Opinion Piece / Ilona Bērziņa
The newly appointed Minister of Transport, Atis Švinka (P), has promised a “truth hour” for the long-time airBaltic chief, Mārtiņš Gauss. A similar “hour” is more than necessary for the leadership of Rail Baltica, including an evaluation of the actions of Švinka’s party colleague, Kaspars Briškens. The fact that Latvia has lost 17.2 million euros in European Union funding due to delays in the Rail Baltica project planning is not a trivial matter that can simply be ignored or dismissed.
Rail Baltica is one of the largest infrastructure projects in the Baltic region, yet Latvia has repeatedly demonstrated that meeting deadlines is not a priority. The delays are systemic and recurring year after year, while politicians and responsible officials continue making excuses and looking for scapegoats. While large infrastructure projects elsewhere in Europe progress, Latvia continues to stall, missing opportunities and losing money.
Currently, Latvia is using the allocated European Union Recovery Fund financing at such a sluggish pace, as if utilizing these funds were not necessary for the country’s own productivity and competitiveness, but rather for some mysterious official in the European Commission.
Four years ago, truly good news was received—1.8 billion euros was allocated to us from the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility. In other words, roll up your sleeves and build your Rail Baltica, the necessary hospital buildings, and many other beneficial projects. However, all of this has been placed under the vague and nebulous concept of “absorbing EU funds.” Maybe for local and European bureaucrats, this term is dear to their hearts and perfectly understandable, but to me, it evokes the word “squandering”—hiring various bureaucrats and spending money on things that are not really needed.
In nearly four years, only 0.8 billion euros has been utilized—less than half. The question is, will we be able to wisely invest the remaining 1.1 billion euros in our economy by next August, or will it go up in smoke?
At present, we are facing delays in the development of railway line projects, dramatic delays in land acquisition for Rail Baltica, an unfinished A2 building of Stradiņš Hospital, uncertainty surrounding the construction of the Gaiļezers Infectious Diseases Hospital block (where the lowest construction bid exceeds the available funding), hospitals missing 40 million euros, and the near-bankrupt Ventspils port and state-owned Latvian Railways. Does all this indicate the government’s ability to manage finances or at least oversee those responsible? Certainly not.
That is why I initially mentioned Atis Švinka and his promised “truth hour” for Gauss—there is a small hope that the new transport minister will be able to bring some order to his area of responsibility. Excluding the hospital issues, the railway, Rail Baltica, airBaltic, the excessively prolonged port reform, and the dire situation of Ventspils port all fall under his jurisdiction.
Where does this hope come from? Let me explain.
Atis Švinka owns shares in four commercial enterprises, so business is not foreign to him. If we sum up the total value of Švinka’s owned shares, his cash savings, dividends, and a loan worth over half a million euros, we can safely place him on the millionaire list. That means he belongs to the group of people who understand that money doesn’t grow on trees but must be earned. His colleague and predecessor from the Progressives cannot boast such experience, which may explain why he struggled with managing large projects.
Regardless, Švinka must ensure that the Rail Baltica project at least materializes at the level of its core route and is stripped of unnecessary extras—such as the underground baggage transport tunnel at Riga railway station or the infamous pile in the Daugava River. If we continue implementing this project as we have so far—with “greedy hands” and delaying everything possible—there is a real risk of pushing the country toward bankruptcy.
Right now, it looks like this: the Latvian government continues to complain about the lack of Rail Baltica funding while simultaneously increasing its own financial burden due to missed deadlines, resulting in lost EU funds.
However, incompetence and missed deadlines are not just random bureaucratic issues—they directly impact the national economy and citizens.
Another issue that could soon escalate into a catastrophic problem is the state-owned Latvian Railways. Railway tracks are critical state infrastructure that must be maintained in proper condition, whether we like it or not.
Now, some figures. Last year, 11.08 million tons of cargo were transported by rail, a 28.2% decrease (4.351 million tons less) compared to the previous year. In 2022, 21.5 million tons were transported, while in 2019, this figure stood at 41.5 million tons. The once-prosperous railway sector has been overtaken by road transport, which carried just over 78 million tons of cargo last year. However, even in this sector, a 3.1% decline has been observed.
What can be done to keep rail transport alive? With the current management approach, its survival depends entirely on state budget subsidies—which means that all of us collectively fund its existence.
The next unfortunate case is Ventspils port, which is currently experiencing the worst possible combination of problems—financial difficulties, significant loans, and an inflexible, bureaucratic approach to resolving business-critical issues. Local entrepreneurs operating in the port have repeatedly sounded the alarm, but the previous minister was apparently too busy to listen.
Why mention the concerns of port businesses here? It’s simple. In Ventspils port, money does not grow on trees or docks. Someone has to attract cargo, load it, unload it, store it, and transport it further. Meanwhile, officials at various levels continue to “hinder” entrepreneurs, only to later be surprised—why is productivity not as high as expected? Why are investors hesitating and looking toward neighboring countries? Why is the state short of money?
I hate to break it to you, but with such an approach, the situation will not improve.