agree with the assessment of the situation contained in your question, because all too often there is a lack of shared understanding about many things. Take the road traffic regulations, for instance — on the one hand, when driving a car you constantly assess the situation and the possible risks of what would happen if... On the other hand, as a pedestrian you crossed at a red light, creating a risk for no one, perhaps only for yourself. To achieve fairness, we must strive for it in human relationships. The existence of the idea of fairness is secured both by all of us together as a society and by each of us individually — in the family, on the street, at work and so on. We are the ones who create the everyday space of fairness and the country's shared space of fairness. In my view, everyone must weigh up their own actions or conduct and understand why they are acting in precisely that way. We often hear the reproach that "officials do not take responsibility" or "officials are incapable of taking responsibility", which supposedly means we sink into bureaucracy. But there are situations where an official has taken responsibility (has been responsible) and, unfortunately, will remain the only one responsible, the only one to blame, and so on. Could everyone be ready for that? We are demanding of others, but would we like to be left on our own?
Can you recall any election (at any level) where even one of the political forces standing had declared: "Long live bureaucracy! We'll show you!"
I can't, because there hasn't been one (laughs)!
Exactly! Not so long ago the Prime Minister announced yet another "fight against bureaucracy". Shortly afterwards the question of the transit and import of blood-stained grain came to the fore, followed by a journalist declaring: "Oh, farmers are complaining about the administrative burden — they need more of it! It should be controlled more strictly!" It seems that requirements and controls are excellent things for quite a few people, as long as they do not apply to themselves, which is why one has to ask: "Is it actually possible to reduce bureaucracy in practice?"
It is! It certainly is! I agree with that part of the public and of the political class which says that Latvia's state apparatus is too big compared with the capacity and returns of the national economy. We have a great many institutions with similar or even identical functions. For example, take an issue that was topical for a while — the use and usability of the language — there are two institutions, one under the Ministry of Justice, the other under the Ministry of Education and Science. Is that necessary? In the agriculture sector too, language requirements for food product labelling are supervised in accordance with the Official Language Law and the requirements of EU regulations; I would add that in this case we encounter contradictions and differing assessments... We have a great many supervisory bodies, both in our own sector and in the country as a whole... taken together, they represent substantial financial upkeep costs for the state...
Hasn't a narrow view of the field being supervised put down excessively deep roots? When the language issue came to the fore, quite a few people were surprised to discover that young people who do not speak Russian find it hard to get a job. In your view, shouldn't ministry leaders come forward from time to time and defend particular positions when it is clear that a distorted impression of them is being deliberately created in society?
I fully agree that ministry officials should state their clear position on one issue or another more often. That gives a clear and well-founded opinion the chance to form, because all too often we allow "some opinion or other to form somewhere else"; fuel can be added to the fire quickly enough, often ruining a well-intentioned thing completely (if the responsible institution stays silent). The situation, the circumstances, the issue must be explained, without waiting for others to do it — opponents included — escalating the problem without justification or interpreting it in a light that suits them.
How wide or narrow is the line between well-founded criticism or assessment and deliberate interference or political pressure? Lately these concepts have become far too blurred. For instance, officials of supervisory institutions say that those they supervise may perceive their assessment or opinion as interference or pressure, while at the same time almost everyone is ready to interfere in Latvia's economic sectors — the same people who complain about the lack of money in the budget.
It's both... and... There are people with an exaggerated perception who simply cannot stand the other side's position. In my view, it is very important that a person who has expressed their opinion on a topical issue should be able to justify and explain it — what the circumstances were or what the situation was, why this particular issue mattered to them — and should provide an explanation as far as their official duties allow, while also explaining or arguing why they will not go into deeper analysis, because there is a reason, for example ongoing court proceedings, a requirement to take part in the hearing of the case, and so on.
Another situation — regarding public procurement or public recruitment competitions — a statement was made that the selection and nomination processes and competitions organised by the state are bureaucratic, lengthy, inefficient and expensive. This was followed by a reaction from representatives of the State Chancellery, who called this statement a threat to the system; perhaps that reaction was to be expected, but at the same time the State Chancellery should have explained why competitions have to be organised, why precisely these selection criteria and this selection process were chosen, and what it will give the institution concerned.
