On 25 November 2021, the 6th scientific conference organised by the Forest Certification Council of Latvia (1) was held at the LLU Faculty of Forestry, during which an interesting and vivid opinion from a scientist was voiced regarding issues of the environment, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and the European Green Deal. At a time when there is little original thought in the discourse of many people associated with politics and state institutions, as they conscientiously follow what is considered correct, the mainstream, and the Green Deal, it is appropriate and timely to look at events without undue enthusiasm.

In your report at the 6th LMSP scientific conference (1), the term "natural capital" was used. Does that annoy anyone? It sounds somewhat unacceptable that "nature is being converted into capital."

"Natural capital and ecosystem services" is a specialised elective course for master's students developed by me and my colleagues, providing the opportunity to study the mapping and identification of ecosystem services in greater depth. The term "natural capital" is used less, but its unit of measurement, namely "ecosystem services," is used quite widely in scientific and popular science literature. I agree that these words cause displeasure among traditional naturalists.

Who are traditional naturalists?

An incident that explains this well is a bit anecdotal. Once, at a conference, I met Professor Māris Laiviņš, who remembered me from my student years and asked what I was doing. I told him. "Fine, fine, but for God's sake, don't get involved with ecosystem services!" That was at a time when this term had just appeared in Latvia, was considered a fad, and at the same time, something beneath the dignity of a natural scientist. Several years later, I met the professor again and said that, unfortunately, my upcoming dissertation would be precisely about ecosystem services. Prof. Laiviņš waved his hand, adding that he too was having to work with them.

Ecosystem services is a concept developed for the provision of governance. Not for understanding the environment, but for governance in situations where there is a lack of precise information for making urgent decisions. The concept is based on ecosystem functions and structures, which are familiar terms for environmental scientists, but services are related to economics—namely, this concept (ecosystem services) is part of environmental economics. The term was introduced by ecologists who began to engage in economics, and economists who turned to ecology.

In public discussions in Latvia, ecologists or those who call themselves ecologists or eco-activists pointedly avoid economics. "We will protect, others will think about and worry about the funding (in fact – about the consequences)."

Yes, I have also happened to hear such statements. Currently, as the creation of new nature conservation plans is being discussed, I, as a specialist, am also asked for recommendations. For a long time, I thought that a socio-economic assessment was mandatory for nature conservation plans, especially the social aspect—it is important how people evaluate the situation and the plans. At the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP), I was told that such an assessment is not planned because they are concerned with "species and habitats," they lack the capacity for anything else, and it is also not DAP's area of responsibility.

The concept of ecosystem services and the ecosystem approach is the foundation of modern nature conservation—the interaction between humans and nature is examined and valued—meaning that to preserve species and habitats, human involvement is necessary. I stress—involvement (engaging), not exclusion! The way nature conservation has developed over time must be discussed more broadly, but that is a topic for another conversation. In short—nature conservation in Latvia is at a 1960s-70s level, when they looked at species and habitats without taking people into account, assuming that "nature is pleased when there are no people in it."

Are we talking about the 60s and 70s in the USSR or in Western Europe?

Nature conservation as a science, or so-called "conservation science," does not quite correspond to the Latvian translation "dabas aizsardzība" (protection of nature).

In the former USSR and also in Latvia, we can draw the same historical parallels, albeit with a 10-15 year delay. The first national parks, protected areas—it all took shape in the then Soviet Union as well. Traditionally, it would be considered nature conservation created by forestry sector workers, which, if I may say so, was started and defended by former minister Leons Vītols (2). His story and experience are a typical example of how natural values were protected under difficult conditions. Of course, in those days, they did not talk about ecosystems, but about specific species, forest stands; hunters and hunting occupied an important place in this process. Briefly—for the most part, untouched territories were isolated, which they tried to keep just as untouched.

In the 70s, the "nature in spite of people" approach entered nature conservation globally. For us, that would be associated with micro-reserves—protecting specific species in specific territories outside already existing protected areas, as well as talking about the extinction of species. However, the processes I described did not stop the extinction of species. At the beginning of the 21st century, a new idea emerged, which we link with ecosystem services and contributions to human well-being as well. We have now arrived at socio-ecological systems, where humans are not separated from nature but exist in interaction. We see such a principle also incorporated into the European Green Deal documents.

