zemeunvalsts.lv note. In brief discussions regarding the legislative amendments mentioned in the article, a representative of zemeunvalsts.lv noticed two very significant, overlooked flaws. The first is the standard excuse citing requirements from European Union institutions, which for unknown reasons allows Latvian decision-makers to be careless, complacent, thoughtless, and superficial (quoting: an infringement procedure has been initiated against Latvia because the requirements of an EU directive have not been met. Adopting the amendments means this procedure will be terminated). The second, again quoting: if intent is established, a person is held liable; absence of intent excludes liability. Given the frequently heard disputes in the public sphere regarding different translations of various legal acts (situations, opinions, positions, etc.), are those responsible for the unconditional adoption of these specific amendments 100% certain that, for instance, the intention to plough a field, start a harvest, tend a forest, or put cows out to pasture is interpreted adequately by absolutely everyone?
For the most serious crimes against the environment, one will have to serve 8–10 or even 12 years in prison; at the same time, time will tell how this standard is applied in practice; the initial concerns of landowners regarding risks, even when working with all necessary permits, have been reduced but not completely eliminated.
The Saeima has approved amendments to the Criminal Law in the final reading, which were accompanied by loud protests from both landowners and environmental organizations during the discussion process.
“Noble goals”…
The purpose of the Criminal Law amendments is to strengthen the criminal-legal protection of the environment by setting stricter penalties for serious environmental crimes, while simultaneously clarifying the conditions for applying criminal liability in environmental crime cases. The adopted amendments establish criminal liability for serious violations against the environment, including pollution, illegal activities with hazardous substances, unlawful marine pollution, violations of waste management regulations, and other offenses that cause significant damage to the environment.
“Criminal liability has also been established for the intentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species, for activities conducted without a legally required environmental impact assessment, for the destruction of specially protected species and their habitats, as well as for the illegal placing on the market of certain agricultural and forestry products in significant quantities,” the Saeima information indicates.
For the most serious environmental crimes, the amendments set prison sentences of up to eight, ten, or in certain cases even twelve years. Such penalties will be applied if irreversible damage is caused to the environment, protected ecosystems are destroyed, or other severe consequences occur. At the same time, specific cases that will exempt individuals from criminal liability have been clarified, so that it is not applied to persons who have complied with regulatory requirements and have not intentionally caused damage to specially protected species or their habitats, or to persons who are controlling the spread of invasive alien species. Stricter penalties will also apply to several environmental crimes, including violations of waste management rules, atmospheric and marine pollution, forest arson, and the concealment of data regarding environmental pollution. The Saeima also approved related amendments to the Law on the Entry into Force and Application of the Criminal Law, which clarify the criteria for assessing environmental damage, the Saeima information notes. The amendments were developed to align Latvian regulations with the 2024 European Parliament and Council Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, strengthening the fight against serious crimes against the environment throughout the European Union.
A compromise of a compromise
“A compromise of a compromise,” is how Guntis Gūtmanis, Chairman of the Board of the Farmers Parliament (LOSP), evaluates the amendments. He points out that the discussion of these amendments began with loud shouting—namely, environmental organizations insisted that a business permit was becoming an opportunity to ignore nature protection laws and was exempting people from criminal liability for causing significant harm to specially protected species and habitats, whereas landowners—farmers and foresters—pointed out that carrying out permitted business activities could carry the risk of a criminal process being initiated against them.
“As a result, the talks led to a peculiar compromise of a compromise, although all sides can find questions for as long as they wish,” G. Gūtmanis explains. He does not hide his surprise at the penalty levels set in the EU directive—how much, for whom, for what—the essence is missing.
“It is one situation if some strange individual intentionally dumps a load into a river or lake, and another when something ends up in the water in the case of an accident, or even more so—if a forest owner, while entering the forest, steps on a mushroom that is the only one of its kind in all of Latvia or Europe,” G. Gūtmanis analyses, noting that the debates in the Saeima Legal Affairs Committee dispelled fears about the risk of penalties for unintentional, minor damage.
