In my opinion, Latvia's initial problem was the incomplete scientifically based database at the moment we joined the EU. At that time, Latvia needed to prepare a document in which protected areas would be designated as NATURA 2000 sites. The document was created in great haste, without delving into the actual situation of the protected areas. Currently, habitat mapping, or the so-called 'nature census', has been completed in Latvia, which shows that there are about 363,000 hectares in Latvia's forests that meet the criteria for protected areas set by the EU. Added to this are natural meadows and wetlands, a large proportion of which the EU considers to be valuable habitats. Only now, having obtained comprehensive information, can we begin to talk about the significance of each area. At present, there is a lack of scientifically modelled information that would allow political decisions to be made on the inclusion of one area or another in the list of protected areas. At the same time, the existing list of protected areas must be reviewed so that it is objectively justified, because nature is dynamic - what was worth protecting in the mid-2000s may no longer be relevant today. For example, both the white stork and the black stork are on the list of protected birds. We know well that there are now a great many white storks in Latvia, whereas the black stork remains a rarity. It often happens that protected species move from protected forests to managed forests - many of them actually prefer a tended forest. My point is that protected areas cannot be a static quantity - restrictions must be systematically reviewed, and prompt decisions must be made both to impose restrictions and to lift them if they have lost their relevance.