For example, in Latvia, the interaction between humans and nature is clearly visible in connection with biologically valuable grasslands. No one will deny that economically grounded human activity is necessary for the existence of grasslands. This is realised even by the most radical nature defenders and activists.

But... in other respects, we are still there—in the 60s-70s, namely, "it would be good without people!"

At the end of 2020, while preparing for last year's LMSP conference, a very unexpected conversation took place with State Forest Service representative Andris Ziemelis (3), who has studied the nuances of nature conservation in Latvia. It is as if there is a belief that nature conservation is "rolling," although in a different sense—it "runs over" many things like a road roller...

As I mentioned, we have lagged behind by 30 years. Firstly, it is a certain continuity and inertia. Nature conservation "of sorts" was formed during the Soviet era, which was followed by the chaos of the 90s; with our accession to the EU, we returned to the situation: we save what there is. In fact, in the field of nature conservation, we are constantly in a situation where something must be saved, not built.

Secondly, political inaction. The surveying of species and habitats should have been carried out before joining the EU. This had to be done so that we could become an EU member state and EU legislation could be applied to Latvia, not only in the field of nature conservation but also, for example, regarding the Common Agricultural Policy.

But in fact, we are talking about habitat mapping, which "is trying to conclude only in 2022.".

Exactly! It was not said publicly that we did not have this summary of information... The situation was solved with proxy values and expert opinions. Of course, now that habitat mapping has concluded and the information has been obtained, the differences are obvious and significant. The lowest bar set by the EU is that protected species and habitats must not disappear. In Latvia, I assume, due to a lack or insufficiency of resources, everything in nature conservation revolves only around the mandatory minimum—so that no sanctions follow for something. I think state structures responsible for nature conservation are engaged in exactly that.

In conversations with hunters and ornithologists about various species, we see a different situation. For example, "the ptarmigan is disappearing because it is warm" (4). Ranges are "moving" to the north. What to do with our neighbours (I mean birds, animals, insects, plants) who no longer like it in Latvia due to climate change?

The continuity I mentioned, which has unfortunately remained in Latvia's nature conservation system, also includes the belief that the spatial unit in which nature conservation should be organised is the state. It looks like a nationally oriented viewpoint, but—all relevant indicators must be achieved at the state level and within state borders. European Union principles foresee assessing the situation at least at the EU level, which is also not easy because we would geographically have to take into account also Belarus and Russia (which are not EU member states), only then setting specific goals. The ptarmigan mentioned in your question, taking into account current regulations, must be protected and one must think about it not disappearing, despite the fact that life is no longer so easy for the bird here. We have more than one species where Latvia is geographically close to the outer limits of its distribution range. If we have the "last" European rollers or ptarmigans, they must be protected. The question is viewed narrowly, only on a Latvian scale.

In a conversation with ornithologist Uģis Bergmanis (4), where we talked about the ptarmigan, a positive example was also voiced—in Latvia, compared to the 70s-80s, there are more golden eagles and white-tailed eagles.

If we look at species protection, we see a dead end. Nature conservation must happen at the ecosystem level, taking into account all factors.

In Latvia, very few scientists are engaged in nature conservation, perhaps 5. I am talking about a scientific approach to nature conservation, which is not happening because of a lack of funding. What is happening instead? There are many different initiatives, there are projects that do not require a scientific rationale. Projects do not need a study "before" and a study "after." For example, I could tell you about the lesser spotted eagle and the project associated with it; it is controversial from a scientific point of view.

Currently, it looks like Latvia's main problem is not, for example, the lesser spotted eagle and the forest owner, who get along well enough with each other, but a restriction invented by some stranger-activist, which degrades the forest and drives away the bird, which in the end no longer likes it there. I will not speak about the state-coordinated and approved defamation of the owner.

As far as I know, the distribution of the lesser spotted eagle is more related to feeding grounds, not nesting. The bird will find a place for a nest, but... for the lesser spotted eagle, as diversified agriculture as possible all around the nest is important. When creating a micro-reserve, the restriction "hits" forest lands. If the restriction rules affected farmers, it would mean diversifying agricultural methods and crops. That is the determining factor—so the bird has where and what to hunt.