Speaking of competitions for various posts, it is known, for instance, that members of the selection panel sign a non-disclosure undertaking regarding information and data, which is perfectly understandable, because the unemployed do not usually apply for serious posts. If someone holds a good position and has decided to enter a competition for another one, it is clear that they will not like it if a certain opinion begins to form simply because they decided to take part in that competition.
Take the recent case involving LIAA — if the decisive decision rests with the minister, then in my view they must be involved in the process, because they are the one who will be held to account. For example, the minister could be invited to take part in one of the selection rounds where candidates present their vision or where the required competencies for the post are assessed, giving them the chance to get to know the candidates who have passed the formal selection requirements while the "contest" between the best is under way. Such an arrangement should certainly be provided for when drawing up the nomination and selection rules, before they are announced. Then there will be no complaints that an "unknown" procedure has landed the minister with poor candidates and the whole process has to start again from scratch. If the minister has taken part in or been involved in the selection process, they can be asked anything and must be able to answer. If the minister has to sign a document as a formality while the choice was made by others, the situation is not really acceptable.
Are the rules for recruitment competitions written by the same people every time?
The current arrangement has been in place for about five years. It depends which post we are talking about — for instance, you cannot take the rules for a large state-owned company and adapt them to a small or so-called niche company. That is in the hands of the competition's nomination committee — how actively it works, how it checks and understands the criteria.
There are people who keep their CV open and are genuinely interested in whether other companies might take an interest in them. There are people who behave differently, but who are known to be happy to change jobs. And there are highly qualified people whose outlook and experience differ sharply from the competition organiser's view of the way forward.
In all this thinking about green matters, have the regions and their development been forgotten? It seems unlikely that Latvia's longer-term plans amount to a bustling area around Riga and its surroundings, plus a belt of summer houses stretching to the neighbouring countries' borders and the sea.
Speaking about regional development and the situation in the regions, I fully agree with everyone who sees national security in the regions and who cares about keeping them populated and so on. Not everyone wants to live and work in Riga, but many are forced to travel long distances because there is no work for them in their own parish or municipality.
A great deal begins or ends with work or the lack of it. For example, the Ministry of Education and Science urges schools to close because there are no pupils... here we see and talk about the consequences, but... What are the causes? There are no jobs (why not?), there is no infrastructure (public transport, for instance), there is no something else... In regions with good public transport links, the younger generation has better opportunities to attend hobby groups and events, because a young person is not dependent on someone who can drive them there, given that parents are busy too. If we are thinking about strengthening the regions, then schools are undoubtedly important. We see the birth rate falling, but... what is the state's policy or action to change that, to make the opposite start happening?
I know that more than one person reading this will say that I am talking about benefits again... Not at all! There has to be a different kind of support. I know there are electricity bill reductions; perhaps for some people that is useful and encouraging. But! It is important to remember that we often invoke and refer to other countries' experience and praise it, yet we ourselves... do not make use of it, and do not tread the well-worn path we ourselves have praised.
What would matter? More accessible loans with reduced interest rates... So that local business can form and grow, and "pull everything else along with it". The Ministry of Agriculture has a support system (funds) for promoting local communities, which is not sufficient... Why? The local community reaches an agreement, spends the money, the result is good, but... for further development there is no local school, no kindergarten, no something else. We cannot use the sector fund's money to build or open schools, repair roads and the like.
Here is the problem: people want to live in the countryside, but the banks do not want to grant a housing loan for a rural house or property. People have jobs, and in the region at that, there is enough money, but... a loan for a property in the countryside is of no interest to the bank.
I am aware that teachers are not given loans either. I assume the banks are worried about their creditworthiness. If only there were long-term clarity and certainty (of the kind that sometimes appears in the short term before elections), namely that the younger generation is at the centre of the state's interests — and that we grow and build long-term policy around that centre.
When it comes to keeping rural regions populated, it is written about, we see big headlines, we hear speeches, but we get no further than promises. Something collapses along the way. I can see and understand clearly that the country as a whole lacks cross-sectoral, inter-ministerial coordination, oversight and follow-through, because every ministry and every local government works only within the bounds of its own competence, its sector's rules or remit; as soon as it becomes necessary to step outside those bounds, the driving force and the leaders are missing. And then the story begins about who is responsible for the issue, and people start carving up competences and so on.
