An interview with Andris Ziemelis, Mg. biol., Mg. envir. sc., a doctoral student in environmental science at the University of Latvia’s Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, and a senior expert in nature conservation at the State Forest Service
The nature conservation goals of Latvia are not clearly understandable; the “overarching goal” (the big objective) is to preserve biodiversity. What this is and what it means is not truly clear. It is not clear even to me as a biologist, a point on which I argued with my professors more than once during my studies. In my opinion, if we are talking about so-called “preservation or non-intervention,” we should look at a natural scenario where nature develops on its own (a situation that “nature defenders” seem to want to see). Looking at the situation a little differently, as a result of human activity (that is, disturbance), the landscape changes significantly, creating opportunities for new species to arrive. When speaking about the forest and so-called pioneer species—aspen, birch, grey willow—they are visibly more widespread under disturbance conditions, while suppressing long-lived species.
If we are talking about biodiversity, it is not just tree species or the number of trees; there are other objects (mosses, insects, etc.), habitats, as well as the quantity of genes, etc. If non-intervention occurs, there will be species that will 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 biodiversity is or will be greater: I do know that if the preservation of biodiversity is set (in law), it must be done, which in turn means that economic activity must not be excluded.
In my opinion, many things, the consequences of which we are facing now, began in the Middle Ages, when it began to seem to man that he was a divine being and he separated himself from the rest of the world. Judging that we, humans, create disturbance for nature, it is clear that man is the biological organism that reshapes the landscape the most, and he knows it well. By the way, there are natural and anthropogenic factors. We seem to be separating ourselves—us and the rest. On one hand, that is very good because we know the factors that we can regulate, for example, by changing the landscape. We can influence natural processes less. Moreover, we also know less about these processes! For example, mammals: what bears like, why they are entering Latvia, why they were not there in the past, etc.
Undoubtedly, we know much more about humans. We live in a society that uses resources. Do we often think about the full cycle of existence, which has a set capacity: what we should consume, whether we are allowed to consume it, and whether it will affect some decline? I, for example, have no clear evidence that biodiversity is decreasing. The number of people on Earth is growing, human activity causes problems for certain species, but we ourselves mutate viruses and bacteria in our own environment. Biodiversity is not only species alone, their distribution or habitats: genetic diversity is much more significant. Looking at it philosophically: biodiversity tends to be constant. I cannot imagine a situation where there would only be humans on Earth or only one plant species. There is no justification for that!
A young man's and scientist's perspective on the State Forest Service
Colleagues at the service do their work from the heart and do more than their job duties require. The “bad image” role of our institution causes me certain emotions. We are often confused with “Latvijas valsts meži”; we are the bad guys who designate micro-reserves and do not pay compensation. There is no balance between what society thinks about our duties and what we actually do and what we must do!
Of course, we are not policymakers but implementers. There are quite a few unresolved issues that should be addressed in the Saeima. Dealing with nature conservation issues on a daily basis, I would like to highlight these very problems. On one hand, I am regularly found in court hearings opposing nature defenders and their arguments; on the other hand, I am found in court hearings where the expectations of private owners to manage their property are being crushed. These problems are related to the fact that “above us” (the State Forest Service) are other state institutions that are not doing their job. Nature conservation, similar to the forest sector, requires strategy and planning. The previous nature conservation strategy stated: “the population of lesser spotted eagles in Latvia is decreasing dramatically.” Upon becoming interested in this bird, my colleagues looked at the situation and found... That the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM) does not exist as a solver of this issue! The situation was solved by the State Forest Service and non-governmental organizations, whom I would like to praise, as they perform a certain part of the state administration's functions. I was taught at university that state administration must cooperate with NGOs. In the case of the lesser spotted eagle, the great influence of NGOs and the lack of work by the state apparatus became apparent. Issues were not resolved at the state level, which is significant in this case, as the interests of very many private landowners are affected. In current court practice and the existing situation, the State Forest Service has been stripped of its freedom of action. Over these years, micro-reserve application documents have “flowed” through the State Forest Service, which we accept; the private owner has no counter-arguments. The opinion of the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) in this case is more significant than the opinion of the State Forest Service. The State Forest Service is responsible for forest management and supervision, the DAP for species protection plans, etc. In my opinion, an overly “democratic” approach in preparing expert opinions in Latvia is not correct because our certified experts are not incompetent, but there is a series of legal loopholes that do not force experts to be (allow them not to be) professionals.
At first glance, it may sound strange. In environmental protection, since we have been in the European Union, general principles of law have been incorporated into the Administrative Procedure Law. “Maybe and possibly” in legal language means the precautionary principle. Sometimes, this principle saves a life or a habitat. For example, a wastewater system that has not been tested; a manufacturer wanted to use it, but was refused (out of caution); later, it was concluded that the chemical substance used was carcinogenic.
Talking about micro-reserves, I understand the judges. Our court system is overloaded, and on the issue of micro-reserves, one needs to delve very deeply. The state for the lesser spotted eagle in Latvia is favourable. How and why does the court's caution manifest? “If we do not create new micro-reserves, the population curve will go down and it will not be possible to restore it.” The fact that it will be difficult to restore the population is a fact, but the caution manifests itself as follows – “one must continue in the usual style so that the situation does not worsen.” The court bases itself on the precautionary principle, even though there is not the slightest direct evidence that the species is threatened. It is absurd!
