An interview with Ainārs Lupiķis, a research assistant at the “Silava” Forestry Research Institute
When it comes to so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the situation in Latvia, we don’t look great. The worst thing is the observable trend for the situation to worsen (emissions to increase) – specifically in the land-use sector. If we look, for example, at energy or other sectors, the situation there is stable. When viewing the situation as a whole, clarity is needed – why are emissions rising? One reason is simple – Latvia has an unbalanced age structure of forest stands – the proportion of mature and overmature forest stands is too high!
What should be done here? Is there a plan, a method, or an idea?
There is no single right answer to what to do in this situation. Everything depends on the achievable goals and what we desire. If the goal (desire) is nature conservation and biodiversity alone – forests could be used (felled) less. If sustainable development and forestry are in the plans – everything is fine! But if the goal is to improve the situation regarding climate in the long term – we can definitely use forests more! Speaking of GHG inventories, a peculiar thing is observed regarding forests – in order for Latvia to “look good” on climate issues in the long term, we will “suffer” to some extent in the short term. To “look good” in the long term, it is necessary to even out the age structure in forests – that is the only thing we can do! If we decide on this and work on balancing the age structure, we must count on increasing the felling volume.
Are there any calculations as to how much, or by how much, we have old forest stands or decaying forest stands?
It would not be correct to use the word “decaying” here, because the proportion of such forest stands in Latvia is significantly lower. We must speak of mature and overmature forest stands. In the context of climate issues, a stand does not have to be in a state of decay to fail to provide maximum benefit. For example, if a pine is older than 140 years, its increment decreases; for spruce, this age will be lower. Of course, much depends on the forest growth conditions. If you calculate it, we will have about 250 million m3 of timber (forest) that falls into the “mature or overmature” category (about 1/3 of timber resources in Latvia). These figures must be viewed carefully because we are talking about cubic metres! If one were to look at forest areas, that is less than 1/3.
I would like to add that I am not a supporter of extreme views or opinions; I think that we must simultaneously work on preserving biodiversity, on the effective economic use of the forest, and we must not forget climate issues. The golden middle path!
Peatlands. As could be heard in the Latvian Radio broadcast, studies (measurements) were carried out in Latvian peatlands.
We implemented the LIFE REstore project, where we obtained contradictory results. We took measurements in areas where peat extraction is taking place, as well as in areas that are theoretically little affected by humans. If we look at the results obtained, overall, emissions are higher from peatlands little affected by humans. Of course, more detailed analysis is needed here to understand why this is so and whether it is truly the case. The numbers are not absolute! A certain hunch has arisen, which is also reflected in the data and results. If one analyses the measurement results, higher emissions in so-called natural peatlands are observed where there is some (even slight) impact of economic activity. For example, Laugas Purvs, where ditches are now dammed, and the water regime has been restored and stabilised. It is one of the old high peatlands affected by human activity. Compared to other high peatlands where human activity (impact) is assessed as being lower, Laugas Purvs “gave” higher emissions in the measurements. There is a significant nuance here – measurements show that emissions from little-affected peatlands are higher, but how to precisely determine and know how much or how little these peatlands have been affected? One of the important aspects in choosing which peatland to take measurements in was easy access, so one would not have to walk long distances on foot. Roads and highways near a peatland – is this to be considered an impact or not? For example – Vangažu Purvs, which can be seen from the Riga-Sigulda highway. The second – Kazu Purvs, which does not have a highway nearby, but there is a gravel road where one car passes every few minutes. One has to conclude that the infrastructure installed and built near peatlands does affect them somewhat! Therefore, we cannot say confidently and certainly, without doubt, that emissions in extracted peatlands are definitely lower than in untouched ones, even though the measurements show it. One cannot conclude so simply! The chosen peatlands are little affected by humans, but some impact is still felt. “Little” does not mean the same as “nothing”!
Laugas Purvs – is there an attempt to restore it?
Yes! Active peat extraction is also taking place in Laugas Purvs (about ¼ of the peatland area). In part of the peatland, extraction is finished; cranberries are being grown there, and in another part, nothing is happening. At one time, the part of the peatland where no activity was taking place was also drained. Now, the ditches there have been dammed and the groundwater level has been raised.
Talking about the LIFE REstore project, Germany and France are also mentioned. The climate and conditions in these countries and in Latvia, however, differ.
