From Facebook. An advert:

“Hitachi television. Cracked screen, but everything else works. Perhaps it will be useful to someone.”

A question to the author of the advert: “Hey, why so cheap? Does the television have a defect?”

(An accurate example of conversations between many public sector employees and other citizens*)

The timing chosen by Minister Juris Pūce’s team at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development for reviewing the functions and activities of the Nature Conservation Agency and the State Environmental Service is peculiar. It is clear that the actions of the minister’s team in organising the administrative-territorial reform have increased the ranks of those who are not friends of him or his party – and not because Latvia is a land of divided feudalists, but because the minister’s brigade has chosen a 'tangled knot' approach to a necessary and supportable cause, saying one thing and doing another. It is strange to worry about Poland, Hungary (for example, Vita Tērauda, delfi.lv) or Russia, but right here in Latvia, to fail to notice that work which was correctly and well-intentioned has started off on the wrong foot, and that conversations with local government representatives have in many places turned into a polite monologue by the ministry. So, the backdrop for the reforms mentioned in the first sentence is far from ideal!

Below are some peculiarities that can be seen circulating on social media and in official media regarding the “reshuffling” of functions at the Nature Conservation Agency and the State Environmental Service.

It is incomprehensible that a state institution would create an “unofficial” Twitter account (DAP_neofic), explicitly stating that “work is needed and one wants to eat!” (“Anonymous, because even during a crisis one wants to earn a crust. All documents are real, and all characters mentioned are too”)

One wants to ask here: has the principle truly become entrenched in the system of state institutions that, essentially, “we demand the maximum from other citizens, but we act as we see fit”? It is unclear whether, 30 years after Independence (read: 4th of May), state structures – the ministry and its subordinate institutions – operate under, or are even capable of, a principle that rejects opposing views and discussion. And how does the Nature Conservation Agency view the Regional Reform being carried out by their own ministry if they themselves now feel ill-treated and undervalued, and…? How is the ministry functioning in such a situation? Incomprehensible!

(Note: in conversations with local government representatives, the greatest portion of criticism or bitterness is attributable to the inability of the ministry’s people, those explaining the reform, to hold a dialogue!)

Secondly: representatives of the Nature Conservation Agency who do not like the intended changes, quite contrary to reason and the spirit of the Constitution (by this I wish to note that “the law” and “regulatory acts” in Latvia are an excuse for anything: action, inaction, laziness, indecisiveness, “sharp action”), point to their friends and allies. Specifically, “LDF, LOB, PDFL – do something, the forest owners are certainly happy!” (Quote: “Now we would like the support of LDF, LOB and other NGOs…”) A state institution of the Republic of Latvia, which by its nature works in the interests of all the country’s inhabitants (all of them!!!!), has effectively divided society into – our own and the others! Fine, we can argue that such a style has not disappeared from everyday life and politics in 30 years, but has become even more entrenched. But (!!!!) the more serious problem is not that this situation is unsurprising, even if unacceptable, but the fact that “officially we refer to regulations and standards”, while “in action we are unofficial”. Representatives of the state institution point directly, for example, to a small forest owner, a forest owner with a large, empty nest or a meadow inhabited by an undefined neighbour (read: a bird, plant or…), and to a decent farmer – “You are not one of us, we are not calling you to help!”

I would like to point out that even in the newly elected Environmental Consultative Council, due to the peculiarities of its statutes approved in 2006 and the “special” attitude of so-called “green” organisations, neither forest owners and managers, nor agricultural and hunting organisations, nor the peat and land reclamation sectors are represented… We can hide behind democracy, but – typically – those who “visit” nature but do not work in it are great at judging it. “It is democratic and normal! To be unhappy with it is wrong!”

Does the Nature Conservation Agency consider itself a state within a state, and does such a clear, exclusionary attitude towards people promote nature conservation in Latvia? How exactly does taking a harsh stance against landowners promote it? How exactly and driven by what goals does the Nature Conservation Agency team maintain the narrative about the one and only true guardians of Latvia’s nature? How does such a view held by the Nature Conservation Agency employees align with receiving a salary from the state budget, which is earned by the very people that the Nature Conservation Agency hates and views as enemies? How? …

Third: both Juris Jātnieks in a phone conversation, Andrejs Svilāns in an interview, and other Nature Conservation Agency representatives speak about cooperation.

