An interview with Daiga Vilkaste, Director of the Nature Protection Department at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development
As an individual, a citizen of Latvia, and an official, do you find the media’s coverage of the conflicts between nature conservation and the economy accurate and understandable?
To a certain extent, it depends on each individual—how interested they are, their willingness to find and seek out information, what they want to know, and their personal experience in searching for it. For example, even for me, knowing that certain information should be on a particular website, it isn't always possible to find it. Of course, we must not forget that part of the public will not look for anything and will instead use the information that is most easily accessible—whether it be the internet portals they read most often or a loud news headline on radio or television.
How does one verify loud slogans regarding serious issues? Often, a loud phrase and the actual event or process differ significantly.
That happens! Sometimes participants in discussions or disputes use loud slogans because they attract attention. This behavior can be seen everywhere. Whether it is always justified is another question. The more information available, the more educated the listener, and the better they can understand where the real news and events are, and where it is just noise. I am often asked in various audiences, “Who can we believe?” Everyone must analyze and decide for themselves! This applies not only to nature conservation; we can judge banks, health, waste management, etc., in a similar way.
I doubt a person will be prepared to become a hunter, start studies at the Faculty of Forestry, or read European and local regulations just to understand…
There are people who do act this way, but it happens rarely!
Step by step, year by year, bears are being encountered more frequently in Latvia. The numbers vary, but has any thought been given to these bruins?
In Estonia, there are more bears! For various reasons, the number of bears in Latvia is increasing; they are arriving from Russia and Estonia in search of new territories. Until now, bears could not be considered a serious problem—if that term is used correctly and appropriately. The first step we are taking is improving and refining the compensation system for beehives destroyed by bears. The Regulations regarding the compensation for damage caused by non-game animals are being amended. Quick changes cannot be promised because a complex coordination process with the European Commission is underway. The compensation is intended for the number of beehives destroyed according to the actual situation; namely, the compensation received is for the number of hives a bear has destroyed.
The situation, as I mentioned, has changed; we have more bears. Proportionally, it is considered that “Estonia has six hundred bears, Latvia ten times fewer, and Lithuania even fewer—five”; now, it is possibly different. The hunters' estimates of 60 bears in Latvia might be accurate because—as we see in various local videos—bear cubs are also being born in Latvia.
Habitat mapping. To what extent, in practice (in the wild), is the mapper a professional who can assess forest stands, meadows, birds, fungi, insects… Do we have many people who are equally well-versed in everything? How do the mappers view the “mapping area”?
Experts knowledgeable about different habitat groups participate in the mapping. It is not the case that one person will certainly know all habitat groups and be well-versed in them. It can happen that different experts go to one property or plot, and there can be different habitats in one area. I myself find it strange that one area is viewed by several specialists, but it happens that a mapper has a very narrow field of expertise, yet a broader view is needed overall. Of course, one person cannot cover everything! That is one reason why a large number of people are involved in mapping!
Speaking with landowners, I conclude that the desired and planned cooperation with the mappers has not taken place. Why is that? An owner needs to know what is happening in their territory!
Such cooperation was indeed planned! Before starting the mapping, owners must be informed and, if they wish, they can participate in the inspection. The owner should contact the Nature Conservation Agency and agree on the time, rules, and conditions, for example, the location. This opportunity exists; the question is how and whether people use it, and what the communication is like.
Do you agree with the strange assertion that once a property owner finds out about a protected object on their land, they will immediately cut, dig, and wreak havoc… That is, they will attempt to destroy it.
Many will certainly not do that! There may be isolated cases, as in almost any situation. A few years ago, there were events in Vecpiebalga where a nature management plan was being developed; it was widely covered, and people were suddenly and unexpectedly preparing for logging, not understanding that preparing a plan alone does not impose restrictions. Only when the Cabinet Regulations are ready do the restrictions become binding for the owner. Of course, if information circulates that nothing can be done on the property anymore, some owners think it is better to log the forest immediately rather than wait, not knowing what to expect. But, of course, I do not agree with the view that a large number of owners would be prepared to destroy anything—that does not happen!
Information about bad experiences is usually quite general—there is an owner who… It is hard to verify this; would it be appropriate here to be specific, explaining what exactly went wrong, where it happened, and what the consequences will be? Similar to poachers, where it is clear who was caught with what, and what the financial consequences will be.
When information (a complaint) about “violations or dissatisfaction with developments” reaches us, we, of course, ask: what has been done and who is the owner! It happens (and quite regularly) that a neighbor is complaining! Upon examining the situation on the spot, we often see that everything has been in accordance with laws and regulations. But the (legal) action was not liked by the neighbor! The “neighbor” may not like that they are cutting the forest, that they are building, that they are cleaning a ditch, or doing something else. Upon checking, we often conclude that there are no violations! There are especially many complaints about tree cutting in the city.