They differ significantly! The answer to the question is hidden in the term “temperate zone”! Germany, France, and Latvia are located in the temperate zone; it does not matter that the climate in these countries is different. The GHG inventory is designed (built) following the principle: the best that is available to us. If the information is poor, then that is what it is, and the results will be the same. As a person who has participated in research and data processing, I can say that the GHG inventory is scientifically quite incorrect. Not only because we use (we must use!!!!) Guidelines that contain coefficients that do not correspond to our climate, but – for example – Lithuania does not calculate emissions from forest-drained areas at all. Perhaps something has changed in the latest inventory, but until now, our neighbours have not had such calculations! Even though the Lithuanians should do it! And – a truly absurd situation is observed – our and the Lithuanian GHG inventories are being compared!
Another nuance of the GHG inventory – any emissions can be calculated according to three levels of precision. The first level – only information available in the Guidelines is used – this usually happens if national guidelines or criteria have not been developed. The second level – emission factors created and generated at a local scale, which we now have in Latvia (these could be used in the calculation of emission levels for drained peatlands – second-level calculations). The third level – various models are used. Why is this important? For example, in Finland, emissions from drained organic soils are calculated based on the third level, while a large part of other European countries use the first level. A comparison with weightlifting would be appropriate here – to compare a 100 kg strongman with a 60 kg one…
At the same time, I cannot say that we in our study obtained such radically different results that were unknown and would surprise Europe. Another question – our data differ significantly from the figures obtained in Central and Western Europe. Everything new that we in Latvia use and apply in the GHG inventory is evaluated. Usually, our methods and work are accepted. Of course, there may be requests for clarification, there may be objections, but if we ourselves can provide justification, everything is fine!
How correct is such information obtained from different calculations, and how serious is it to compare different countries that have used different calculation or measurement methods?
The information is very approximate! In the GHG inventory, numbers are quite often recalculated. For example, 10 years ago, certain figures were reported for areas drained from forests and agricultural land; five years later, figures 7–8 times higher appear in the report. Nothing has changed in nature! The guidelines and calculation principles have changed! It must be understood that what we see in the GHG inventory regarding land use can change. We cannot claim that state policy is unfriendly to the climate or anything like that! I believe that it would be wrong to make such claims based on the figures obtained in the GHG inventory!
How do you as a researcher feel about how the situation is portrayed to society?
If we look at it simplistically, the rise in temperature does not affect the forest sector “much”. Of course, there are certain risks, as always, for example, possible insect invasions, a decrease in the proportion of conifers – they could gradually be replaced by beech, the wood of which is also high quality. For farmers, it is different. But if we do not notice major problems, for example, in Africa or Southern Europe, it can be very serious.
Will the research on emissions be continued?
In the future, we are preparing to look at GHG issues more closely specifically in forestry. For example, what is the impact of forestry measures on GHG emissions in peatlands? One direction is to study how soil affects the tree’s ability to sequester CO2. We will look at various conditions that affect emissions, for example, why emissions in cranberry plantations are “like this” but differ elsewhere. Do bacteria, soil indicators, etc. affect them? Of course, we will try to fill in the blank spots in the GHG inventory – we have plenty of them!
Can it be said that the inventory itself needs an inventory?
That is already happening to some extent! Every year, along with the results, a plan for inventory improvements must be reported! We know the so-called “weak points” well and commit to improving or changing this and that next time.
What is the cooperation like between researchers and VARAM?
Active. However, I want to say that in the ministry, there are often very different opinions on a certain issue among different people. Publicly, the message comes from one person, but that is also often one person’s opinion.
We as scientists should talk and speak out more loudly about what we have achieved – the question is whether we are good enough at that…
Studies in the doctoral programme at the University of Tartu. A little about them…
The University of Tartu has a very high standard. I myself think an important factor is internationality in its best sense – students from all over the world study there. To get into the doctoral programme in Tartu, you have to pass a competition! The competition is serious! Only the best get in. If, for example, in the LLU master's programme you feel that some colleague lacks motivation, that is not the case in Tartu! The second thing – international contacts. I study at the Faculty of Geography, which has cooperation with scientists in Finland, France, and Sweden; knowledge exchange is continuous. There is an opportunity to participate in joint projects, there is an opportunity to publish in scientific journals (citation). My topic is directly related to GHG emissions and peatland management. Third – Tartu has a larger amount of funding; if you have met all the criteria, you receive a little over a thousand euros in the doctoral programme. In Latvia, a doctoral student has to study and work a full-time job; in Tartu, you study!
Funding would be the first thing needed to raise the level of higher education in Latvia. The second – qualified teaching staff involved in science and global circulation.