A conversation with Daiga Zaķe, Director of the Centre for Education Initiatives and Chair of the LAPAS Council

What is the Centre for Education Initiatives and how was the Latvian Platform for Development Cooperation formed?

Both the Centre for Education Initiatives (IIC) and the Latvian Platform for Development Cooperation (LAPAS) are non-governmental organisations. In 2019, the IIC celebrated 18 years of operation; the centre was founded by several municipalities and pedagogical universities. The goal of our work is to strengthen the quality of education in Latvia. Simply put: to provide professional support to teachers, advocate for children's needs, and help families get involved in their children's development and learning. We do this in various ways – we learn best practices from around the world and 'bring' them to Latvia, organise various events (seminars, conferences, consultations, etc.), and promote various types of cooperation. I have been leading the IIC for 10 years now, and it is not difficult to do because we have a professional and lovely team.

Meanwhile, the Latvian Platform for Development Cooperation (LAPAS) was created by several non-governmental organisations (including the IIC), which at the time were working in specific thematic areas of the UN Millennium Development Goals. We realised that a 'unifying organism' was needed that would be able to carry out advocacy at the national and international level, and would be able to bring together all of Latvia's most active participants. Thus, a professional organisation was formed – LAPAS, which is able to bring together very different people and different interests, and defends society's needs across a very broad range of topics. We have just celebrated 15 years of LAPAS operations. It was a true pleasure to hear appreciative words from both members and partners about what we have achieved together. So, our vision at the time that such an organisation was necessary has proven to be forward-looking.

How has the development progressed? It often happens that organisations agree on the necessity of an 'umbrella organisation', it is created, and then… the members wait…

That is a problem for many cooperation networks and organisations. We try to organise processes to be mutually beneficial – the organisation is not large, there are not many staff, so the resources of the members must also be used. Our organisations can operate in thematic working groups, for example, a group on global education. The participation of member organisations varies – some are actively involved, others participate in order to learn. For example, one of our newest member organisations is the Kurzeme NGO Support Centre, which does not work directly on development cooperation issues, but is interested in starting something new and significant for society. LAPAS member organisations 'cover' all 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals with their primary operational objectives, therefore there is a broad range of both problems to be solved and opportunities for people to cooperate.

Looking back at 15 years of LAPAS activities, what has been done well?

LAPAS, as the umbrella organisation for our community of ideas, works more with advocacy – state policy, European and global policy. In turn, member organisations work more at a practical level – implementing various projects, organising events, preparing and publishing informational materials, meeting people in the regions, etc. I think the main indicators of the organisation's achievement are: recognition at the global level, reliability as an important partner, and regular development. This is evidenced, for example, by the opportunity to deliver Latvia's civil society report at the UN High-level Political Forum, or the fact that the South Korean government invited LAPAS to share its experience on how advocacy is conducted here.

How do you view national advocacy specifically, and maintaining it internationally?

At the international level, we, without exaggeration, see enormous interest in what non-governmental organisations are doing in our country! LAPAS members (and other non-governmental organisations as well) have become involved in many international cooperation networks and actively participate in various global events and initiatives. If you were to mark all the places on a world map where our members have partnerships, it would be hard to find any 'empty' territory. We are open to cooperation because we see the meaning and importance of it in the development of society.

It is important not to get caught in the trap between the global and the national… Sometimes people write things off as 'fads' that might actually relate to another issue, another problem, etc.

We are guided by the slogan 'Think globally, act locally!' When talking about globalisation with both decision-makers and other people, we have concluded that the understanding of sustainable development, of how global processes affect our lives and how our actions and decisions reflect on global events, is still at a relatively low level. For example, when talking about sustainable and responsible action, the situation in Latvia can be judged as mixed – in some municipalities, targeted action is taking place, in others – it still needs to be proven why it is important. In my hometown of Jēkabpils, we have discussed a lot about how sustainability relates to work planning in the municipality, how to use it in strategy development, and how to involve residents so that they too feel co-responsible for the decisions that are made.

