A certain monotony has set in in public discussion of environmental matters. For quite some time, and quite deliberately, an image has been built up of the vague but very positive environmental activist or defender — an image that is often invited to speak on radio, on television and in various discussions whose script calls for obligatory criticism of forestry or some other sector of the economy. We decided to change something.

This interview came about in order to clear up a few questions — for example, about the bird index, about bird populations, about the corncrake and agriculture — and also to touch on a less discussed question: what we might expect here as the weather grows warmer.

At the beginning of the year, reading about the census and monitoring of birds nesting in Latvia, I had to conclude that it had never occurred to me that the corncrake could be called a night bird

Of course the corncrake is a night bird, as several studies also prove — the bird's activity and its call are most often heard and observed at night. If we divide the 24-hour day into three-hour periods, the corncrake's greatest activity is at night. The other bird that, without much thought, one might call a night bird is the nightingale. Let me add that I am not talking about owls, which, incidentally, are not all night birds. The pygmy owl, for instance, is active in the twilight hours, in the morning and in the evening, and in the daytime too; in the dark of night it sleeps. The snowy owl is active only in the daytime, if we take into account the range it inhabits and the polar day... If the snowy owl were a night bird, it would starve to death. I can say much the same about the Ural owl — the owl species living in northern regions are active all day long.

Since we have started on corncrakes, let us continue — corncrakes and agriculture. What sort of farmer or land worker would be best for the corncrake? If, in assessing the situation, we see that the corncrake fared none too well in the collective farm era, the 1990s, when the population was rising, were in turn not the most active period of agriculture.

I was not expecting such an easy question, since I prepared and defended a doctoral thesis on the corncrake.

It is clear that in the collective farm era (the Soviet years, the years of occupation) the corncrake did not fare well, just as elsewhere — from the 1950s to the end of the 1980s corncrake numbers fell throughout Europe. In many places this was not documented (only in Great Britain and Sweden). If I have to answer the question, the “dangerous farmers” for the corncrake were everywhere in Europe. How did the bird fare in Latvia? I have tried to look into the past. You cannot go back and collect data on what once happened or on how the corncrake once fared, but there is plenty of usable data on agriculture. Working from that, I tried to calculate how many corncrakes we had at the beginning of the 20th century (around 1910); I found no older agricultural data. In the calculations I used information such as how large the areas of meadow, grain fields and the like were at that time.

If we take all of the above into account, it is clear that in the 1980s there were far fewer corncrakes than in the first decades of the century.

In the 1920s and 1930s there were more fields, arable land and meadows; now the forest areas in Latvia have grown considerably... The corncrake is not a forest bird.

The structure of the fields (arable land) was different too, although that is not as important for the corncrake as it is, say, for the roller (field, ditch, field, ditch...). When agriculture was neglected at the start of the 1990s and, as the statistics show, there were many meadows that were only mown, a lot of arable land left fallow and meadows that were not mown — in these three land-use categories there were more corncrakes than you would expect from random choice, which means that the corncrake likes to live in such places (there is good vegetation but little disturbance). In pasture, for instance, the grass is short and the corncrake cannot hide in it. If you remember, not so long ago it was argued that wild horses, for example, would solve a great deal in connection with meadows, grasslands or whatever else. Nothing of the sort! We can go and look at the horses by Lake Engure, but...

...the corncrake needs grass that is tall enough, and the horses have already eaten it with relish.

Exactly! The corncrake needs grass at least 30 cm tall.

Does the corncrake like oilseed rape?

Rape is tall enough; I have caught a corncrake in a rape field. But — the height of the grass or herbaceous plants is one thing, whether the corncrake will have anything to eat there is another. If we hear a corncrake calling in a rape field... for one week... or a second... it is a fact that the bird is there, but that does not at all mean that it will nest there.

If I understand your assessment correctly — since agriculture is intensive enough all over Europe, corncrake numbers could go on falling...