A precedent for such “caution” was seen in court where we met with Mārcis Sniedziņš: the situation is very strange; legally, the prohibition can be lifted because there has been no nest on (Mārcis') property for five years. The court *overturned* the State Forest Service's decision to lift the micro-reserve.
For how long? Can the micro-reserve be lifted again?
The principle of subordination – we must take into account the decision of a higher instance, in this case, the court.
Does the court decision specify the duration of the micro-reserve?
It does not. On one hand, it is silly, because an administrative act can be legally revoked at any time, it can be evaluated again, etc. In fact, an administrative act cannot be revoked because, in the interpretation of the law, the expert is the one who says whether it should be revoked or not!
How did the appellants of the State Forest Service's decision find out that the State Forest Service was lifting the micro-reserve?
Information about micro-reserves is kept by the DAP; in the case of Mārcis Sniedziņš, we gave information to the DAP about the lifting of the micro-reserve. Unofficially, I read on Māris Strazds' blog: DAP employees had called him and invited him to appeal the State Forest Service's decision, because one state institution cannot sue another state institution in court!
In the state administration functions of supervising micro-reserves, one should distinguish between: the European level and the Latvian level. At the Latvian level, they try to link European Union directives to micro-reserves, which is not true! If a micro-reserve is created, it is registered in the DAP database, informed in “Latvijas Vēstnesis”, and that is it. Data does not reach Europe, the micro-reserve is not included in the European network of protected areas, monitoring does not have to be carried out for the area, and we do not know what is happening in the micro-reserve – whether a bird is nesting or not. On the other hand, carrying out monitoring in micro-reserves would be expensive – one expert opinion costs a fair amount! Legal acts define the criteria for an expert opinion. We can create a micro-reserve, but we cannot look at what happens afterwards. Nationally, there is no regulation for this. There is also no competence!
There is also an interesting paradox in the actions of the DAP: there are no certification bodies that would control the certificates of DAP experts! In certification, there is always some third party that controls the certification. Except for DAP experts. The legal framework for this is quite ridiculous: the DAP is given the functions and competence to evaluate the competence of one or another expert, but at the same time, a representative of the DAP cannot go to a micro-reserve and unilaterally lift it, because that also requires an expert opinion!
I see an “expert lobby,” which I can understand humanely – people have learned, studied, they have passions (birds, plants, rocks), and the state does not have the ability to give them a stable salary. They have to come up with a mechanism themselves so that they are needed, so that they have funding, etc. A state institution cannot decide, an expert must be invited (which is quite good in one sense, as it raises competence and is good governance), on the other hand – if something is mandatory, your hands are tied. If we look at how many experts we have, there are not many! For example, the protection plan for bat species was prepared by a two-person organization, where both preparers have a bat expert certificate. In Latvia, three people have such a certificate.
I wanted to draw attention: the species protection plan includes a series of measures: consulting, evaluating – namely – “remuneration reproduction”. This is already a monopoly! This situation is very successfully used by ornithologists because there is the European Birds Directive, which supposedly dictates – “Birds must be protected!”. Insects are also on the list of protected species, but entomologists do not act this way. Birds are easily spotted, seen, and encountered. Ornithologists have achieved that any economic activity requires an expert opinion. If one looks at state functions: monitoring and preparing a report, state institutions do not do it. They announce a tender where the Latvian Fund for Nature, ornithologists, and maybe someone else compete... These organizations apply and spend a lot of money.
That is nothing new!
For example: the case with the flat-clubmoss, which has a poorly defined species boundary. There are two alternatives for preserving this species: create micro-reserves where they grow, or find some isolated place and carry out certain measures to promote the development of the flat-clubmoss. In the first (micro-reserve) case, the private owner “pays” for everything. In the second – minimal funds would be needed, and the plan would have to be implemented by the DAP. Regarding the flat-clubmoss, there was litigation: development was planned in a certain area, and non-governmental organizations submitted a micro-reserve application. I inspected the relevant plot myself; a species very, very similar to the protected clubmoss species was growing there. I looked at it under a microscope, looked at the spores, and by researching and contacting German specialists, we concluded that the clubmoss found was not the protected one. The micro-reserve did not happen.
The area was previously viewed by two botanists who did not notice this nuance. Or did they not want to notice? An example of why micro-reserves should be very carefully evaluated! Often one has to rely on the opinion of experts, which quite often is based on personal experience alone. Experts are not comparable to scientists; experts do not provide scientific information! For example, ornithologist Uģis Bergmanis has a scientific responsibility that a regular expert does not have. Habitat mappers also have no scientific responsibility; there is “following certain criteria”.
The European Commission has explained what to consider a protected habitat of European significance. For example, boreal forests, which are found in the Arctic region. What happened in Latvia? In their interpretation, they wrote a book about protected habitats of European significance, assigning their own (Latvian) criteria and assessment. Paradoxically – based on these criteria, a list of habitats was also created. For the most part, an expert determines (interprets) what will be a habitat. If we delve into European guidelines, we do not have habitats in them that correspond to the criteria mentioned there! It is a “translation pulled by the hair”! When providing reports to the EU, logically, news appears about the poor state of habitats, because from the very beginning, the habitats did not correspond to either the criteria or the guidelines. As a result, a “discovery” arises: the quality of habitats is poor! This is not logical!
By banning, we appear to be acting, but there is no real policy for the preservation of biodiversity.