One must agree with our Scandinavian colleagues that we will never be able to reach the goals set for environmental requirements in the forest. This is because the goals have been designed to be unreachable. There is already a palpable fatigue from the repeated 'in-depth assessments' and 'annual additions' which claim that 'the decline of biodiversity has not slowed' and 'that it is impossible to see a clear direction for environmental development', or that 'everything is getting worse, biodiversity is shrinking, birds are dying out…' This is despite the fact that around 28% of Latvia's territory is covered by various restrictions intended for environmental protection and conservation. Almost the same assertions are, with remarkable regularity—and recently even more intensely—being included in the reports, species protection plans, letters, magazines, blogs, and articles of a small group of environmental activists ('experts'). But… those who do not wish to see, will not see! They do not see the actual situation…

('If I see that a decision (regardless of the group—whether in a company, politics, or elsewhere…) has made life better for us all, it is clear that these people (the decision-makers, the arbiters) have not lost their sense of reality.' Mārtiņš Gaigals, interview with zemeunvalsts.lv, 11 February 2019)

Statistics available in Latvia show positive changes in our forests (forest monitoring by LSFRI Silava). We know that in areas where biodiversity is considered significant, it is being preserved. This applies, for example, to old-growth forests, deadwood, and deciduous stands, the amounts of which have significantly increased over the last 20 years. Participants of various environmental organisations still write in their reports that 'a forest environment with suitable characteristics for many threatened forest species has recently formed and is developing more slowly than the old ones are disappearing'. For the most part, these assertions do not indicate a clear and verifiable source of information; the reasoning remains at the level of mere claims. It is worth reading these claims, because many—though by no means all (even highly protected)—species are not forming their suitable habitats quickly enough. Nothing is mentioned about a 'net loss' of biodiversity.

('If there are countries in the world that think at least a hundred years ahead—about how the nation, the state, and society will develop, others look at least ten years ahead, but there are countries, including Latvia, that struggle with the problem of looking further than one year ahead…' Jānis Dombrava, interview with zemeunvalsts.lv, 16 January 2019)

Of course, we cannot dispute that the 'colonisation' of suitable environments by many species takes a long time, and thus the number of individuals of certain species is decreasing. However, the message (the claim) that it is generally 'difficult for species to spread' and that 'only "common" species inhabit new habitats' is neither convincing nor well-founded. The fact that demanding ('picky') plants also grow and develop in habitats is seen as self-evident, but the fact that species diversity changes does not mean that biodiversity is being lost or reduced. The number of individuals of some species is decreasing, while others are increasing: this is a fact that must be accepted.

Forest bird species are undeniably 'colonising' new environments. Contrary to claims that stand out with 'incredible precision' (the reduction in the number of individual birds is even presented to the nearest tenth of a percentage point), the situation with forest birds is significantly better than with birds living in other territories (landscapes). Studies point to an increase in many bird species and a relatively small number of declining species.

('…any activities I support can take place anywhere, just not on my property or the territory belonging to me! Prohibitions and restrictions in any form are applicable to others, not me!' Mārtiņš Līdums in an interview with zemeunvalsts.lv, 14 February 2019)

Despite this, very large funds are invested in various measures. For example, 2.2 million EUR have been allocated for the monitoring of the lesser spotted eagle. Within the framework of this project, it is planned to create 50 micro-reserves (44,000 EUR per one nest!). Do the lesser spotted eagles know about this? How will the situation change after spending 2.2 million? Will it stimulate the lesser spotted eagles' desire to reproduce?

On what basis is the assessment made regarding a supposed continuous decline in biodiversity?

Representatives of environmental organisations interpret this by emphasising that the decline of biodiversity has not been halted. Strange. One could rather say the opposite! If we were experiencing a continuous decline in biodiversity, many species today would be more endangered than they were 15–20 years ago.

(Of course, the landscape will change most significantly—the railway line, power line, stations, etc. We will have to get used to the new landscape again, and after a while, it will seem as if it has always been this way. Interview with Egita Lūsēna, zemeunvalsts.lv, 24 January 2019)

In the event that any particularly protected species becomes more endangered, that will obviously be a problem, but this is a different case. The fact that there are species that may be threatened does not indicate a reduction in biodiversity. All evidence suggests that Latvia, where 52% of the territory is covered by forest, has significantly increased its protected areas and possesses rich biodiversity.

Of course, one can argue: which species should be considered endangered solely because their numbers in Latvia are falling. Certain species should eventually be included in more serious categories because they have become rare, their numbers are very low, or their population has become very fragmented. But then they would be selected based on different criteria. In Latvia, there are no clear statistics on the true population status of birds. The potential decline of hazel grouse (still a huntable bird!), yellow wagtails, and three-toed woodpecker populations between 2005 and 2017 is largely based on assumptions. There is reason to be cautious when drawing and publishing conclusions. Reading, for example, the species protection plan for the hazel grouse, we find many different interpretations based on emotional assumptions.

('The hazel grouse is a relatively common bird. I personally have met it regularly during my 30 years of hunting experience.' Jānis Baumanis, interview with zemeunvalsts.lv, 1 February 2019)

It is thought that the view of a continuous loss of biodiversity has been based on an approach where every decrease in the number of individuals of a species or the disappearance of local species is considered a reduction in biodiversity. 'Change is a loss.' The decline in numbers of certain species or their disappearance in certain places has, unfortunately, always happened. In reality, such a 'loss of biodiversity' does not exist. In Latvia's forests, biodiversity is not threatened. The Latvian forestry sector is NOT a threat to biodiversity—a narrative that 'environmental' 'defenders' driven by self-interest try to 'demonise' and emphasise.

('How we balance forestry and natural values is a great art!' Juris Buškevics, in an interview with zemeunvalsts.lv)

We understand that a large part of the information about 'supposedly' or actually threatened bird species is received from ornithologists; much depends on their integrity and professionalism. We know that in Latvia, there are only so many ornithologists, and unfortunately: 'one crow will not pick out another's eye'… Many forest owners and managers are seriously concerned about a situation they cannot control for objective reasons. Here, one must rely on the responsibility, professionalism, and knowledge of experts. To increase their accountability, experts would need the status of a state official, which is not a 'panacea', but it would raise the level of responsibility and the assessment of the consequences of their actions much higher.