This summer marks 10 years since Latvia became a member state of the OECD*. How should we assess this decade, and what should we have done during it but did not manage to?

If we start with some constructively Latvian self-criticism, the public administration as a whole could and should have paid more serious and more critical attention to the documents produced within the OECD system. That does, admittedly, take time and a certain amount of investment. For example, one day a draft report arrives containing conclusions, recommendations or analysis (in this case regardless of the topic or sector) that require the official in question to dig into the detail. If that official's superiors take the view that digging in is not necessary, the official does not dig in, and that is normal. In my view, OECD documents should definitely be given greater attention. If we do not take part, then what happens is this – "whatever the others decided, that is how it will be".

If we talk about Latvia and the OECD, this organisation is a "club" of countries that came into being after the Second World War in order to rebuild economies that had been badly damaged or even destroyed, using the "good old" Marshall Plan. It is not only about private enterprise, but about a state-level view of the future – how to live better and what the best policy to introduce would be (what the best policy to implement would be in order to make our lives better). I would add that the question of better policy and a better life has lost none of its relevance.

Unlike the European Union, whose core values are the free movement of people and capital and a single market, or NATO, which is a defence organisation, the OECD is an organisation for a shared and, as far as possible, open exchange of ideas about how to live better. Compared with global averages, the standard of living of the inhabitants of the 38 OECD member states is good enough, but understandably there is a wish to live better still. I want to stress and to remind people that we – Latvia – are among these countries too.

After more than 26 years of experience in the public administration, I can see that what the OECD decides reaches the citizens of a member state in their daily lives far less. I myself lived for a good while knowing very little about this organisation. We are more closely bound up with the EU and its structures; EU laws and policy are present almost everywhere, OECD standards and recommendations – not always.

Should they be?

Not necessarily in every field, because it is not an organisation for every situation in life and for "anything and everything". If I can put it this way, the OECD does not "poke its nose" into every sphere of life and does not try to assess everything. Of the 38 OECD member states, 22 are also EU member states, and to those you have to add a series of economies that are large on a global scale, such as the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and South Korea – a different scale and a different sweep. If the OECD agrees on something, it is solid, well founded and so on.

Can you tell us briefly about yourself and what your duties at the OECD are?

I am a sectoral adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture (ZM), posted to work at Latvia's Permanent Delegation to the OECD and UNESCO in Paris, where several of us diplomats work, each in our own field, our own sphere. Besides the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Economics, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Education and Science are represented, while digital and regional development matters are looked after by a colleague based in Brussels. I was sent to Paris to deal with the issues of interest to the Ministry of Agriculture in 2020.

A diplomat. Is sectoral adviser a diplomatic post?

As in any permanent delegation, I count as being in the diplomatic service. That covers not only representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also those of the line ministries.

Does that constrain your work in any way? Diplomacy is considered a delicate business – you have to think very carefully about what to say, what to do, how to judge things.

I have to be able to get to grips with a great many issues, for example biological diversity, which also concerns forests – whether we assess agricultural biological diversity in isolation from forests and from the strips where agricultural land and forest land meet; how to measure it. A few hours later, together with colleagues from the fisheries department, I have to look into how various countries determine the beneficial owners of vessels; at another moment I have to "plug into" agricultural support policy (there are countries in which consumers support farmers, and there are also those in which farmers support consumers).

Once I have dealt with that, together with Āris Jansons (director of the Forest Department at the Ministry of Agriculture) and colleagues from the sector I have to "leap into" the forest. To be concrete about it, I have to get to grips with, for instance, how OECD analysts require changes in forest area to be measured, which indicators to use, whether to use satellite data, how to collate information from various sources (VMD, LVM, private owners) on each forest compartment so that, put together objectively, it allows us to judge the changes in the forest and assess how they are occurring. I would add that I do not try to say things in place of the experts about matters I do not know; we have plenty of knowledgeable people who know what they are doing. How to put all of this together so that it fits Latvia's interests is my job, and that is as far as I go into these questions. The nature of my work requires me to cover a fairly broad field.

