An interview with Elgars Felcis, researcher and guest lecturer at the University of Latvia
Before we even started talking “seriously”, you mentioned that the word “sustainability” is used in various ways and is being “stretched”… Why is that?
The concept of “sustainable development” began its “triumphal march” about 30 years ago, although it was introduced into our conversations and texts relatively recently. The main problem I see is that this concept includes the “impossible” – combining economic, social, and environmental interests so that none of the three types of interests predominates (they should be in balance). It is clear that the economy dominates and will likely continue to do so! This can be seen in various UN research panels where relevant information is gathered, leading to conclusions about ecosystem functioning and climate stability. These could be called the side effects of human progress. The fact that the word “sustainability” is used and “tacked on” in many places and to many things does not mean that anything is actually becoming more sustainable.
The classic definition of sustainability states: “Ensure the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs!” This principle has certainly been violated, looking at how “sustainable development” is currently taking place, and its scale is vast…
While visiting Georgia, I heard winemakers say: “This vineyard is planted not for my grandchildren, but for the grandchildren of my grandchildren!”
That would be the precise logic of sustainability: things we take care of can theoretically be kept productive indefinitely. This applies to hunting, forestry, agriculture, the functioning of society, energy supply, and more… At the moment, however, a “throw-away culture” mostly prevails: rapid consumption, throwing away damaged items and replacing them, and high volumes of waste. “There is a high level of societal metabolism.” (If one sees parallels with metabolism in the human body). Speaking of consumption: a lot “goes into” society and a lot “comes out”. This does not only apply to the more commonly “encountered” waste: plastic and tyres, or construction debris; it is also about pollution and disrupting the balance in the volume of chemical elements. Looking at it, for example, from an industrial agriculture perspective: if you use too much nitrogen and phosphorus, problems arise as a result. For example, in Latvia, Lake Burtnieks is gradually turning into a “green soup” with accelerated eutrophication processes in the lake; it is similar in the Baltic Sea – dead zones. These are stories closer to us and easier to understand, and they are only a small part of the big picture.
Is the balance between the environment, the economy, and the social sphere impossible, utopian, or is it only talked about so that the speaker sounds good?
Balance would be possible if these three areas (sectors) had an understanding of how the others function! Currently, the economy we live in largely ignores what is happening in the other two. In my opinion, saying that something is “economically viable” is already a life-or-death sentence for “something”. We can also look at this from a linguistic perspective: economic – therefore – good; uneconomic – bad. If some action can also be economically justified… That is to say – if we have enough money, we will take care of the rest! That is the current logic! However, the order is backwards, because the economy has always been a sub-system (not a super-system); in a short period of history, the idea or ideology of the economy has become the dominant one, to which everything else is subordinated.
Many things do not need money, but many do. Money is required in many places. What should be done?
The question is endless! Metaphorically speaking – “we want to have a good trade-off for once!” There are many people, the lifestyle is resource and energy intensive, we would like to trade with many things and maintain such a lifestyle forever, happily ever after. It is impossible to combine everything, and we cannot trade with the limited biophysical boundaries of the Earth or the laws of thermodynamics… How to adapt to all this without causing huge problems for our own survival, without shaking our own prosperity? It is a complicated question because it is invisible! Sustenance, even just what we put on the table, is a daily and immediate phenomenon: it either exists or it does not! A temperature rise of a tenth of a degree and the corresponding disappearance of some moss species in Africa seems distant and does not affect everyone personally. The problem is: such things are invisible and unnoticeable until the moment the (problem) has grown, becomes palpable and visible, and then it is already too late to do anything. Climate change and the potential climate crisis are unnoticeable and invisible, and… too late to prevent the greatest harm.
Are climate issues and change being analysed widely enough? The loudest emphasis is on human activity, forgetting about cold and heat periods on Earth…
Climate scientists are looking at it. They are definitely looking! About 98% of climate scientists (scientists who specifically study climate issues) believe that such rapid changes in such a short time are a direct result of human activity. The UN IPCC has been warning about this since the late 1980s; climate scientist James Hansen testified about it at the White House in 1988. By this, I mean that a short time in the planet's history is a very long time in the understanding of human life. And even here, we do not see or notice much, because the dispersion of events (processes) over time is relatively wide.
There are many countries on Earth where people would like to live better. In Africa, they desire development, and Asian countries and regions are called business tigers. In Latvia, the word “to agree” often means a lot of time and complicated negotiations…
There is the Paris Agreement concluded in 2015, which exists in words and on paper! Action, however, is slow and insufficient. What needs to happen? The potential risks must become even more obvious! They are already visible today, and we feel them in Latvia too: downpours, dry periods, stronger winds. Of course, people's understanding varies, and – it happens – a person thinks: it has been cool in Latvia anyway, so if it gets a degree or degrees warmer, that would only be good! That is a simplification of the situation! Furthermore – people think about only one parameter – it is warmer! They do not think about or pretend not to notice other accompanying or subsequent phenomena!
People who own land and work with it notice these things! If forests do not dry out or flood excessively, drought or water on the field is a thing that must be avoided and prevented!
I recently participated in the preparation of the Human Development Report myself, and it was clear that farmers and foresters consider environmental risks more significant than city dwellers. Farmers and foresters feel and see it all while working every day!
Where to start?