With street greening in Riga and elsewhere there are problems…
The urban environment is not quite in our scope of competence; fundamentally, one must look at why trees in cities are dying, which is the task of other services. I allow for the possibility that the salt influence is at play here, which is not even thought of regarding trees! Another thing, often paths are paved, and if we look at the connections: paving and salt cause much greater damage to a tree than the “combination” of asphalt and salt! Salt dissolves (melts) and seeps through the paving joints into the ground directly at the tree’s roots. When paving paths, this, it seems, is not thought of! Yes, salt is a known menace; we, as I already said, have not discussed this. The issue is broader; there is an option to use a gravel and salt mixture, but… how suitable is, for example, Riga’s infrastructure for this, the drainage systems, what happens to the gravel after winter—in the spring—whether it is collected or left… In one of the Vidzeme cities and on some streets in Riga last winter, there was an experiment; I saw the signs myself: “We do not salt this street”.
Returning to habitats. After the mapping ends, what happens next—a report to European structures, or…
No, we will not report the mapping results to the European Commission! There is a different format for how reporting is done; mapping data is used there, but not directly!
I see. It happens that a representative of European structures arrives in Latvia and talks about nature conservation data that actually came from Latvia! EU or EC structures do not delegate representatives themselves, but rely on local data! Is the precision and reliability of the data sufficient?
In the last report, we used the mapping data. We emotionally accept that the report was based on expert opinion; of course, it depends on who the expert is and how objectively and adequately they assess the situation.
Can an expert assess non-objectively?
They shouldn't! But in life, not everything happens as it should!
Regarding the report to the EC. Being in the forest, field, swamp, or by the river myself, I often see something different from what is stated officially. How so?
The report is prepared according to a specific methodology and specific criteria. The criteria are very strict. It can happen that what is written in the report and the state of nature differ! The question is the methodology used to assess it! Much depends on the choice of criteria. Methodology and criteria create differences!
For example, speaking about Latvia as a green country, the authors of the study had indicated the methodology they chose and justified it.
In the field of nature, if we talk about report preparation, the methodology is applicable to all countries in Europe. The degree of detail for the criteria is not so high that, for example, problems arise in assessing Germany, France, or Latvia. I see no contradictions.
The EU, in the field of nature, is divided into biogeographical regions; we are in the boreal or Northern region; usually, when comparing, we are assessed together with Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. Therefore—groups of countries with similar climate and nature characteristics are assessed similarly.
Will Latvian scientists, with their research, be able to convince European structures that “it is so” here with us?
What research, how much of it is there, how long-term it is, and how it is justified. Much depends on the available funding. We wanted to involve the Institute of Biology not long ago, commissioning research on birds. They agreed to research, but there was talk of funding immediately—if there is no money, there is no research! Research must be the basis of decisions. There is research, and based on it, decisions are created or made. That is how it should be!
Forestry professionals also monitor and do similar things.
Yes, but more data is needed! Especially for biodiversity monitoring—more data and broader monitoring are needed. It is also about the methodology.
Regarding pests. Often the saying is heard: nature will handle it itself... Will it be so?
A few weeks ago, we were on a field trip in Gauja National Park and looked at what is happening with the “attack” of the bark beetle. Of course, the problem is known and familiar, but not on such a scale as it is currently. The Forest Owners' Association, together with the others, will look for a solution on what to do. Will nature handle it itself? That is a philosophical saying: much depends on the situation, because it happens that the situation has been determined by humans (for example, planted forest), and the way nature handles it or can handle it is not always satisfactory to us. The much-mentioned balance!
Is a ban the only way of nature conservation?
A ban is definitely not the only way to protect! Almost all European countries started with strict bans at one time and finally concluded that bans do not always provide results and that other solutions must be sought. What would be the alternative? Right now, we are talking about a voluntary commitment to protect, which will definitely have to be looked at in the context of the lesser spotted eagle and compensation. In the development of the lesser spotted eagle species protection plan, there was talk of reaching an agreement and finding other types of solutions, not just micro-reserves! How that will succeed and whether the developers of the plan will reach that point is another question.
So, would it be time in Latvia not only to ban but also to cooperate?
Yes, definitely! Landowners are ready for this; a mechanism must be found for how this could work and ensure it does not create an unnecessary administrative burden for state institutions.
Data and precision, how to update them…
Data is in the “Ozols” database, where the current information should be. The second question—data needs to be updated all the time. What happens next? Regarding nests. It is not always that the owner will notice, and not always will they call an expert and pay to verify the species. Is data always needed for a specific nest?
Rivers and protection zones. Landscapes by the river have changed.
The discussions were long and broad. They will certainly continue. River protection zones and logging are practically an unanswerable question. What was achieved in previous discussions? They allowed cutting the grey alder, but—another question—how usable and “interesting” it is to the forest owner. Currently, the regulations are as they have “turned out” as a result of broad discussions. The opinions are opposite regarding shading, increased nutrient amounts, and cleaning. Fishermen, for example, believe that by exposing a shaded spot, the river could dry up.
In Latvia, with its many swamps, the water regime is being restored in drained swamps, spending a lot of money on it. Is there any basis for this if there is no shortage of swamps?
That is also a question of long discussions. On one hand, swamps are European priority habitats. There have been many LIFE projects in Latvia; swamp restoration has proceeded successfully, but one must look at what territories it happens in and how it is organized. If the territory is protected and the swamp is degraded, restoration would be necessary. Elsewhere, perhaps not. Here, the opinion of swamp experts must definitely be heard. Coordination with the local municipality is definitely necessary, because at one time it happened that in the process of project development, there was suddenly huge resistance from the local authority, which had not been informed about the preparations.