(Article written in 2005, published on 25 December. Still relevant 16 years later.)

The Cabinet of Ministers has significantly expanded the list of protected habitat types this year. According to unofficial estimates, the majority of Latvia's territory can now be designated as protected. Consequently, representatives of the environmental sector have gained an exclusive tool for blackmailing or thwarting any economic initiative.

In reality, there are no areas in Latvia that would not contain habitats according to the newly approved list, and in practice, this means that environmental experts can, for the purpose of earning money, identify and study micro-reserves anywhere—in forests, by the sea, or in bogs. A combination of protected environmental conditions can be found anywhere. This is an unofficial version, which is confirmed by several sources in local governments and the environmental sector.

Meanwhile, official figures cannot be obtained because they simply do not exist.

All of Latvia is a habitat

The Ministry of Environment only holds estimates regarding protected areas—those reserves already established. The Nature Conservation Agency informs that, depending on various interpretations, this figure ranges from 11.9 to 17% of Latvia's total territory. The first figure appears in reports submitted to the European Commission, the second in Latvia's internal statistics. In professional circles, the term 'covert nature conservation' has become common, rendering these calculations formal, as the expanded list of habitat types allows for the creation of new reserves wherever necessary or beneficial to someone. Biologist Otars Opermanis led the preparation of Latvian legislation for the requirements of the European Habitats Directive until 2000. When asked if habitats do not now cover all of Latvia, he says: 'We are talking about a very significant part of Latvia.'

Jolanta Bāra, Head of the Species and Habitats Division at the Nature Conservation Agency, explains that both Latvian and international experts are concerned about whether this supposedly large protected area is truly capable of functionally ensuring the survival of rare species and habitats. 'Perhaps that is why there is a desire to protect everything possible, and sometimes conflicts arise with development planning,' the specialist admits.

A new wave of conflict is expected

It is highly likely that conflicts between environmental experts and local governments will flare up with renewed intensity in December, as the European Commission will again ask Latvia to expand its protected areas. For example, Latvia has committed to protecting the 'wooded coastal dunes' habitat, which has been included in the amended Cabinet of Ministers regulations. Practically all coastal municipal territories meet this description; however, the State Forest Service informs that 'at the moment, no micro-reserve has been established specifically for the protected wooded coastal dunes habitat.' It would only be logical if, at the Biogeographical Seminar organised by the European Commission in December—where the Baltic states' progress in preserving habitats dear to Western Europe will be assessed—Latvia received a nudge to address its shortcomings. This, in turn, will entail significant expenses, as the state will not only pay nature researchers, for instance, to develop new management plans for protected areas but will also pay compensation to landowners.

The state will buy non-existent goods

The Ministry of Environment, however, has misled the government and the public by stating in the annotation to the regulations on habitat types that the legal act will not affect the state and municipal budgets. As proof, one can cite the undertaking of entrepreneur Ivars Blaus—'on the morning of 1 January, to demand from the state an annual compensation of 120 thousand lats for lost income due to economic restrictions.' This person had received all the necessary permits to build a hydroelectric power plant on the upper reaches of the Ogre River, but after approval had been granted, the Ministry of Environment established a micro-reserve there. Now the state, which has promised to pay compensation for restrictions imposed on landowners starting next year, will have to buy four million kilowatt-hours of electricity that were never produced in reality. It is possible that the expanded list of habitat types will secure many other similar purchases. However, the Ministry of Environment and the government have no idea of their scale. Gatis Eriņš, a specialist at the Ministry's Species and Habitat Protection Department, admits that habitat mapping (determining the real coverage) has not been carried out in Latvia.

Protection percentages must be set

The approval of new habitat types most threatens the development of coastal parishes. Regarding seaside lands, there is not just a need dictated by environmental protection to restrict human activity in these areas. Biologist Elmārs Pēterhofs has also observed the existence of political motives, namely, that people are allowed in near the sea, whereas the 'bad ones' (political opponents) are let in first but then declared enemies of nature. Even though huge territories are supposedly protected, in reality, protection remains only on paper because it is convenient for 'our own people'. E. Pēterhofs admits that the solution to the problem, if politicians truly wanted to achieve it, would be very simple: 'Every parish should have a territorial plan based on research into protected natural values and recreational resources. The state must determine what percentage of the coastline can be used for recreation, and this proportion must be incorporated into a plan approved by the local community and state officials. Why percentages? Because territories that do not have habitats simply do not exist.'

Possible causes of covert nature conservation:

1) Expert level — environmental experts are interested in expanding their field of operation, securing income for themselves for research work.

2) Political level — politicians are interested in maintaining an ill-defined influence over coastal lands in order to keep exclusive access to them and, if necessary, use it to blackmail political opponents.

3) European Union level — the old member states are interested in reducing Latvia's competitiveness in the agricultural sector.

Excessively high nature conservation requirements are set for Latvia for bureaucratic reasons, with the environmental problems of the old member states being automatically attributed to Latvia as well.
Source: "Neatkarīgā" research