In this respect, however democratic and free-thinking people might wish to be, isn't the age-old story at work in the subconscious: I am in Riga, in an office (a bank or a ministry or some other institution), and for that reason alone I know better? Never mind that I have no idea what is going on or how... How competent is our public sector?
There is a lack of a broad, or broader, view of things, of processes and of issues. Unfortunately that is how it is. Often it is precisely such people, as you mentioned in your question, who are "put to work writing regulations", and we end up with results that are far from the best. Speaking for myself personally, both in my previous job at the Ministry of Justice and now at the Ministry of Agriculture (whose sectors face very high standards), I believe you have to go out to the sector's representatives, look, take an interest, listen, and see what is happening on the ground. I do it myself and I encourage colleagues in the departments and units to do the same. You have probably heard the phrase: "We are not here to solve the needs of an individual company or entrepreneur!" Hold on — but those needs overlap with the sector's problems. Latvian entrepreneurs are not so brazen as to come and talk only about their own interests; when we are talking about individual problem situations, they certainly affect others working in the sector too. These are the shared interests of the sector, or even of the whole economy. Worse still is when a ministry receives proposals on what should be improved in the regulation or the law — proposals that would help the sector develop or remove obstructive (you could also say bureaucratic) barriers — and I hear comments like: "Not now, wait until the law is opened up, then you can submit proposals and we'll see!" It would be more correct to say this: someone has "brought in" a problem and put it on the table, so please, dear official, get to work — it is now in your hands to see it through, to defend it, to get to grips with it and to help solve it!!!!
In my view, listening to sector representatives and going out to see things on the ground should be encouraged very, very strongly. Sitting at a desk in an office, for instance, you cannot know for certain that there was no hail last August in one particular place, because... How can you know that without being there?
The Forest Department has new leadership; since January it has been headed by Andis Purs.
I hope everything will continue to go well; before we confirmed Andis Purs in the post, both the minister and I discussed his vision and his views on the work ahead. He mentioned, for example, one of his goals — that the department should be staffed by strong and clever experts... and so far that is coming true!
The Constitutional Court on the mean-diameter question. Put briefly, it was said that not every avenue had been explored, not every step had been taken. How important is that? "If everything had been done, you might have judged differently." Odd. The decision affects a lot of people and we are saying: if it had been like that, then it would have been...
A judgment of the Constitutional Court and the interpretation of the legal norm given in it are binding on all state and local government institutions, courts and officials, as well as on private individuals. A legal norm that the Constitutional Court has found incompatible with a legal norm of higher force ceases to be in effect from the day the Constitutional Court's judgment is published, unless the Constitutional Court has ruled otherwise in the judgment.
When deciding on the moment at which the contested norm ceases to be in effect, the Constitutional Court must take into account that the court's task is to remedy the infringement of a person's fundamental rights as far as possible. At the same time, the court must also ensure that the situation which might arise from the moment the contested norm ceases to be in effect does not create new infringements of the fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution, nor cause substantial harm to the interests of the state or of society.
There are always debatable questions — the losing side is dissatisfied, and to the winner the taste of victory seems irreplaceable. As a person, there are a great many things I have not understood; in this respect it helps enormously to systematise the question (to put things in order on the shelves) and to analyse it — why the outcome is what it is and how we arrived at it.
On the mean-diameter question — before the judgment was announced, we brought together all the sector representatives who had taken an active part in the process, to thank them for that tense period and for the common sense they maintained throughout it (which I cannot say of the complainants' side). The likely outcome in court could be sensed in advance (50:50), because you have to remember what general European policy is like at present, which is why such an outcome had to be expected (while hoping for the best, of course). I believe we are not the losers, and the sector has not suffered a defeat; if someone feels like the winner, no one can take that feeling away from them — let them enjoy it! The Constitutional Court's judgment says that economic, environmental and social aspects must be in balance, and I can only agree with that. We were, however, put in our place, because "some Ministry of Agriculture or other is now going to set the tone on these matters; after all, policy-making is divided up, environmental issues are the business of VARAM, and the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the economy." I have long said that VARAM and the Ministry of Agriculture should be merged, as Estonia has done, for example. You cannot place excessively heavy goals on a single pair of shoulders, however strong, that hold up the country or a particular region. What other resources do we in Latvia still have?