Let us not be naive: neither every individual action nor the activities of Latvia as a country will change anything on a planetary scale! One might wish for it, but it is impossible. What can we do? Do not follow the lead of those who say: “Development must be such and that is that! Everything must be calculated based on gross domestic product and money circulation figures: a certain level of consumption and a certain level of prosperity are necessary!” There are things you can choose not to do or do differently. For example, do not change your clothes every year if the ones you have are still good, do not fly to distant lands every free week, or do not fly at all. Increase your independence! That is, if a person is handy, they feel calmer, their view on what is happening is more pragmatic because they know: there will be difficulties, but they will cope! I am not a prophet, I do not know what and how might happen: will environmental risks stimulate military ones, or will economic ones start, followed by military and political ones, but – it is clear that a lack of resources (food, raw materials, energy, freshwater) will create various kinds of tension. Because the current lifestyle is too wasteful! The current stability is not so self-evident that we can be sure it will still be there in 20-30-50 years! Therefore, we must think about our (Latvia’s) independence and resilience! This does not mean the “let’s cut funding for this and that” so often used in the political environment, not at all! It does not mean isolating ourselves from the world. It would mean developing knowledge and skills in various ways.
Reasonable thrift. That is – no one is telling you to starve, but before rushing to the shop, eat everything you already have at home!
Exactly! In Asia, people tend to say about eating: you should eat only until you are not hungry, not until you are full! Prudence and thrift are not wrong! At the same time, I well understand those people who experienced forced thrift (frugality) during Soviet times and the other pathologies of the Soviet system. Of course, there are opportunities now and one wants to live better, not like “back then”. It is freer, better, and psychologically a person gets used to every next level of comfort quite quickly!
What to do if business (the economy) steps into this friendly and green-labelled way of thinking with quick steps? At what point should one notice it?
These would be attempts to express or show responsibility for what is happening with the help of money and the economy. Ecosystem services are already measured in money now, for example, how much pollination by bees costs, etc. These are the games we talked about earlier: money becomes the benchmark for many things.
A Latvian “classic”: OIK (Mandatory Procurement Component)! In terms of ideas – it is what is needed: shifting subsidies from fossil to renewable resources! The thought is correct, it is just the result and execution… If the transition from fossil to renewable resources takes place within a corrupt framework, as in the case of Latvia, an important direction is completely ruined! The public is misled, and the impression arises that many green ideas are dirty, corrupt, and the like…
There are no limits to human creative expression, but there are limits to the planet's functioning and resource base! How to put human creativity and genius to work so that we live well with limited resources?
Environmentally friendly things start with actions that do not require money!
Thinking of what each of us could do is not complicated! But – we all have our own individual views, affiliations with social groups… The complexity of society! There is the legacy of “homo soveticus”, there is the influence of mass culture in the desire for a good life, there is a desire for very personal happiness. It is a cocktail of sensations and experiences! Of course, each individual action is commendable, but in my opinion, the state (state organisations) should take the initiative, which should be based on sound science as much as possible. You cannot rely on an “invisible hand” or the free market to solve things. That will not happen! Reliance will certainly be linked to the circulation of money, and the logic of entrepreneurs is related to profit! All employees, willy-nilly, become part of the system! The director's salary is higher if the profit is higher; it does not matter at whose expense it happens! I think that the logic of long-term prosperity can only be balanced by the state – we must cast our eyes in the direction of the state – the state should understand what the main things for the well-being of society are. How society perceives, understands, and accepts the values it needs. For example, the education system.
Smiltene. What are you doing in that area?
I try to take care of others by taking care of myself. What does that mean? There is a term – cognitive dissonance – internal contradiction. In lectures, I tell students about social, economic, and ecological problems, and when I get to my city apartment, I realise that I cannot do much. These questions are intellectually exciting but psychologically depressing. There is not much good news. It is not pessimistic, but realistic! I have been living in the Smiltene region for a year and a half. We have 90 ha in the farm, 2/3 forest, 1/3 agricultural land, it has been handed over to us for use. The primary function is not a commercial farm, but we are a small group who work remotely. We grow for our own consumption. We are just getting settled in the rural environment. The property allows several families to live well. We host events – permaculture festivals, Gatis Kreicbergs’ bicycle workshop (unconventional bikes) has moved to us, Eco-School coordinators, foreign youths, etc. We are not an event organisation or a tourism centre! We are seriously focusing on restoring soil fertility because soil analysis shows the need to replenish nutrients!
This school year, I am teaching modern social theories to sociologists, providing an interdisciplinary insight. Still, many “remain” in their own discipline (sector) and evaluate others from that view: what they should or should not do. There is a known story about six blind men and an elephant, which each touches from their own side, and each has a different impression. I tell them: that every scientific discipline or sector should also evaluate itself outside the frames of “its own theory”! This is very necessary for sustainability! Within the permaculture movement and in guest lectures at the LLU with farmers and foresters, we talk about agro-ecology and agro-forestry practice, which is aimed at understanding: how not to deplete your property in a short time, so that the property is fertile in the long term, and, for example, in what volume plant protection products should be used so as not to cause side effects. There are things you notice but do not think about. For example, you drive through half of Germany by car and conclude that the car’s windscreen is clean. Wait, wait, not so long ago it had to be washed several times; where are the insects? Of course, the number of insects is difficult to measure, but a 2017 study shocked us with the fact that in 29 years the absolute mass of insects has decreased by 75% in the territory of German nature parks. One can look at it very practically: there will be fewer mosquitoes, they won't bite! But – insects are at the bottom of the food chain! If the bottom “collapses”, what happens to the next stages? Resource depletion, climate instability, “messing up” food chains… It is connected! It is also connected to human greed and the economic system that rewards it, unfortunately. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Earth provides enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, but not everyone’s greed!"
Photographs from the University of Latvia and zemeunvalsts.lv were used