Both the OECD and the European Union have a good many member states, and almost every one of them has its own view of forests, agriculture and so on. There are countries in which the forest is a "little park"; in Australia, Canada and Japan the forest is very different indeed. How easy is it to tease something out of that patchwork of views that would suit everyone?

Just under a year ago, in May 2025, we held an OECD seminar in Riga on how those involved in the forest sector can reach agreement, arriving at a more balanced view of the future from a sustainability perspective. Speaking of differences, we showed the situation in Latvia's forests out in the field, and we talked about research and its results in the areas of climate, biodiversity and the water regime/drainage. Our examples, understandably, related to the boreal forest zone. Of course, if we were geographically closer to the equator, the situation would be different. In southern Europe, for instance, unlike in Latvia, water shortage is a live issue, and the priorities are different too. What unites such different countries? The purposes, for example, for which an owner needs a forest, what they use it for. In many places, owners act according to the purpose for which the forest is maintained. In Latvia too, owners sometimes grow a forest "just because", for recreation, and of course there are owners who think in the classical way – their forest is growing for future generations. So owners' purposes – why and how to manage a forest – are very varied.

In this connection it should be added that there are countries that "every now and then" wish to join the OECD, such as Brazil and Indonesia, where, as the rest of the world sees it, forests are being cut down irreversibly. Part of the rest of the world does not like that, but the dislike is "not the same for everyone", and besides, you need to know the reason or the motive behind the dislike. So – it is time for a discussion of the big narratives and standards. If we talk about a standard – what deforestation is and where to draw the line – I know that there are several reports in circulation that propose a methodical approach to assessing the dynamics and direction of change in forest area; how to say whether forests in a given region are being lost or whether their area is increasing. Not being an expert myself, I would say that if we look clumsily at a satellite image and conclude that Latvia has problems because a forest has been harvested and the spectrum of green has changed, that is not clever, and one has to be careful with assessments of that kind.

Ever since the OECD was founded, one of the organisation's core values has been to base analysis on evidence and facts. As regards the forest sector, into which the OECD literally wants to "work its way in various ways", what goes on around it always has to be kept in view. Documents are usually drawn up with a claim to represent best practice – how to determine what is happening to the forest. When Latvia's representatives began to take an active part, we urged them not to look for ways of reinventing the wheel, because the Montréal Process already exists, in Europe there is Forest Europe, and there is the FAO with its forestry committee, which is why we urged the OECD not to deliberate and decide on forest matters on its own, but to cooperate.

Problems can be simple ones: say, three economists who "know something" are invited to give their views on a particular field, but if the experts in that field are not involved, the economists' assessments alone may well not be sound. To some people, interesting experiments can be interesting right up to the moment when they have to be paid for, and they can turn out to be money pointlessly squandered.

I would assume that there could be a broad consensus among OECD member states on one point – deforestation is not a good thing – felling a forest and not restoring it and not letting it regenerate naturally, turning it into agricultural land or using it for other purposes. We cannot ban or rule that out entirely, if only because of our own Rail Baltica.

As far as I know, the debate about deforestation in not-so-distant Austria is being conducted at high volume. In Latvia the term seems to be used less often, but abroad you often hear about "irreversible land transformation". It has to be said that there are quite a few countries where this topic is literally red hot; in Latvia the phrases and slogans are different and the question of transformation is not a live issue. With the Saeima elections approaching and the pre-election currents beginning to swirl, some people feel that raising forest issues from various angles is "really apt and topical". In my view, there are a number of more important things that we should all be working on together, one of them being how to measure what is happening in and to the forest in terms of climate and biodiversity. The forest, as we know, is a special case. When talking to economists, I tend to stress that the forest has to be looked at as a life-cycle analysis; it must not be assessed in the customary way – investment and its payback over 20-30 years, which for a forest is not a long time; we have to be talking about at least 50-70 years. If we compare it with other fields, investment in a forest pays back over a period 3-4 times longer. What is being done? At the World Climate Conferences (COP) we see that highly experienced and influential politicians and business people are unfortunately operating on a fairly weak information base. Take, for example, the OECD's economic survey of Finland (such surveys are prepared for every country), which stated: "Look here, Finns, your forests could soon be in trouble! You might not reach your ambitious net zero targets!" The survey was not worked on seriously and comprehensively, which is why recommendations based on a document like that might be not merely less than clever but even harmful, because the data are not analysed over a long enough time span to reflect the full cycle of a forest.

