Will the state be punished for not observing the obligations of directives?

The present Latvian Rural Development Programme Project 2007 – 2013 is not able to secure the fulfilment of Latvia’s obligations in the field of the preservation of natural diversity. This will create a situation in which appropriate sanctions for the non-accomplishment with the obligations of the directives can be seized against the state.

Will the state be punished for not observing the obligations of directives?

Addressed to the State President of the Republic of Latvia, Mrs. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, and to the Minister President of the Republic of Latvia, Mr. Aigars Kalvītis. Copies: to the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Latvia, Mr. Raimonds Vējonis, to the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, Mr. Mārtiņš Roze, as well as to the media.

Dear Mrs. V. Vīķe-Freiberga!

Dear Mr. Aigars Kalvītis! 

We turn to you, representing the opinion of four environmental and nature conservation non-governmental organisations – Latvian Fund for Nature, Latvian Ornithological Society, Latvian Botanical Society and Latvian Entomological Society – about the Latvian Rural Development Programme Project 2007 – 2013 (in the following: RDP), which was worked out by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Due to joining the European Union the Latvian Republic has taken the obligation to preserve rare and endangered species and habitats (envisaged by the European Union’s Species’ and Habitats’ as well as the Birds’ Directive 79/409/EEK and 92/43/EEK) not only in specially protected nature territories, but also in all state territory.

In the European Union in the time between 2007 and 2013 it is foreseen to use resources of the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development as main financial mechanism for the fulfilment of the obligations of the mentioned directives, including the management of Natura 2000 sites. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy also envisages this.

The present RDP project is not able to secure the fulfilment of Latvia’s obligations in the field of the preservation of natural diversity. This will create a situation in which appropriate sanctions for the non-accomplishment with the obligations of the directives can be seized against the state. We have repeatedly informed the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture about this during RDP’s elaboration process and we also made proposals how to avert this menace. Unfortunately the biggest part of the measures planned in RDP’s chapter on agro-environment is ineffective or not primarily necessary for the preservation of biological diversity. Moreover the restoration of agricultural lands that are important for natural diversity and landscape is not supported.

The plan also envisages measures that cause a significant diminishment of biological diversity. It is obvious, that, planning RDP’s measures co-ordinately, it would be possible to avert the menace of the diminishment of biological diversity in rural areas.

Against the perception found in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy the new RDP encourages intensive agricultural production, but little attention is drawn to the diversification of agricultural activities. Almost completely neglected is the conservation of biologically valuable acreages. The preservation of natural values is not only important under the premise to maintain the ecological quality of the environment. Nature territories also serve as basis for the education of the society as well as for recreation: they are important resources for ecotourism and environmental education.

The measure “Conservation of Biological Diversity in Grasslands” (CBDG) is the only measure of the Rural Development Programme whose direct aim it is to preserve natural diversity and open rural landscapes also outside specially protected nature territories. Unfortunately in 2007 the beginning of new CBDG management obligations was postponed. This inconsequence as well as the planned subsidies for farmers to reduce the area of farmland will lead only to further abandonment of arable lands, degradation of traditional rural landscapes and diminishment of biological diversity. They will also maintain the attitude in society that is directed against nature conservation.

In this time, in which all over the country is fought against fires of grass which was not harvested last year, we would like to inform that the payment policy which is implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, in combination with distinct additional regulations limiting the circle of recipients of subsidies, does not encourage the abatement of this problem’s reasons. Big areas of arable land remain unused, which further increases the danger of fires, the losses caused by fires and the need of additional resources to extinguish these fires.

Taking into account the mentioned shortcomings of the RDP project as well as its environmental impact assessment which was performed only superficially1, the Latvian Fund for Nature, the Latvian Ornithological Society, the Latvian Botanical Society and the Latvian Entomological Society ask to review the measures included in the RDP and to evaluate their impact onto the natural diversity in Latvia.

Dear State President, dear Minster President, we kindly ask you to turn to the ministers of the concerned resorts and demand them of their responsibility, as well as to explain to the society the planned further actions to solve the mentioned cases.

Latvian Fund for Nature, Latvian Ornithological Society, Latvian Botanical Society and Latvian Entomological Society

(1) The strategic environmental impact assessment of the RDP project was carried out in its elaboration time, when in several chapters important information was missing.