We have pondered why the world still looks like the outline of Latvia to Latvian residents? Many truly do not see the connection of their lives to events in the wider world. This is not a reproach; it just means that we lack a global perspective.

Many understand sustainability quite narrowly – whether it is only industry, or only public activities, or only science.

One of the most important tasks of non-governmental organisations is to explain important but complex information to various groups of society in such a way that people understand it, delve into the essence of the matter, and are motivated to get involved. Unfortunately, a large portion of our people are focused more on strengthening their personal needs and advocating for their own interests. This, of course, is nothing to condemn, but their 'desires' often negatively affect others. For example, in a conversation with large farmers, they themselves express the thought: despite the fact that the conditions regarding the prohibition on the use of certain fertilisers are well known, they still violate them due to economic considerations. So: farmers understand the aspects of sustainability, but business interests are valued higher.

I think everyone wants to live better, but at the same time, they do not want to take responsibility for how this prosperity is created. Observing what is happening in rural areas, I see: the countryside is developing! Perhaps not quite in the classic sense, but people want to live closer to nature – city dwellers are increasingly buying properties in the countryside, living there themselves, working themselves, or renting out the land. But the benefit goes to everyone – rural areas are being tidied up and 'life' is returning there! A Swedbank expert once reasoned that Latvia's countryside has only one chance to revive – if families who are economically independent and want a more natural living environment for their children move to the countryside to live. Only such families will be able to overcome the barriers of 'rural life' – working remotely, driving children to school, building and maintaining access roads, etc. Of course, local authorities will have to invest funds in 'keeping' these families, for example, for organising leisure time, cleaning up the eco-environment, etc.

What do people think about the administrative-territorial reform? Or do they think nothing at all…

They think, they think! And they are worried. It happens that when we meet, we start talking about something else, but – like it or not – you end up at the issues of the reform. My opinion is a combination of the personal and what I have understood in conversations with colleagues: the reform is not only to be supported but is necessary! It often seems that the 'holders' of small local authorities are thinking not of their residents, but of the personal interests of a relatively narrow circle of people. I am not the only one who thinks that management in many places is unskilled, ill-considered, and that the knowledge of local people is not used for the common good. I would support such a, as it is trendy to say now, local government that would be able to plan life for at least a 20-year period. I think the territorial reform will introduce changes, and people will both trust each other more and be more involved themselves in improving their quality of life. Other parallel events in society will also promote this.

As an education specialist, what do you think about the school reform?

Speaking about the quality of education, both local and international 'measurements' show that the quality of education in large schools is higher. This fact 'refutes' the assertion made by teachers that a smaller number of children in a class provides an opportunity to work individually, which, in turn, supposedly ensures higher learning results. But, higher results, or better grades, in my opinion, are not the main reason why changes must be made. Nowadays, the learning process (how a child learns) and children's well-being during learning (how a child feels at school) are important. To shift the emphasis, a lot of effort must be invested. I think that the 'Soviet school framework' is a difficult obstacle for many teachers to overcome. Also, the frequently said – we studied in a Soviet school – did we really grow up to be bad people – is just a provocation. Our children were born for a different time! The confusion of educators is understandable: 'what are we doing wrong'? What is 'that new and different'? That is why it is necessary to purposefully build a support system for teachers so that they feel secure and professionally confident! We are also getting involved in this process, for example, together with the National Centre for Education, we are training preschool experts who will help kindergarten staff make changes. As my colleague said: 'nothing new can be invented in pedagogy anymore', and there is nothing unknown or complicated in 'the new things'. Every person understands that it is better to learn about the forest not by reading in a book, but by observing nature – trees, bushes, birds, forest animals. Is that something incomprehensible, new, and complicated? Also, parents, families, and local communities are a previously unused, pedagogically useful resource.

Not so long ago, at Christmas, the President of Latvia congratulated us and wished for a year rich in creative inspiration. We feel noticed and appreciated! That gives us the strength not to slacken, not to tire, and to look for new sources of inspiration for good deeds. And so it will be!