I consider active participation in the OECD "club" to be valuable, but we should definitely remember that we will live better if we analyse things sensibly.

On the subject of recommendations or advice, it seems that in Latvia the recommendations of almost any international organisation are still received in 1990s style, when almost every expatriate Latvian who had some valuable idea ended up in the media headlines. Second – you mentioned potentially harmful or pointless recommendations. Are there many people in Latvia who would be capable of saying: "We, an OECD member state, conclude that this and that is wrong and unacceptable!"

I have already mentioned the seminar held last May, which was attended by a series of representatives of international organisations: the FAO, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, the European Forest Institute and so on. During the seminar we set Latvia's story alongside the OECD's "big story". It should be added that the OECD secretariat has only one single forest sector expert – our own Daiga Zute.

As for your question, there was once a time when large numbers of so-called expatriate Latvians genuinely did turn up here, people who had an excellent command of foreign languages and were better informed on many matters than locals were. As we know, access to foreign literature and information in the so-called Soviet years was severely restricted. When people like that appeared in Latvia, more than a few of us were of course impressed and began to copy a great deal, regarding the new arrivals as cleverer simply because they were "from the free world, after all". In my view, we have got past that period.

In this connection, one of Latvia's ambassadors to the OECD once said that over dinner, when you are in the same room and at the same table as the world's heavyweights – vice-presidents of billion-euro companies and the like – you learn that they read everything the OECD produces, because... there is nothing better. In short, there is nothing better in the world, because no alien has turned up and done the analysis more successfully or better.

Of course, the material produced can and should be assessed and criticised carefully; I have found certain shortcomings, unfounded conclusions and so on myself. But – there are two possibilities – either we do not like the conclusion in question and we assess it critically because we do not like it; or we can prove that the document in question was not produced on the basis of facts. Those are two different things.

Unfortunately I do not have an example concerning forests, but I assume there soon will be one. I have heard that the OECD secretariat might recommend to Latvia (a policy recommendation) a tax on biomass. It is important to add that the organisation's "arithmetic mean" is to regard as worthy of support, in the energy sector, everything connected with water, hydrogen, sun, wind, nuclear power or new technologies about which little is yet known; whereas coal, gas and oil are bad; burning biomass is bad too. The OECD understands perfectly well that if you want to stimulate something and change the existing balance in some area, you have to act so that the "undesirable" becomes more expensive, or you have to reduce the revenues of that field, or increase its costs; while whatever is worth supporting and desirable has to be given a helping hand (taxes, subsidies, reliefs). That is public policy.

To continue on biomass, my question to the experts is – where did you get this and how did you conclude that this would make for a better life? A tax on biomass... If I look at what is happening at the moment in Ukraine, where the energy infrastructure is under attack, and consider what would be more advantageous and more convenient for me as an end user, I will certainly not agree that I deserve problems like that simply because someone has decided it is not a good thing. The moment several drones are aimed at well-functioning infrastructure to which many consumers are connected, thousands or even millions of people risk being left in the cold, without light and without much else. In the new global situation we have found ourselves in since February 2022 (even before that), biomass and the forest have a most direct connection with so-called big-picture thinking.

If we recall, not so long ago we saw off an idea hatched in Brussels about restricting or banning heating with firewood. Incidentally, the EU institutions frequently and selectively use OECD documents in their policy: "if the OECD has said something, it cannot be denied, it must not be challenged".

