Opinion piece: Will we continue to sit on the resource needle of Russia and China?!

Association "Farmers' Assembly"

Vice-Chairperson of the Board

Maira Dzelzkalėjas-Burmistres

opinion piece

It is the evening of July 12, 2023, and I receive an email from the head of a Polish farmers' organization. The same Poles whose eternal greed and trade we mock, criticize, and then eat their vegetables with mouths full, washed down with Polish milk and yogurt from LIDL. "Colleagues, thank you for your work, and be sure to pass on your thanks to the members of the European Parliament in your countries. Although part of this utopian fantasy will continue its progress in the corridors of Brussels, with the amendments we have finally forced the European Commission to take us into account. Now the European Commission will have to work on solutions in agriculture that are logical and can be implemented in reality, not those that just sound pretty." This is about the European Parliament's vote on the Nature Restoration Act. Unfortunately, we could only express our gratitude to three Latvian MEPs who were willing to delve deeper into what is actually hidden under the beautiful facade of this proposed regulation – Sandra Kalniete, Dace Melbārde and Roberts Zīles. The remaining 5 Latvian MEPs voted “FOR” the approval of the EP’s position. Perhaps someone liked the idea of a European Union that would no longer be self-sufficient and would sit on the food and resource needle of its large eastern neighbor. Perhaps someone simply did not understand what was being voted on and adhered to the opinion of their political group. Perhaps someone simply thought that it would look “nicer” in public, but all of this is just speculation at the moment.

What kind of law is that?

The Nature Restoration Act is a proposal for a regulation that the European Commission, led by Vice-President Frans Timmermans, presented in the middle of last year. Its rationale is even more noble than the document's title – let's increase biodiversity, let's let nature protect us from floods, let's let it pollinate our plants, clean our water, and strengthen the strategic autonomy of the European Union.[1] You have to be completely crazy not to support something like this! Moreover, the strategy description states that 81% of EU habitats are in poor condition, every €1 invested in the nature restoration law will bring back €8-38 (!!!). Although there are no estimates available for the huge investments that will have to be made, overall this proposal for a regulation sounds too good not to move forward.

Why such resistance?

Immediately after the publication of the European Commission's proposal, sharp words were directed at the developers of the regulation by European farmers, foresters, fishermen, landowners' organizations, etc. What is the basis for the criticism? First, because of the form of cooperation, and secondly because of the content of the document. Moreover, the land is no longer being produced, so in order to create bogs, habitats, and other natural islands, they will have to be created on land owned by someone. And in the end – who will pay for it?

How was the regulation promoted?

The Nature Restoration Law (Regulation) was promoted in a peculiar, but not unique, way. The previous regulatory acts developed by Frans Timmermans have been promoted in exactly the same way. Initially, in collaboration with environmental organizations, a campaign lasting a couple of months on a certain topic is organized. Draft regulatory acts are leaked to the press, the media space is “stirred up” until finally the initiative is officially presented. The form is quite similar to the one used by fraudsters to promote their schemes. First, a sense of urgency and anxiety is created. Fraudsters usually present it as a unique opportunity to make an easy profit, but you have to hurry, because the gates of opportunity are already closing. Analogously, in the context of the Nature Restoration Regulation, urgency and anxiety are created with such expressions as “climate catastrophe”, “ecosystem collapse”, “the last 5 harvests” or “the last 3 years to change anything”. Secondly, a vague solution – scammers usually use complex terms, incomprehensible calculations, and good oratorical skills to explain the mechanism of how big money will be earned. Similarly, with beautiful presentations and by defining broad goals, a solution for nature restoration is provided. However, it is not based on solid calculations, fundamental research, and assessment of environmental and economic impacts. at the level of each Member State and the whole of Europe.

Of course, since the EC requires that all parties be involved in the development of regulations, somewhere in the middle a working group with farmers and foresters is convened, some argue, some give in, but the meetings end with a formal "very valuable to meet with you, we will definitely do it again", and the regulations are pushed further.

Problems with the content of the regulation

Rubbing the regulation's beautiful packaging a little, one has to conclude that its content is a real mess. By expanding protected areas, flooding part of the organic soil, not expanding cities at the expense of parks, and demolishing dams in rivers, nature will be restored and climate change will be mitigated. Moreover, all objections that this will negatively affect energy, food security, and other areas are perceived as poor alarmism, because according to the authors of the regulation, all parties involved will only benefit from the regulation. The problem is that an impact assessment that would truly confirm this has not been carried out, and society must rely only on "trust me, dude!" from the European Commission. It is only logical that landowners are in mild terror, because some "city green" (the one currently in power) has single-handedly decided on the future of the properties built over generations.