Humans in last place
“After the adoption of the Criminal Law amendments in the Saeima, questions arise about the value system in the European Union and in Latvia, and whether a human being is a value, and what the decision-makers value higher in this system. The amendments raise questions, as they provide for a prison sentence of up to eight years for damaging, acquiring, holding, selling, or destroying specially protected plants, fungi, or lichens, while the unchanged rule in the law for the murder of a human being provides for a prison sentence starting from five years, which could mean that a smaller prison sentence might be imposed for the murder of a human than for damaging a lichen,” is how Arnis Muižnieks, Chairman of the Board of the Forest Owners Association of Latvia, assesses the situation.
The risk of economic activity has increased
“Time will show how the relevant Criminal Law norms will work in practice; during the discussion of these amendments, very many questions arose to which, unfortunately, the majority of the outgoing Saeima has not provided answers—namely, what is Latvia’s greatest value: the people living here, or something else, for example, a plant, bird, animal, or insect no longer found in Western Europe? If a human is in first place, it seems that a penalty of 8–12 years in prison for destroying a biologically valuable specimen, without even knowing of its existence in one’s forest or field, is disproportionate; it can only be proportionate if it is done intentionally,” is how Rolands Feldmanis, Chairman of the Board of the Association of Latvian Agricultural Cooperatives, assesses the overall situation. He emphasizes that the current structure of the amendments is essentially loaded with high risks for those conducting business activities.
“The root of the problem is interpretation and application in practice, as in the future this could be turned into an instrument not only to harm a person conducting business activities or using their private property but also to paralyze the business activities of companies and gain an opportunity to receive profit for environmental consultations,” R. Feldmanis explains. In his opinion, to reduce the risk of going to prison for several years, landowners will now have to hire experts and pay their requested fees, simultaneously reducing their already damaged competitiveness against neighbors in Lithuania or Poland.
“It would be interesting to know if exactly the same norms, penalty risks, and punishments also apply to landowners in our competitor countries, as the authors of the legislative amendments refer to the EU Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law,” R. Feldmanis asks with interest. In his view, no sensible landowner intentionally plans to eradicate natural values, but if some madman does such a thing, that alone should not mean the rest must be subjected to huge risks.
“‘Knew,’ ‘should have known,’ or ‘did not know’ are concepts that anyone can argue about until the moment a court decides,” R. Feldmanis emphasizes. In his opinion, in such a situation, the biggest winners could be large foreign companies, for whom these Criminal Law penalty risks could help in acquiring the most valuable asset—land—from local farmers; furthermore, foreigners will be able to hire the best experts in legal technique to prove their point.
“The majority of local capital landowners do not have that kind of capacity,” R. Feldmanis answers the question about why these changes create advantages for foreign capital, reminding us that a rich—well-off—owner can do as they please, but the poor one—does as they manage, and in the result, they may lose absolutely everything, which effectively only means packing one’s bags.
“Looking at the proposed changes in the Civil Law and the Criminal Law specifically regarding nature, animals, and plants, one gets the feeling that there are no other problems here in Latvia, although perhaps it would be time to not only grant this category rights but also determine criminal liability for damage caused. At one time, there were court cases against mice and rats that had eaten food grains. There would be work for those who would initiate, supervise, investigate, and ensure the hearing of the relevant cases,” R. Feldmanis ironically says harshly, adding that it would be much more sensible for the parliament and the judicial system to deal with solving real, not self-invented, problems.
“And in general, what is the name of that Prime Minister, as well as those Ministers of Justice and Foreign Affairs who at one time agreed that such a directive should be adopted in the European Union at all, if in Latvia it is essentially applicable only to technogenic catastrophes or the actions of truly insane people, not to everyday business activity in an authorized place?” R. Feldmanis is critical.