The question, though, is a different one – in how many countries (out of 38) and in how many ministries did staff actually read and get to grips with the matter that some analyst in Paris came up with, and is there a clear justification for it, has there been broader involvement of competent institutions and professionals? If, say, two experts took part in the discussion and the rest agreed, one has to ask whether everyone read what was written and whether they noticed all the nuances, because they had other battles to fight elsewhere. When a recommendation produced in this way ends up in EU or European Commission offices, we often hear: "Hold on, hold on, look at who prepared this document – the OECD itself!"

I come back to the fact that the OECD is taken seriously by business, investors, politicians and so on, because "there is nothing better" and no other international organisation analyses policies for a better life so deeply across so many sectors.

For example, the OECD mission assessing Latvia's forest sector is important; the experts see and find out for themselves, they are shown specific things, and that is how they gain knowledge. The delegation gets information first-hand about what is happening in Latvia's forest sector. From the delegation's conclusions we will learn about the sector's resilience and its place in the bioeconomy. It is worth mentioning that a larger study is being prepared covering all OECD member states – on what contribution the forest sector makes to rural development and to the economy in general. An expert's opinion is certainly influenced by what they have seen and where they have been.

To finish my answer to the question – do we in Latvia implement all the OECD's recommendations – definitely not!

There is an important matter on which we have a few like-minded allies who are not loud enough, but they are there: timber and forest sector biomass as an alternative to fossil resources – oil, gas, coal. We can imagine how powerful the lobby is in the world of those countries for which such an alternative is not advantageous. As long as those countries have got the rest of the world, which does not extract those resources (Latvia included), "hooked on the fossil resource needle", the situation will not change. Who earns from it? The Arab states, Russia, the USA, Venezuela, Norway, a few others. The fight is a primitive one. What we are trying to say is one thing – if we are truly, truly fighting climate change and want to mitigate it by limiting human impact, the first thing to do is to stop bringing carbon up from the depths of the earth. That means reducing the incomes of the countries mentioned above. We have to come with the positive story – timber. In my view, if from time to time we hear people pontificating that the forest must not be touched, because..., while at the same time we go on pumping oil and gas out of the depths of the earth and digging coal, one has to ask whether such a view of climate issues is sensible.

How, and does, current geopolitics affect the OECD?

Very much so! For instance, the current US presidential administration has changed its view on the question of climate change, and its present outlook on it is fundamentally different from the course of the Joe Biden administration. Does the OECD need to get into the topic of climate change? The Americans take the view that it does not. For people who carry on down that road out of inertia, this creates problems. If matters are pursued as before, a whole series of documents cannot be agreed. Of course, the day after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the OECD announced its firm position against the war and the aggression. The change of leadership in the USA has tipped the scales towards the economy and away from climate change, and has also pushed gender equality and similar questions into the background.

Since February 2022 and the start of the big war, one occasionally hears harsh assessments from colleagues in the sector both of a weak and cowardly UN and of various international organisations, such as the International Olympic Committee and so on. How should we assess Latvia's place in international organisations and the scope to influence anything there? Here at home the news often carries excitement about someone taking up a "fine post" in UN institutions, or an international court, or somewhere else. Yes, Latvia has a representative there, they receive a good salary, they have a nice business card, and... silence. Should we know more, should our people be given a mandate for sharper and more productive reaction or work? Is a good post a benefit only to the person holding it?

Simply being in the post – that is not worth much. But one must not forget how posts relate to the flow of information. For example, comparing us with Ireland, I judge that the Irish have got themselves involved (infiltrated) very successfully and on a large scale in a great many organisations and are able to obtain information better and in greater quantity than Latvia is.

You mentioned that you cooperate closely with colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture in Riga; people in the sector hear about you, you are not a stranger, yet there are quite a few cases in other sectors where potential cooperation stalls.

I am part of the Ministry of Agriculture team. I see efforts being made to ensure that information flows successfully. For example, once a year at the OECD delegation in Paris we organise a get-together for Latvians working in the OECD secretariat. There is a point to that. If contacts are formed, they continue. What happens next depends on the courage of the person concerned and on the rules.

