As we know, the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) announced in a wide-reaching event that the implementation of a project with the coded name "Nature Census" has begun in the country. People involved in agriculture, the forestry sector, and other fields naturally knew that this refers to the launch of a project appearing in documents as the "Inventory of European Union significance protected habitats in Latvia," which will be implemented by the partnership of "SIA Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment and the Latvian Fund for Nature."

It seems that we have already forgotten the "key habitat" mapping of the late nineties and the very beginning of this millennium. The obtained data is "old," no one needs it anymore, and it must be mapped all over again… It seems that since the previous mapping, a new generation of nature enthusiasts and experts has grown up, who also want to participate in the absorption of funds – which are primarily European Union funds – and are therefore looking for and happily finding ever-new areas of profitable activity.

The habitat inventory will cost 9.5 million euros. The money is impressive for Latvian conditions, so it is no wonder that it is enough for a philosophical survey on "What does nature mean to a Latvian?", for hiring a PR firm, for the unveiling of the "Great Nature Counters," and for other activities, not to mention the approximately one hundred and seventy nature experts who will be guaranteed work and remuneration over several years. Currently, however, it looks like they will not be able to finish this "counting" by 2010.
Nevertheless, there are still thoughtless individuals, organisations, and entire sectors of the economy (who are promptly labelled as enemies of nature) that question the usefulness of this expensive project.
The most unclear part is what will happen after the mapping is completed. The project promoters say – we will carry out a full survey of all habitats, prepare five new plans, and then we will see. But mapping is not a theoretical exploration of the world; the obtained results might not even be used in practice. It is most likely that "organisational measures" will follow. Or, as was threatened at the opening event, the "nature census" will be a great opportunity for everyone to understand "what to do and how to manage their own property."

This is exactly what scares people, primarily farmers and forest land owners, who inherited or purchased their properties before the great census and did not account for such an element. Many in Latvia have a sad experience and have become convinced of how dearly various restrictions – with questionable justification – cost the national economy.

Who will pay for the restrictions on economic activity in places where valuable habitats are found? Currently, when there are laments in public administration that there is no money to prevent disasters in healthcare, for collapsed roads, and for rural schools, is it realistic to hope that after 2020 there will be money for compensation (our own, self-earned money, not funds granted by Europe)? Or will it happen again that only the landowners will pay for nature values, which are supposedly common values for all of us?
Currently, when it is also the case that for an inherited 10-hectare forest in a nature reserve, an owner receives only about 400 euros per year, it is difficult to convince them that this is fair. Perhaps then it would be better for the state not to spend money and not take on obligations it cannot already afford to fund?

The concept of a habitat was once developed to find the raisins in the cake (particularly significant nature values), not to declare the whole cake a raisin (a habitat). By declaring unreasonably large areas of land as habitats, there is a risk of putting a "dead hand" on all forest management.
Forestry in Latvia has a centuries-long history, and "foresters" have managed both to derive economic benefit for the state and to preserve resources for future generations – even in the interwar period, when there was less forest in Latvia because land was used more intensively for agriculture.

Habitat designation can promote the conservation of valuable species. However, it is currently unclear how they interact with forestry goals, what values should be considered, and what consequences this creates. For example, effective forest utilisation according to studies is the best option for the climate, as growing forests, rather than rotting ones, absorb carbon dioxide, and wood can often be used as a substitute for oil and coal.
Therefore, forests that are not considered sufficiently valuable for society to direct resources towards them must still be used for economic activity in accordance with the landowner's intentions.

A second cause for concern is the anxiety regarding subjectivism in the search for and discovery of habitats. We know that a habitat is an area that, based on the structure of the general assessment, species content, history, and physical environment, has a very significant impact on flora and fauna today.

However, when assessing significance, habitat experts often arrive at very different conclusions about whether it is a habitat or not. The precise delineation of the habitat's boundaries also varies depending on the experts. Owners and managers have also experienced that certain experts have different standards for the state and for smaller private landowners.

In turn, when disputes arise, the involved parties, including the DAP, do not correctly evaluate the fact that a habitat has been found based on a more or less subjective assessment made by one person, who does not even have defined responsibility for their decisions (experts do not have the status of public officials).
I am not even talking about those cases where, for example, some non-governmental organisations "find" more and more "unique" habitats just to stop forest harvesting. Currently, it is easy to declare an area a habitat, but almost impossible to prove that it is not one at all...

It must be concluded that it is at least theoretically possible to combat subjectivism by approving detailed instructions, increasing clarity on what areas are key habitats, as well as continuously implementing competence development measures and increasing the qualifications of experts.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a solution to the fact that the state takes on obligations that it cannot or does not want to fund sufficiently. As a result, the forest owner is not proud of the habitats on their property but wishes to avoid them as much as possible. Moreover, newly discovered habitats will most heavily affect small family forestry operations, for whom their property is usually the only source of income.
Of course, for various nature enthusiasts who receive good salaries themselves, it is difficult to understand why landowners do not want to pay. And I also do not believe they will be able to link the fact that the population of Latvia continues to decrease by 185 people every day with unemployment and weak economic development, especially in rural areas, restrictions, and the lack of support.

Likewise, it is hard for them to grasp why forest and agricultural land owners and managers are not expressing enthusiasm about the absorption of 9.5 million euros of EU money for counting nature, but are instead waiting with concern for what "misfortune" or "fortune" the 170 well-paid experts and a larger number of their assistants will bring again.