...Latvia for insufficient protection of habitats and species

"Under the Habitats Directive, member states have agreed to establish a coherent European 'Natura 2000' network, and for this purpose, they submit proposals to the Commission regarding suitable sites of European Union importance. However, Latvia has not indicated all the sites in its proposals that should have been indicated, nor do they properly cover the various habitat types and species that require protection. Latvia has two months to respond to the arguments put forward by the Commission. If this is not done, the EC may decide to send a reasoned opinion," said Kaspars Kreics, a representative of the European Commission representation in Latvia.

zemeunvalsts.lv commentary:

1. Latvia faces a peculiar situation, which presumably part of the public is unaware of: the EC bases its opinions not on data and situational assessments collected by EC representatives themselves, but on data submitted by the member states themselves.

Regarding the accuracy of the data, two quotes:

"Emotionally, we assume that the report was based on expert opinion; of course, it depends on who the expert is and how objectively and adequately they assess the situation.
Can an expert provide an objective assessment?
They shouldn't! But in life, things don't always go as they should!"

"The report is prepared according to a specific methodology and specific criteria. The criteria are very strict. It can happen that what is written in the report and the actual state of nature differ! The question is about the methodology used to assess it! Much depends on the choice of criteria. Methodology and criteria create differences!"
(From an interview with Daiga Vilkaste, Director of the Nature Protection Department at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development)

2. There are no clearly understandable criteria that would be clear to every inhabitant of Latvia: how is the necessity of protecting a certain territory assessed, and as the country's main policymaker in the field of nature conservation, Daiga Vilkaste, has pointed out, "A restricted area is certainly not the only way to protect! Nearly all European countries started with strict prohibitions at one time, and in the end, concluded that restrictions do not always ensure results and that other solutions must be sought. Landowners are ready for this; a mechanism must be found for how this could work so that it does not create an unnecessary administrative burden for state institutions."

3. The point made by the representative of a public organization (LDF) regarding the areas of protected territories is strange and generalized. Firstly, it would be appropriate to compare not just 'bare numbers', but the significance of land use in the national economy. Secondly, in Croatia, a large part of the territory is occupied by mountains. Thirdly, it is good that public organizations do not hide the fact that, instead of nature conservation, they are concerned with including large areas in protected status without serious justification (or perhaps there is a justification, but it is being hidden?), but to base the country's future development perspectives on hysteria stirred up in many places is erroneous, narrow-minded, and dangerously shortsighted.

4. It would be good to understand: do Latvian institutions defend the interests of Latvian inhabitants and landowners (entrepreneurs), and if so, how exactly?