As an introduction. Reading the information that "Europe will be told that everything is bad in Latvian nature" (nra.lv., 16 July 2019), which reports on a report prepared by participants of well-paid projects and excellently provided for heads of departments (etc.) in state (Latvian, not some "unfriendly" country!) institutions, it is time to remember the "famous" OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Max van der Stoel, who "understood, grasped, was concerned" and did everything so that nothing in Latvia would change. There is no anxiety about foreign countries; the greatest "evil" in Latvia is right here on the spot. It is understandable if someone no longer has their beloved mushroom picking spot, it is sad if Golden Weddings cannot be celebrated under the old linden tree that was struck by lightning last year, it is terrible if a small stream is now a beaver family's farm in terms of green dams... But the everyday trifles of every citizen, private interests and a narrow view of what is happening are hardly describable to Europe in the tragedy-filled phrases of Shakespeare or Ibsen. Here, for example, the subtle irony of our own Pauls Putniņš will come in handy.
(* in the title, a reference in parables to the title of Pauls Putniņš's play "A Fool and Gossipmongers")
First, answers to two questions:
1. What is biological diversity of nature?
In the Convention on Biological Diversity, biological diversity is defined as: "the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems."
2. Species diversity in Latvia
In Latvia, the number of wild species for some better-studied organism groups is known quite accurately, whereas for other groups the total number of species is still to be specified. Therefore, one can gain insight into species diversity in Latvia, but the total number of species may change every year. Species are discovered anew, some disappear or information about their occurrence has varying degrees of reliability, so data on the occurrence of a species in Latvia are not always indisputably correct.
"Latvijas valsts meži" data confirm an increase in biological diversity:
FORESTS
40% of forests are made up of forest stands older than 70 years;
More than 16% of forest and 20% of the total area is managed by LVM for the purpose of nature conservation (a quarter of these areas consist of protection determined by LVM)
The LVM GEO database contains information about more than 30 types and 101,296 ha of EU-importance habitats, including 5,512 ha of habitats identified in 2018.
Of the registered EU-importance habitats, half consist of habitats of good and excellent quality. In total, the EU-importance habitats registered on LVM lands are already 213,000 ha. LVM does not yet have the results of the 2018 or 2019 nature census at its disposal.
SPECIES
A total of 53,262 registrations of various important species are recorded in the LVM GEO database, including an increase of 16,512 units or registrations in 2018.
PLANTS
In 2018, several specially protected, very rare vascular plant species were also registered, about which there had previously been little information in Latvia:
Mountain speedwell (Veronica montana) was found near Grobiņa; this is a new finding in the Coastal Lowland; Ghost orchid (Epipogium aphyllum) was registered in two locations in 2018; the species was last registered before 2018 in 1998 in the Katleši forests; Stripe-leaved mannagrass (Glyceria striata) was found in Daugavpils municipality; until now, it had been found only in the territory of four municipalities in Latvia.
Mosses have also been registered which are listed in current regulatory enactments as very rare, or species for which it is necessary to create micro-reserves, but the registrations in the LVM database show that the species is found much more often than was thought. For example, the specially protected moss species Heller's feathermoss (Anastrophyllum hellerianum) has 1,580 registrations in the LVM database.
In recent years, more and more new species are being found in Latvia that have understandably been little studied until now, for example, the lichen Cladonia norvegica has been found in 18 locations. The existence of this species in Latvia was only reliably proven for the first time in 2014.
The indicator fungus of natural forest habitats, northern tooth fungus (Climacocystis borealis), was once considered extinct in Latvia, but has been found in several new locations in recent years. From 2014 to 2018, 26 new locations of this fungus were registered in the LVM database.
MONITORING OF PLANT FINDINGS
The status of registrations for target species is assessed as good or excellent in ~90% of cases. It has been found that a significant problem is the lack of necessary natural disturbances in the habitats of light-demanding plant species, where a non-intervention regime has been applied for a long time in protected areas, as a result of which the habitat has overgrown.
BIRDS
Osprey
Summing up the data for the last three years (2016–2018), it has been found that the population size has increased by 5% and currently 220–240 pairs nest in Latvia. Evaluating the data for the last 30 years, it has been found that the population size has increased nearly fivefold.
White-tailed eagle
In Latvia, the increase in the number of population pairs continues, which corresponds to the trend expressed over the last 20 years. The fastest increase in numbers is observed in the last 10 years, which is characterized by the largest number of inhabited nests known to date, 69, in 2018. Out of 89 nests surveyed by LVM, 16 were registered as new.
It is expected that the density of nesting pairs in Kurzeme will continue to increase, with the distance between inhabited nests near good feeding grounds decreasing to a few kilometres.
