Latvian Parliament Rushes Amendments to Environmental Impact Assessment Law; Critics Warn of Reduced Public Participation

This week, the Latvian parliament (Saeima) is expected to vote on amendments to the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment. While seemingly technical, the changes fundamentally alter how major industrial projects, particularly wind energy developments, are approved in Latvia.

According to Roberts Tenass, the amendments are being pushed through in an urgent procedure, despite lawmakers themselves lacking full clarity on the practical application and consequences of certain provisions. A key concern is that approximately 80% of Latvia's territory could see wind turbine projects proceed without a full environmental impact assessment (EIA), provided they are located outside explicitly listed protected areas.

Tenass cites two examples. The "STELPE 2" wind park in Bauska municipality initially underwent a full EIA; however, the developer halted the process, applied for an initial assessment, and within six months received technical regulations for four turbines, subsequently obtaining a building permit. Plans involve gradually adding more turbines, bypassing a comprehensive review. The "RIEBIŅI" project by Latvenergo in Preiļi municipality was granted an initial assessment despite numerous homesteads, villages, and 14 lesser spotted eagle nests within a three-kilometer radius. The resulting technical regulations mandate significant operational restrictions, including shutdowns during 70% of summer nights and for one to two months during spring bird migration.

Tenass emphasizes that a full EIA is not an obstacle to development but a tool for informed decision-making. The proposed amendments would allow more projects to use a simplified procedure with reduced research scope and limited public engagement. Furthermore, the role of local governments would be diminished: the initial assessment exception does not involve municipal or citizen input; the municipality first sees the project when the developer arrives at the building authority with technical regulations in hand.

The legislative preparation process itself has drawn criticism. Some stakeholders were not invited to working groups, civil organizations were not fully engaged, and several key issues are being advanced without broad discussion. Tenass argues that in a democratic state, the process matters as much as the outcome. If amendments with unassessed consequences are passed in haste today, this approach could set a precedent for other sectors.