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY IS NOT ALWAYS CLIMATE FRIENDLY

The authors of the regulation deliberately do not distinguish between the environment and the climate, because how can something that is good for the environment not be good for the climate? But it can be, and it is quite realistic! There is no doubt that all the actions proposed by the regulation will be good for the environment – in forest habitats, as old trees form, which over time would fall and decompose, fantastic homes would be created for various insects, fungi, animals and microorganisms. By demolishing dams, species that have not been able to overcome them for years would return to the rivers. There is no doubt that by eliminating the drainage systems in organic soils, they would slowly turn into swamps with their characteristic flora and fauna. But will this reduce global warming? Maybe a tree that is at the end of its life is worth building houses and furniture from it, which will help store the carbon bound in the wood for at least a hundred years? Maybe organic soils should not be transformed into wetlands, which emit huge amounts of methane[2], but instead, crops should be grown there that capture 30-70% of carbon from the atmosphere from their biomass. They are eaten and the residues are incorporated into the soil, thus ensuring the natural cycle of carbon in nature.

Another important factor that policymakers ignore is the small but very expensive impact we can have on the climate. The world currently emits approximately 46,120,921.47 kilotonnes of GHG emissions in CO2 equivalent.[3]If Latvia were an absolute frontrunner, and with various strategies and decisions completely stopped all emissions (both anthropogenic and natural), the world would still emit 99.975% of today's emissions.[4]Some might say we are not thinking big enough, but even if the entire European Union stopped all emissions, both natural and man-made, the world would still emit 93.24% of today's GHG emissions.[5].

Price of security

The purpose of the presentation is not to create a sense of powerlessness and to say that all actions are pointless. Climate change is real, and human activity is contributing to it. However, it is important to discuss what we are willing to give up in order to reduce our impact on climate change. Are we willing to reduce our food or biomass production in Latvia in order to have a microscopic positive impact on GHG emissions? After all, the Earth is round, and even if we completely stop all natural resource extraction in Latvia, we will still need a warm room and food on the table. If it is produced outside the European Union, won't it have an impact on climate change? The impact will be even greater because fewer resources will be extracted. would monitor regions and their transportation will require additional resources. Seeing how Russian food products and fertilizers are excluded from sanctions, and billions are allocated to poor countries to prevent the threat of famine, are we ready to change from being helpers to being those who need help? Politicians must take responsibility and work not only at the level of beautiful slogans, but at the level of deep analysis, scientific models, and practically implementable measures.

Climate-neutral, environmentally friendly production

Environmentally friendly and at the same time climate-neutral production can be observed right where unicorn pastures can be seen – in fantasies. Any fish caught in a river, a bundle of firewood, a potato buried in the ground, a solar panel is an intervention in the natural processes of the earth. However, since there are many people on the planet, and there will only be more, we unfortunately have to intervene in the processes of the earth on a massive scale. This has a huge impact. What we really need is investments in true innovations in order to be able to produce the resources necessary for human life. Innovation is not a ban on resource extraction and a return to the old cart. Flooding the land or creating grasslands in grain fields will not save the environment or the climate. Moreover, in Latvia we are already unable to cope with the existing grasslands, as more than 200,000 hectares of grasslands are neither grazed nor used for animal feed. There are fewer and fewer herbivores every year. Mowing and leaving grass on the sidelines creates pointless emissions. The world doesn't need restrictions, the world needs smart innovations.

Latvian homework

Whatever the final outcome of the Nature Restoration Regulation, as difficult compromises are still ahead in the trialogue negotiations between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council, it is important to learn from mistakes. It is absolutely clear that we are catastrophically lacking scientific research on which to base pragmatic decisions that protect Latvia's interests. This is neither the first nor the last case when we vote in Brussels looking left and right, rather than standing firmly on our own feet! Unfortunately, until our leaders understand that investments in science and research are necessary not so that scientists do not starve, but so that the "economic breakthrough" written in all visions and plans, "achieving the average European standard of living", etc., etc., is possible, there will be more such and similar regulations that threaten our existence.

[1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en

[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/exceptional-surge-in-methane-emissions-from-wetlands-worries-scientists/

[3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE

[4] Mathematical calculation based on Latvia's GHG emissions calculated by the World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=LV

[5] Mathematical calculation based on EU GHG emissions estimated by the World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=EU