Returning to the topic of science-based nature conservation—nature conservation as a science is even further behind here... There are a few scientists who have survived the transition period I mentioned. Science funding is very tight; mostly, enthusiasts work in science, whose engagement, I would say, is often based on that very enthusiasm. We have the technology and methodology, but we lack the scientists themselves.

Project funds are quite large, but do the projects have a weak scientific base?

Nature conservation projects are meant for very specific things, for example, LIFE projects. For these specific things and goals, a place could be found in the larger area, which is empty. So—there is no starting point or foundation, projects with large budgets appear. They plug holes with project money.

How should it be? Scientists work, research, and obtain a lot of data. A large part of the research is ordered by the state; it covers various topics. The data collected as a result of the research is handed over to decision-makers (politicians); politicians, based on the situation and data, develop specific actions (policies and instruments), handing this information back to scientists to put what has been developed to use. The situation does not work in any other way. So far, in Latvia, there has been very little funding for fundamental research and, of course, a shortage of scientists. In my opinion, next to the "Silava" building, there should be another one just like it—full of scientists. Furthermore, Latvia lacks studies that would serve as checks for other, previously conducted studies.

Currently, there is a tendency to belittle those studies that have a specific funder, saying that the results are bought.

Of course, that is not so. If a study has concluded with a publication, reading it, one can follow the study's progress. There is another matter: there is a study, it has been paid for, for example, by the forestry sector, and the results of the study are used without even looking at the study itself or the publication. Science is not as simple as we are sometimes led to believe. The results of a study are often presented inadequately, and the public's reaction is directed not at the study or its authors, but at the way it is presented and the content.

For example, studies on carbon and its cycle are quite specific; if we read the publication—everything there is in order; the public story is often different.

The percentages of protected areas included in European plans (30 and 10). How correct is that from a scientific point of view?

From the scientific side, there is the so-called neo-conservationist movement, which advocates for strict nature conservation. They have estimated that 50% must be protected—no less. So 1/2 of the globe. There is some justification for this. The 30% of the territory provided for in the European Green Deal is a certain compromise; moreover, these are not percentages for strict protection.

Do the neo-conservationists clearly know what needs to be protected so that it makes sense and do people also fit into these percentages?

No, people are to be excluded and left aside!

What to do in this regard with Asia and Africa, where the number of inhabitants is increasing?

... I represent the socio-ecological approach to nature conservation, which criticises the neo-conservationist approach. If we look at ecology and forget about humans (which is not exactly voiced), everything works. As soon as humans are taken into account, the model does not work. Period.

Our close neighbours in the European Union are Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland. At what level is nature conservation there?

Estonia has a different level. Estonians clearly set a goal already in the 90s to invest in science and develop into a significant centre of science. That has been realised. Collaborating with the University of Tartu and the Estonian University of Life Sciences, I have seen things incomparable to the situation in Latvia—our neighbours have a wide range of specialists, there are many of them, high-level work is underway with doctoral students and foreign students, etc. In Estonia, nature conservation is at a different level; ecosystem services have already been introduced into planning documents; there is a balanced policy that combines the social, economic, ecological, as well as cultural. Decision-makers see both what will change, for example, by drafting a nature conservation plan for some territory, and how people will live in the future in the event of this plan's implementation. The latter must definitely be taken into account. In Latvia, we are currently studying the Ķemeri and Gauja National Parks specifically from the perspective of conflict. Conflicts are primarily related to economic activity.

What should be changed in nature conservation? Where to start?

To a politician, an activist who is louder and more visible is understandably more important. Activities and activists are the background. It would be important to tidy up laws and regulations. Latvia has signed or joined more than one convention that nowhere and in no way appears in real work. If elementary things are not tidied up, it is not clear—how much, where, what should be or is to be protected. For example, with habitat mapping concluding, one must say—we need this and this amount of protected territory, this and this many representatives of such and such species.

The forest industry has been demanding such concreteness and clarity for long enough. There are no answers because, it seems, there is also no one capable of answering.

That is so. There are studies showing: to maintain one or another population at the necessary level in Europe or the world, our contribution must be such... and a concrete proposal follows. I will repeat what I mentioned before—in Latvia, nature conservation is busy with escaping from fines, just to fulfil the minimum. No more!

Green—what is understood by it?