Exactly, and, as you rightly said, it is once again happening all over Europe. The fact that in the 1990s corncrake numbers also rose in, say, the Netherlands, a country that has never neglected its agriculture, would be explained by the large numbers of these birds in the surrounding countries. In every population there is a certain number of individuals for which there is no room in that territory and which go off to settle elsewhere.

Can we take it (as more than one person likes to say) that forest animals and birds are now found in towns and villages in greater numbers and more often because someone has driven them out of the forest or the scrub, or have their numbers in fact increased?

If you were looking for a link with the Netherlands that I mentioned, that is not a good example, because it is a country in which there is effectively no real countryside or forest left.

When someone posts a photograph of a fox, a wild boar or a pine marten taken in town on social media, the “experts” will comment that these lovely forest animals have just been driven out of their natural environment, this week or last.

An old example from my student years in Finland — we were shown a picture and told that foxes like Finland but do not like Russia. In the Russian-Finnish border area, on the Russian side there were comparatively very few foxes. Why? On the Russian side there were a lot of wolves, which are direct competitors of foxes and also their enemies — they are happy to eat foxes. On the Finnish side the situation was already different (far, far fewer wolves).

Colleagues gave a similar example, saying that in Estonia bears are hunted and in Latvia they are not, which is (one of the reasons) why bear numbers here have grown considerably.

I must say that when I am in the forest, watching and counting birds, I am already waiting for the moment when I will see a bear. I would not say that I greatly wish for that meeting, but I think it could happen.

As for the situation with forest animals, any feeding of them or easy access to food attracts any animal — that is perfectly clear! We can see it very well with birds — once you start feeding them...

...you have to feed them all winter.

As the ornithologist Ģirts Kasparsons once said: “If on a cold winter morning you are lazy and do not go out to the feeder, some birds may die.” It is easy enough to get used to a good thing in nature too.

A fairly old episode with American mink, which (in the same Finland) were released from their cages into the wild — a large proportion of the mink came back, because... in the cage they were fed. Of course, some got used to life in the wild, but...

Coming back to birds, meadows are, as we know, quite a rarity, because the relevant processes in the countryside are already quite a rarity. Incidentally, the term that is used quite widely — “natural meadows” — does not really square with the fact that someone has to manage them.

The scientifically correct term is “semi-natural” (seminatural).

Do the plans and projects for restoring natural (semi-natural) meadows concern only grasses, herbaceous plants and insects, or is there a plan to “invite” the corncrake back into these meadows as well?

The agri-environment measures mention only botany — for a long time there were neither insects nor birds in them, and now there is only the great snipe. Biologically valuable grasslands are defined mainly by botanical criteria; bird criteria were introduced a year ago, but that is not a long time and there are very few of them. Fundamentally — as I have said — the criteria are botanical.

A population is not a stable quantity; it tends to fluctuate. At what point does a professional biologist realise that it is time to start worrying, and at what point is the situation “simply something that happens in nature”? Some things may be affected by climate change, others by the proliferation of other species or a lack of food, and others again by something else.

If for 20-30 years “a lot of things are going down”, it is time to start worrying. The best example is the redwing, which is evidently retreating northwards.

Could it be too warm for the redwing, as it is for the willow ptarmigan?

We do not know why it happens. It is not warmth alone that drives the willow ptarmigan away — the bird is white in winter and here there is often little whiteness in winter, so the ptarmigan is easy to see.

The redwing is not white; perhaps something out-competes it. When I was a schoolboy, you could walk into the forest near Ozolnieki and find a redwing's nest quite easily. Now it no longer nests there.

A good adviser is still the book published in 1970, “Latvijas Putni”, where it is written that the great white egret is a great rarity. In 2019 I photographed several of these birds in the ponds by Torņakalns station.

I agree with the book's assessment, although in my view the pictures in it are quite dreadful, but everything else is very good. Speaking of the great white egret, the bee-eater also feels at home and nests here, but I doubt whether either of these will compete with the redwing.

The point would be that, as the weather grows warmer, “southerners” appear here while the “northerners” slowly move away...