If anyone believes that economic interests dominate in Latvia, then where is that great wealth and strong economy being hidden, given that this year the word austerity has returned to news about the state and local authorities? Why are municipalities scraping by if, as some claim, the economy is thriving and flourishing?
If we put this question together with regional population levels, the shortage of people and...
At this year's tree-planting bee we visited a forest compartment where representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture had planted trees 18-19 years ago; they have already grown considerably. Now this stand is being thinned, with the timber used in the economy and the branches chipped... In the span of a human life, a forest bears fruit at least twice.
After planting the trees we drove to a spruce forest that greatly saddened professional foresters and scientists; spruces around 68 years old had been "finished off" by bark beetle. Of course this forest will be harvested too, but these are real losses, with no gain whatsoever. Someone had fought over something for years with religious conviction, which is why the logging was not carried out in good time, and the result is that nobody is better off — even the great fighter is now indifferent...
You can meet more sensible people at Riga market or on the station square.
Isn't that so?
Short-sighted action at state level over recent decades makes you think seriously about every step. How should we act so that the enthusiasm and the clear goal are preserved, but foresight is not lost?
You are talking about things that matter in policy-making and that ought to be on policy-makers' agenda. First — 50 years of occupation have affected us considerably; if we travel around the countries of the former so-called Soviet system, we see that in some places certain processes are moving faster — public transport, railway infrastructure, roads and so on are highly valued, for instance.
We once looked in one direction and forgot the others. For example, the emptying of rural regions has been talked about for decades. Now, when it is clear that there are no children in the schools, that they have to close, that we now have to think about getting people there... well... we are back to talking about the two ditches... When much has already been lost, the revelation comes: "Hold on, that should have been done sooner!"
On nature conservation — in one conversation it was said that if birches had been planted in Latvia at one time instead of spruces, there would be no need to worry about bark beetle. ... When the spruces were planted, we had paper mills and a pulp plant operating here — in other words, back then people planted the trees that the sector concerned needed.
The bark beetle was here then too, but not on that scale and not "so well looked after"!
That too. I think that in future, when planting forest, we must listen carefully and seriously to forest scientists, climate experts and so on, so that we act wisely and with foresight. For example, I recently visited Azerbaijan as part of a Latvian delegation, where we were asked whether we could export seedlings, with a specific species of pine named. Clear action is needed here — if there is an order and if we can grow and export seedlings of the species or variety in question, then let it happen!
In closing, I would like to mention several specific and important things (measures) that I am ready to implement together with colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture. Together with the ministry's political leadership, we have included a school catering programme (its development and introduction) in the government's action plan. A draft informative report will soon be published on the Legal Acts Draft Portal, which we want to present to the government in order to obtain approval for the programme's further implementation. What will this programme give us? The opportunity to make maximum use of local produce and goods made by local businesses in school catering, which would in turn boost production as well as the development of parishes and regions, and in the longer term also the rural population, the strengthening of local communities and support for small and medium-sized businesses and producers. Farmers, producers and so on will see that their work is needed by the country; moreover, this is also a national security issue, because we will always need food, and what could be better and more reliable than a local producer. These plans are serious and long-term.
In the short term we plan to optimise and streamline the Ministry of Agriculture's supervisory functions, namely by centralising functions on the so-called one-stop-shop principle. We plan to begin this work this year.
In the medium term I think that I myself and the Ministry of Agriculture could be the initiators and driving force on cross-sectoral matters, such as a unified principle for the use and management of state real estate, the performance of unified support functions, the centralisation of accounting functions in public administration and so on. I would also like to mention that, working together with "Latvijas valsts meži", we have uncovered (established) a whole series of problems where public administration, by requiring permits and approvals, creates a very serious bureaucratic burden and losses for the economy. In my view it is highly significant, and unacceptable, that even state-owned companies run into such things... so what is a private entrepreneur to think and do?