That is where the cooperation ends! … To talk about cooperation is not to cooperate! I suspect that this is not set out in the Nature Conservation Agency’s regulations, and they believe: “If one boss or another talks about it and knows and uses the word, then they are cooperating!”

The alternative proposal by Uģis Bergmanis, a professional and researcher of the lesser spotted eagle for over 30 years, to replace micro-reserves with something else was rejected, justifying it: (I quote: “Together with the drafters of the plan, we have agreed that such a system is not compatible with the existing micro-reserve system, and, in accordance with scientific research, this method would not ensure adequate protection of the habitats of the specific species and, accordingly, the implementation of the Birds Directive.”) A word in the text is important: “agreed”! Not 'we have verified', not 'we know', but “agreed”, and furthermore, the explanation is given in the form of a presumption!

That is cooperation, comrades!

Fourth: it is understandable that the Nature Conservation Agency, as a state institution, follows certain regulations in its communication and correspondence. But that does not stop Nature Conservation Agency employees from expressing different stances and views online and elsewhere. The question is: by consciously and deliberately excluding certain groups of people from their circle, is the Nature Conservation Agency promoting nature conservation? And if “officially” and “unofficially” differ, what exactly is to be expected?

Fifth: the Nature Conservation Agency has not clearly indicated the next steps for the nature census! Those who earn money for the state are waiting for and demanding it! Yes, the money that has been mentioned quite often lately in the context of nature conservation!

Sixth: what we started with. Namely, from the cited (DAP_neofic) text (“Anonymous, because even during a crisis one wants to earn a crust”) it is clear that Nature Conservation Agency employees receive money (a salary) and buy bread, they do not steal it! Undoubtedly, Nature Conservation Agency employees are NOT bread-thieves! The question: how do these people think (if they think at all) – where does the money come from for the state, who earns it? What are the Nature Conservation Agency’s concrete proposals for farmers, peat producers and foresters, and the national economy as a whole for the next 20-30 years? If the Nature Conservation Agency plans to take a well-cultivated field of rye away from its owner and hand it over to flocks of geese to eat in the spring, the Nature Conservation Agency people must personally find a source of compensation or abandon the idea of the restriction! The definition of sustainability includes balance. And not just environmental, but social and economic balance: if something is taken away, something must be given in return! So: if a Nature Conservation Agency employee, or an ornithologist, or a mycologist, or a zoologist finds an object they deem protected (or something that “definitely must be restricted”) in a private forest, a conversation must follow with the forest (land) owner (property must be valued in any case) and, if the discoverer insists on a restriction, it would be their duty to seek financing, offers and opportunities…

Notes:

-         Administrative-territorial reform is necessary; the point is the execution and the unconcealed political interests, which may not coincide with the interests of the residents

-         Reform of the “environmental” structures under the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development is necessary, not only by auditing functions, but by maximally reducing the number of regulatory documents! Reducing the number of employees without reducing the number of regulations is cosmetic renovation for a wooden building affected by fungus

-         Speaking of compensation for landowners whose properties are affected by restrictions, the “restrictors” must provide a concrete plan: where to get the money, who will earn it, and how the “restrictors” plan to employ the owners in the future

-         The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, as the environmental policy maker and supervisor of the overseers, needs to strictly and precisely monitor (audit, clarify…) what various “those who walk in nature” express regarding emotional facts and data, regarding opinions, regarding thinking, etc. An official opinion on specific facts cannot be expressed at the level of: “I consider!” or “I think!”, because then it is clearly one-sided and often incompetent!

*approximately 40 years of observations, during which it has been concluded that those working in state institutions do not consider themselves equal to those not working in state institutions
A photograph from the internet has been used for illustration, which, under the many restrictions, describes the concern of forest animals: "Where have the humans gone?"