There will be more losers, though. There are forecasts of this. The Catalans in Barcelona have prepared an atlas of forecasts of what will happen (or could happen) if the present climate trends continue, and what changes could be expected. Some species, such as the bee-eaters already mentioned, will gain by spreading northwards, but species that have to retreat northwards will lose, because there is not much room there to retreat into.

Is there anything that can be done in practice if a bird or an animal no longer likes it here?

That is a broad question. Take the corncrake again. We can say that this is not a bird typical of the boreal region, because, after all, if we humans took it into our heads to leave this region, forest, forest and yet more forest would quickly return, with rare exceptions (on riverbanks, for instance, natural disturbance would keep forest from growing and meadows would remain).

To continue with corncrakes — where did they arrive from about 1000-1500 years ago?

From the nearest plains and meadows...

Exactly! Another question — is it possible to go back there?

It will be too hot there too.

That is one thing. The other is that we have to remember what is going on there now — at present there is active warfare, but in most of the fertile steppe zones there is active farming; these regions have effectively been ploughed up. Meadows are a great rarity there too.

Not so long ago I read an article which said quite clearly that hopes for the return of small farms (with one or two cows grazing in the meadows by the house) are very, very slim.

I have been a certified grassland expert and did a lot of work in this field in Latgale. The best meadows were in places where an old lady of around 80 lived, who kept one cow, and the property was looked after by a little dog. That is how it was! I agree, it is textbook classic, but...

If we want to return to natural meadows at their best, we have to think about fragmented habitats. It is also a question about areas intended for nature conservation — whether it is right to introduce and keep horses there. I think not! There are meadows where horses are of good use, but there are areas where grazing is not needed and where mowing and the like are needed instead. In my view, conserving natural meadows requires management designed in practice precisely to achieve that goal; a start should be made with protected nature areas.

The corncrake is associated with hay meadows, not really with pastures...

Of course, I have already mentioned that — in pasture the grass is too short. The corncrake's problem is a biological one that we cannot change in any way — from the laying of the first egg to the moment the young birds begin to fly, seven weeks pass, which is almost two months. Speaking mathematically, if in a fit of great optimism we estimate that the corncrake lays its first egg around 15-20 May, the chicks will grow and develop until 10-15 July, not earlier. And that is very optimistic.

If the botany experts tell me that you cannot mow that late, forgive me... Neither the corncrake nor the scientist can do anything about it!

How was it in the years when the corncrake population was growing?

The meadows were not all mown in time, and where they were mown the birds managed to leave. Today's machinery is powerful enough — they drive out and in one or two days all the fields (that is, all the meadows) are flat. It is clear that few areas are left to be mown later. Incidentally, meadows that are not mown at all are no solution either — in time they become overgrown.

Could you explain in simple words what the bird index is? This question has been put from time to time to other professional ornithologists, who have not wanted to answer, citing the complexity of the question and of the explanation.

I know why my colleagues did not talk about the bird index — scientists argue about it. What is more, two schools of scientists argue about it, the English and the German. Despite Brexit, the European Union has taken the side of the English school, not the German one. At the heart of the dispute is “the question of the average temperature in the hospital”. That is the explanation of why the bird index is not really a good yardstick. If someone has a high fever and someone else has, forgive me, just died, the average temperature will not give anyone cause for concern. The English put everything together (the index is calculated from all bird species) — it is not a single-species index; different birds are taken into account, and if the population of one species goes up and another's falls, the average figure is acceptable, which is not good...

How do you yourself assess or use the bird index?

The bird index has survived in Eurostat data because it was “got in” there — that is, it has been established as one of the characterising indices.

For farmland bird species the index is falling, and there is effectively no dispute about them, because in this case what matters is the fact that population sizes really are falling for many species. These are species whose life is tied to open landscapes, and for the discussion that is good — across Europe the numbers of these birds are falling overall.