Northern goshawk
The number of identified northern goshawk territories is increasing significantly and in 2018 was 46.5% higher than in 2015, when monitoring began. The number of occupied territories and successful nests has also increased. In total, 19 new northern goshawk territories were found in 2018.
Nesting success in 2018 was the highest during the time monitoring has been conducted. In 2018, there were already four chicks in seven nests.
Conclusions:
One gets the impression that there are people and groups of people in Latvia who gladly earn money "from the bad". Back in the day in Latvia (in reports), van der Stoel's protégés had a terrible time, and projects were created that were implemented in Latvia, protecting, fighting, informing and educating. Was that necessary? Of course, Latvia needed money... If there were no stories about the bad, there would be no money...
Even in 2019, there are people and groups of people in Latvia who have caught the scent of money and are ready to report anything, just to receive money for the next few years, taking it easy... Yes, for what? And the socio-economic consequences of this selfish behavior can be dramatic for all residents of Latvia, for the development of our country and its competitiveness among other countries...
In conclusion an article. (nra.lv., 16 July 2019)
Europe will be told that everything is bad in Latvian nature
The latest report from Latvia on the status of specially protected habitats of European importance in our country has been prepared for submission to the European Commission. The latest opinion paints Latvian nature in particularly bleak colours.
Even the previous composition by the Nature Conservation Agency six years ago was so dramatic that Latvia had to justify itself at length in Brussels. At that time, the fact that the assessment of the state of the habitats was purchased as an outsourced service and, in the view of the experts from the involved public organizations, the situation was heavily dramatized, served as an argument.
Now a new report has been produced for the period from 2012 to 2018 - executed by the Nature Conservation Agency itself, and it again claims that the situation in Latvian nature is very bad. Before sending it to Brussels, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development will submit this document to the Cabinet of Ministers for approval. The press office explains that it will not be possible to get acquainted with the content of the report until then. Therefore, the pessimistic conclusions for the time being only follow from the summary in the press release. In general, habitats in the report are described as poorly protected: "According to the report, only 10% of habitats are in a favourable conservation status. Rock outcrops and freshwater are the best protected; compared to the previous period, the rating for wooded coastal dunes and boggy forests has improved, while grasslands are in the worst state of conservation and their condition continues to deteriorate. Overall, better habitat quality has been found in specially protected nature areas or their zones with a stricter protection regime. Meanwhile, the conservation status of species was assessed as favourable for 39% of species, of which the best-protected species are fish and mammals, but the least protected are reptiles and amphibians." The report is said to include an assessment of 61 types of EU-importance protected habitats, 59 terrestrial and two marine habitat types, as well as 112 EU-importance protected species.
In principle, the conclusions are the same as in the description of the previous report on habitat protection in the period from 2007 to 2012. In Latvia, we are only able to take care of rock outcrops and other stones, but meadows are perishing and "the most unfavourable condition was found in the forest habitat group, where for absolutely all habitat types it was assessed as the worst possible".
Now, reporting on the creation of the new report, the Ministry of the Environment also provides a couple of recommendations:
"To improve the state of species and habitats in Latvia, cooperation between the state and the private sector must be improved. It is also essential to strengthen the work of nature conservation institutions." The latter recommendation is obviously already being implemented in full swing. Minister Juris Pūce has dismissed the main signatory of this report – the Director General of the Nature Conservation Agency, Juris Jātnieks. However, this pessimistic report may also have more far-reaching consequences. What kind – one can roughly guess by reading the recent Environmental Performance Review of Latvia by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the recommendations. It is, however, based on the same old data provided by Latvia, only cleverly rewriting their expiry date, but that does not change the essence of the matter. In fact, a research group working on behalf of the OECD has declared Latvia a country hostile to life in its report. The OECD advises Latvia to review the collection and spending of environmental taxes and levies, to strengthen the fight against climate change, to limit CO2 emissions in agriculture, and to re-evaluate the use of local fuel resources. Take climate-friendly measures in the energy, construction, transport, forestry, and industry sectors. In short, more money must be spent on preserving biological diversity, and less on production and building prosperity. It is expected that soon the European Commission will not only recommend this but will also demand it. This will happen based on the data provided by Latvia itself. The Ministry of the Environment itself points out in a comment to Neatkarīgā that it cannot predict what the European Commission's reaction will be to the report submitted by Latvia: "If the European Commission considers that Latvia is not fulfilling what is stipulated in the Habitats Directive regarding ensuring a favourable conservation status for specially protected species and habitats, it can use its functions as a supervisor of legislation implementation, including initiating an infringement procedure against the country."