Upon hearing someone say "green," I look at the speaker very carefully. For me, the use of this word is associated with cheating—it is an umbrella term under which anything can be placed. Many use the word "green" for commercial purposes... The word lacks a definition; it is not clear what each person understands by it. What is and is not green now (as it were) will be determined by taxonomy.

How much science and how much politics is in the Green Deal?

The Green Deal is pure, clear political economy.

In Latvia, there are many people who seriously think that the European Green Deal is biology, environment, and friendship.

Who in Latvia will talk and who would be interested in talking about the Green Deal in a political-economic context? There is the so-called political ecology—studies on how political decisions change the state of the environment. When the Green Deal was announced, our Prime Minister smiled, supported it; it is unknown whether anyone told him specific things. Clearly, the Green Deal has a scientific basis, but that is not what is being told to the wider society. Politicians speak about their understanding and their viewpoint, scientific studies are not being implemented. In Latvia, there is a visible, very similar example—questions around the epidemiological situation—epidemiologists recommend one thing, politicians act "in their own way."

The most frequently heard words in connection with the Green Deal are—we will spend less, we will limit more. The economy is forgotten, the need to earn "is standing on the sidelines."

This is the approach that has lingered from old times, which we talked about at the beginning of the conversation. One must not forget that politicians are quite populist and love to pander to certain opinions or positions.

It is important that we think and act within the limits of our possibilities, so that industries that give jobs and income to the inhabitants of Latvia do not "go down the drain," so that the social situation does not worsen. That will be difficult because many things have not been tidied up. I see a risk in the tradition: in Latvia, the political cycle is 4 or 5 years, in the European Union they are 7 years, strategies are made for 15 years, but a human life is much longer and broader. Strict EU guidelines are expected, which will maintain a certain continuity.

Upon joining the EU, very many functions were delegated; it is becoming more and more difficult to discern individual nation-states.

Why in the 21st century is any coordination in EU structures necessary, even in environmental, forest, agricultural issues? It reminds one of not very pleasant times.

Over time, I have become somewhat acquainted with the forest industry. There is the forest manager and owner; he has his own plans, and he often perceives the forest as something similar to a bank. Elsewhere, such people are considered "dinosaurs." Here, there are enough such people. In neoliberal capitalism, national bourgeoisie is not important. A manager is not needed, but a controller. The owner has their personal interests; the controller has only corporate interests.

Once, such a position was called "kolkhoz chairman."

Preparing to join the EU, warnings were voiced about the disappearance of national autonomy. Now, very specific things are decided "on the ground."

From representatives of the public (state) sector, there is no explanation: why the peat industry here could be closed or influenced in any way. They are already talking about the decision without explaining it. "Harmful to nature" can be applied to many things. The official explanation about peat as a fossil fuel has not been topical in Latvia for a long time.

In my opinion, the most significant factor here is the interest—namely—Germany's interest factor. In north-eastern Germany, the geographical and climatic conditions are similar to those in Latvia; there are many former coastal lagoons, there is a lot of peat that has accumulated over centuries. For German peat extractors and producers, local politics imposes great restrictions, presumably under the influence of local green movements. It is known that German entrepreneurs have relocated part of their production to the Baltic states. The situation has developed as follows: you cannot produce in Germany, but in Latvia or Lithuania, you can do it relatively freely. Solution: the European Union market needs equal conditions—if in Germany peat producers are restricted, these restrictions are spread to the rest of the EU countries. In this situation, no other argument or explanation is needed—that is how it is, and that is that.

"Somewhere, something" is happening, but countries are not being looked at separately. Is that logical?

That is provided for by the principle of the single market: merchants must have equal opportunities. The Germans have huge restrictions, in Latvia there are none; the Germans have extracted about 87% of bogs, with us this figure is significantly smaller. Of course, the situation in Latvia is different... but the market is one. That is why the peat industry is being closed...
1. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/konference-dabas-resursu-ilgtspejiga-apsaimniekosana-veiksmigas-socialekonomiskas-attistibas-pamatnosacijums-eiropas-savienibas-jaunas-vides-politikas-ieviesanas-perioda-
2. Leons Vītols, Minister of Forestry and Timber Industry (1971-1988)
3. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/aizliedzot-mes-it-ka-rikojamies-bet-realas-politikas-nav-4. https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/baltirbei-pie-mums-ir-parak-silti-