Problems with the index arise in situations where the numbers of one species increase and those of another fall, and that is what happens when we look at the overall picture. In this respect there are quite a few disputes between the English on one side and the Estonians, the Finns and the Latvians on the other. A telling example (of the problem) here is forest bird species (instead of “forest” the English use the word woodland). Real forests there (in England) are a great rarity. There are some species that do very well in England — the numbers of the blackbird and the siskin are increasing there — whereas the capercaillie and the three-toed woodpecker do not occur in England at all. When these birds are “put together” in calculating the bird index, everything looks respectable enough.

Where forest birds are concerned, should specific species be studied?

The big table is available... On this question, as I have said, lances are being broken — whether the overall (average) index tells us anything.

Are there scientific algorithms or formulas that determine or give warning that, in improving the position of one species, its good or protected status does not have a negative effect on other species? Will unplanned competition not begin?

Speaking of birds of prey, most catch small mammals (mice), some eat fish, and I think there will be three species that eat other birds. It is known, for example, that storks eat corncrakes, because... you could not say that it is a stork's staple food, but if the meadow has been mown and the bird no longer has anywhere to hide, or if it has been injured in the mowing, it is clearly visible and easy to get at. The stork “is not bad”, but conditions are created for it — the table is laid. A stork cannot catch an uninjured adult corncrake that is able to fly.

Let me add that I am not an expert on birds of prey; on that question you have to talk to Uģis Bergmanis. On trends I can add something. In the 1970s, for instance, peregrine falcons died in many places because of DDT. In Latvia the last peregrine falcon nested 50 years ago. Yes, they have come back throughout the territory of Latvia! After DDT was banned, the situation in northern Europe improved. We can also recall Kārlis Vilks's articles, which mention that until the 1950s hunters shot predators just like that — it was an honour. When protection was introduced, no bounties were paid any more.

Speaking of forest bird species, one must certainly mention the Finnish biologist Ilkka Hanski (Ilkka Hanski), who once pointed out to Finnish foresters that rare, protected species have to be protected where they occur, not where it does not interfere with forest management. There is no escaping that! If a species lives in a particular place, it has to be protected precisely there.

Does that happen in Latvia?

It does. And precisely in Zemgale. I am talking about the meadows by the Tērvete (river), where the odd owner takes the view that the meadow is so small that it need not be managed. That is sad, because we have so few meadows...

Colleagues in the forest sector usually stress that what should be protected is what needs protecting, which can be read in more than one interview...

In Latvia almost every unusual situation is associated solely with human activity.

Humans have had an effect on nature. Not the only influence, of course, but in my view the main one. Speaking of interactions in nature... The American mink, for example, is a clearly visible, human-created and by now uncontrollable problem. The European mink has suffered most from it and is practically no longer found. Sosnowsky's hogweed is the same sort of trouble.

I suspect that a large part of the public will not object to fighting hogweed, but just as large a part will certainly defend the mink.

...because they are dear, soft and gentle, are they not? The problem with dear and lovely animals is serious enough. Take raccoons in the USA. As soon as someone takes the view that the spread of raccoons should be limited or that they could be hunted, a storm of outrage begins about “such a dear and lovely little creature”.

Any animal is dear and lovely if it lives at the neighbour's house. The wolf, for instance! As long as it has not made a meal of my little dog, it is such a beautiful fairy-tale character. And the sister-fox too. If we think a little “fairy-tale-wise”, if someone undertook to deal with an invasive animal species, would they not have a great many opponents?

If we are talking about invasive species, we also have to look ahead — to what is in store for us. The raccoon already mentioned is “coming” to Latvia and getting closer. In Poland it has already arrived from Germany, where it was released into the wild. The raccoon belongs to the order of carnivores, it eats everything, and what is more, it is an excellent climber. Birds that nest in trees will no longer feel safe either...

Is anything being done to fight invasive species? It is. The American mink, for example, may be hunted; the Estonians are currently trying to reintroduce the European mink on the island of Hiiumaa. I have not followed these events for some time and do not know the results. But! If you want to get the European mink back into the wild, first deal with the “Americans”.
Photographs by Oskars Keišs and zemeunvalsts.lv used