Nature conservation objectives in Latvia are not clearly understood; the 'overarching goal' (the big picture) is to preserve biological diversity. What this is and what it means is not truly understood. It is not clear even to me as a biologist, a topic I argued about more than once with my professors during my student years. In my opinion, if we talk about so-called 'conservation or non-intervention', we should look at a natural scenario where nature develops on its own (a situation 'nature advocates' supposedly wish to see). Looking at the situation a bit differently, human activity (and thus – disturbance) causes the landscape to change significantly, creating new opportunities for new species to arrive. Speaking of forests and so-called pioneer species – aspen, birch, grey alder – they are visibly more prevalent under disturbance conditions, while suppressing long-lived species. These species would aim for a so-called monodominant climax (climax theory has both supporters and detractors) – over a long period, species turnover tends towards a certain stability, which often ends in the dominance of one or more species. By compiling relevant criteria for each species – how long it lives, its shade tolerance, the average and maximum distance of seed dispersal, and its resistance to fire – a mathematical relationship is formed that shows which species will dominate.
Soil scientists believe that soil factors are very significant. There are many different types of soil 'manifestations' in the territory of Latvia – various granulometric compositions, etc. In principle, it is difficult for us to predict which tree species should grow in which locations. What we see at present is the result of human activity, the consequences of which we are now facing. If, in such a situation, we introduce a conservation (preservation) mechanism and say: 'Let's not intervene! Natural processes are good! Biological diversity will be preserved', it is not clear what we will achieve.
If we speak about biological diversity, it is not just tree species or the number of trees; there are other objects (mosses, insects, etc.), habitats, and also genetic diversity, etc. If non-intervention occurs, there will be species that naturally try to achieve stability, and the landscape will predictably be uniform. Today in Latvia, we see a diverse and heterogeneous landscape. It is not clear to me where biological diversity is/will be greater: I do know that if the preservation of biological diversity is specified (by law), it must be done, which in turn means that economic activity must not be excluded.
The research confirmed something long known to practitioners and scientists – for example, in strict nature reserve zones of the Gauja National Park (GNP), where any activity is prohibited, when compared with areas where nothing is done at all, we encounter two different stories (situations). Where economic activity is carried out and nothing can be done, the surrounding management affects the territory where nothing can be done. One cannot look at this simplistically – by imposing a ban, the territory will begin to 're-wild'. Of course, using a mathematical model, one could determine how large an area would be needed to avoid unwanted side effects.