There are certainly areas in which the work could be improved. You can criticise the UN, where almost everyone is active, including the Russians. We thoroughly dislike Putin's regime, including the things it does, but they are in the UN and in leading positions. Shaming them at an official level in the UN is virtually impossible, whereas it can be done at the OECD, where there are no Russians. Looking at it from a diplomatic point of view, talking is always better. At present, for a large part of the world, talking to the Russians is very difficult or impossible, which is clear and understandable.

About recommendations. One often hears: the OECD asks Latvia for data, the ministry concerned looks in its own drawers or asks NGOs, the information is collated and sent to the organisation. Some time later the OECD, having analysed the information, sends recommendations, having never been here itself and basing itself on local data that are not always correct. Is that how it is?

It is not that bad!

If we talk about biological diversity and its advocates in Latvia, who have spent years building their public image, there is a good example. Arvīds Ozols did not, admittedly, manage to challenge the message that the OECD published in its report, stating that biodiversity in the forests is in a poor state. Nobody had the time or the desire to look closely into the situation and the data that were used. Arvīds asked where the information had been obtained. "They had apparently bought a little book in which it was written." That was all. It is not a good example. What are we Latvians to do? Knowing how such an assessment came about, we do not take that advice into account and we pay it no attention.

An unexpected answer!

Other recommendations we will presumably view differently, because there may be confidence that they were produced by going into the detail and analysing all the available information. OECD recommendations are never binding; if they are taken into account, they must be implemented sensibly.

A fairly well-known story is the one about the governance of state-owned companies: almost everywhere there are supervisory boards, people say that this is an OECD recommendation. That is a legend that is still doing the rounds! Latvijas valsts meži has a supervisory board too. When political power changes, the composition of the board changes, the number of members changes, the criteria change, the selection rules change and so on. This is where it is appropriate to ask – to what extent is the board a political one, to what extent is it a board of experts, and how do you achieve the right balance?

I would suggest that in Latvia we have levelled politics down too far as a process. A person goes into politics to realise their aims and plans. The state has common interests, and there is no way of pursuing those without politics. "Who in Latvia needs the forest?" is a normal political debate. There is a good comparison here – Germany, which some time ago gave up nuclear power stations. Personally I take the view that Russia had a part and an influence in that, and it was certainly to Russia's advantage (energy dependence). Another example – Armenia buys grain only from Russia. Latvia's forests – who might have an interest in them not being used?

How do you measure public opinion when assessing political forces? Voters' mood is unfortunately determined for the most part by the cities. A major task for the forest sector too is to demonstrate and show tirelessly what, in the sector's view, needs to be done and what is needed. I would stress that this has to be the view of the majority of the sector. I am convinced that it needs to be decided once and for all – if the sector operates guided by economic aims, then so be it! Nature lovers, too, are always invited to remember that biodiversity has always existed and will always exist in a managed forest. Which species do we want to see there? Homo sapiens has always intervened in nature. We do not always let a tree grow as it wishes; we tend and shape the stand guided by particular purposes. If we have decided that in Latvia we will manage 70% of forests and protect 30% – then let that be laid down, full stop.

It is not acceptable that from time to time some expert "wakes up" and, driven by financial interests, because they are paid for it, dashes off to my property without my knowledge and finds something there. This is not about that person's qualifications, but – if they take the position that "a significant value belonging to Latvia's 1.9 million inhabitants has been found, and you, forest owner, step aside..." Who is prepared to pay for that? It is worth recalling here the forest owners' protest outside the Cabinet of Ministers at 36 Brīvības iela, because they had had enough for once. They were fed up with the fact that, in free-thinker style, we allow a nature advocate to insult, without justification, a person who has tended, grown, watched over and maintained a forest, and now along comes someone who says, "your purpose and your work are not important..." That is robbery! We are a more civilised and more democratic society, one in which there is room for sensible action, not crude racketeering.

* The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD