A conversation with Sanda Geipele, manager of the PROGRESS project from Latvia

The first year of the PROGRESS project has been successfully completed, and various activities have been implemented, such as two meetings of interested parties – industry experts – where good practices for the project's thematic training cycles were identified; experts in the field have been reached out to and engaged; the first thematic training cycle on "Assessment of the costs and benefits of ecosystem services in the context of land use" has also concluded with identified examples of good practice in the partner regions (the first handbook of good practices has been prepared); two international online seminars have taken place; work continues on the next three thematic training cycles. The thematic training cycle for the second half of 2020 will be dedicated to "Horizontal integration of interests in ecosystem services in sectoral policies and plans at regional and/or national level", focusing on a topic relevant to all partners – forestry.

For communication during the Covid-19 distancing period, we, the project participants, have found a project management and internal communication tool that works similarly to Dropbox but is many times more effective – the Basecamp platform. Everything happens on this platform, starting from active communication between partners, the exchange of documents, presentations and large-volume files, and ending with the planning of project activities. Furthermore, each member state involved in the project is working on its own press releases and communication to involve industry experts and interested parties as much and as widely as possible in the project's activities through objective and targeted dialogue, as well as to ensure that the widest possible audience can learn about the results achieved.

Since several and very different European countries are participating in the PROGRESS project, is the understanding of forests, for example, similar in Romania as it is in Ireland? And what do they know in Ireland about Romanian forests and vice versa?

The goal of the project is to improve policy instruments (actions, planning, decision-making, etc.). The project participants (partner countries) will work on recommendations so that, in line with building training capacity and policy mastery in partner regions, while supporting the exchange of experience between industry experts, the process of policy change can be initiated in partner regions, i.e., by improving the implementation of policy instruments in accordance with structural fund programmes and other regional strategies that provide for the conservation of biological diversity, the maintenance of natural capacity and the assessment of ecosystem services. Thus, it would be useful if, over time, in cooperation with the responsible institutions, specific practices were adopted, adapted to regional conditions and implemented in practice or in EU structural fund planning documents for 2021-2027.

I can evaluate the cooperation partners (partner countries) looking from the outside. The Romanians and Hungarians, in my opinion, operate a little more slowly; the Irish are very correct: everything always happens on time, clearly and understandably; the Italians and Spaniards have an excellent and wide selection of things to talk about and take pride in. The topic of the thematic training cycle for the second half of this year will focus on a sector relevant to all partners – forestry. Of course, not all member states are as closely linked to the forestry sector, which is important in our conversation, as Latvia is. Forestry is included in the list of topics for discussion in October.

In Latvia, there is often a sense that many processes are happening or are being pushed based on assumptions or extremes: bad or excellent, or tragic and colossal. How do the differences between countries look within the framework of the project and in cooperation?

I think it would be good if Latvia's relevant industry experts became interested in the truly excellent examples of good practice and experience that, for example, the Irish, Spaniards or Italians are proud of. Despite the restrictions caused by COVID-19, the first interregional training seminar for local stakeholders (industry experts) in the partner countries' regions turned into a significant international-level event, which we at RTU organised in the TV24 studio in Riga. In this seminar, one could clearly see in the respective countries' presentations that effective work is based on a synergy of science, finance, and politics, which appeared in the examples of good practice. In fact – one could see everything necessary for an intention or project to be realised with added value.

Territorial development. Between countries there are definitely differences!

I haven't studied the countries' experience in detail, but I know that at the community level, the English have a high level of public involvement; for example, local residents are also actively involved in the decisions of local authorities. Of course, regarding the English experience, there are a number of issues that should definitely be thought about separately. For example, how to include reasonable and necessary things for the population in the budget and how to avoid disruptive interference by the informal environment in the formal system. I think it is well known that by using certain instruments, it is possible, if not to stop the development of a certain area or even an organisation's work, then to regularly and systematically interfere with it, or vice versa – to promote it. Here, it would be necessary to look for a "golden middle ground" so that there is not just formal planning with no say for the residents, or quite the opposite – that the residents or a small but active group of residents interfere with any municipal development. Thus, achieving balance for the purpose of territorial development, while respecting the principles of sustainability known to us, remains relevant.

Public involvement has been on the agenda of both the EU and Latvia for several years, which has been promoted by non-governmental organisations, local action groups, and responsible ministries. Currently, concrete initiatives with funding are also starting to appear in Latvia – if the LEADER approach with EU fund support was the best-known until now, the Active Citizens Fund has now started work, and the government has conceptually given the "green light" to the creation of participatory budgeting in municipalities after the administrative-territorial reform.

Currently, within the framework of another project, we are working on a scientific article about coastal territory planning: we are identifying planning documents in Latvia, the Åland Islands (Finland), Sweden and Estonia – Saaremaa (how planning takes place there), studying national, regional and local planning levels, as well as formal and informal influence, also involving representatives of the public administration sector.

In Latvia, there is often a lack of balance in planning – there is a lot of talk about the impact on the environment, but the impact on the social situation and the economy has been left to drift by those talking and those making the decisions…

A peculiarity of Latvia: those areas, villages, and regions that have developed and based their economy on tourism and local resources such as certain cultural, historical or habitual traditions, for example, fish production or bread baking, etc., must definitely think about diversifying their activities. Of course, local resources and historical values are a good thing, but nowadays you cannot manage without e-commerce. There is no specific recipe or recommendation here, but remote working and digitalisation make one think about it and focus on it.

Scientists can often provide recommendations, and if a relevant issue is of interest to someone, they can continue to delve deeper. Of course, one must take into account to what extent policymakers, drivers and other representatives of decision-making institutions will delve into and take into account the issue in question. As far as I have studied, many of the extensive and general plans that have been prepared lack concrete actions: there are strategic goals, visions. When I was developing my doctoral dissertation, I delved into planning documents regarding real estate, where everything was "beautiful": in the future, the environment must be improved for residents, living space must be available, etc. But there were no concrete actions on how to achieve this, how to include it in specific plans and policy! So… There are many plans and documents, but (relatively) few real works that would be based on objective decisions!

A number of scientists have examined this issue more broadly and have concluded that in post-Soviet countries, policy only operates in the interests of certain groups or certain niches, stopping the development of "disadvantageous" or even new areas.

With specific planning documents, state institutions can either develop or sink a certain industry. For example, the current issue of the last year regarding renewable energy: there is a possibility, which is still little studied, that the use and implementation of this energy can be more harmful to the environment than we think or know at present, and the "beautiful, slogan-wrapped" short-term benefits will create (or may create) greater losses in the future. Various opinions have been read, for example, about wind energy.

Thus, identifying the balance in the planning of virtually any area remains relevant, which must be based on socio-economic and ecological factors as well as institutional factors, in order to ensure objective decision-making as much as possible.

Politically, we must definitely think about the general well-being of society rather than that of its individual groups, because a human being is a value! Education and involvement of society in important areas of the state must be developed, which is currently beginning to take shape in some places and there are also good examples. For example, in the good examples of the project we spoke about at the beginning (PROGRESS), we clearly see that preparations and cooperation are taking place in such a way that the designated region develops economically and thoughtfully, both from a socio-economic context and the aspect of environmental values, as well as from the perspective of building public understanding of things and processes.

What is the most difficult thing in international projects?

The most difficult… I won't need to use the word "difficult", but some participants could have a greater interest in good foreign examples, and stakeholders could be "more interested". If we talk about good practices that have already been implemented, I would like to see and discuss the truly best examples. I hope that in the second thematic cycle, all of that will be there.

We will start working on policy recommendations in the project in the autumn. We, the project participants, have not yet decided how exactly this will be done. I will say: for everything to exist and proceed according to the requirements, there will be a lot of work and it will be fiddly (specifically fiddly, not difficult!). We will also publish handbooks on examples of good practice; there will be four of them in total.

Isn't a unitary approach slowly forming in some areas in Europe? Standardising, applying…

I know of sectors that want to prepare unified "umbrella" documents for the sector throughout Europe. I must admit, it is not that simple, and the question is: is it possible at all, given the objectively different geographical, socio-economic and cultural conditions of each country.

I think that everything that is decided and thought up in EU institutions should not be rushed into! First, it is necessary to weigh up correctly, analytically and objectively: what is needed, what is suitable, what is not. Before accepting any document or order, an exchange of views is definitely necessary; a decision cannot be taken by a bureaucrat or legislator alone.

For example, in the course of my work, I encountered a Latvian municipality that is quite large but… where it was explained to me that "finding out the residents' wishes, ideas and engaging in their implementation would be good, but the municipality lacks the people for such socially important work". So…

In Latvian municipalities and in Latvia in general, it is often observed that one employee performs various (several employees') duties. For example, in Sweden, as far as I have had to encounter, those employed in local government do concrete, specific things, rather than being "broad-profile specialists".

A couple of years ago, we studied scientific publications, wanting to find out what the practical value of research in a specific area is. In Lithuania, Estonia, and the Scandinavian countries, state or private entrepreneurs are actively involved in the development of research because it is more profitable for an entrepreneur to pay a university and use its services; likewise, public administration also places such orders. There is cooperation between the scientific and business environments; scientists can give entrepreneurs and decision-makers good ideas. In Latvia, this does not happen as widely, and sometimes in certain areas, there is even a lack of so-called "R&D" activity.