“Previously, it is possible that the assessment for certain habitats or species was lower than... well, assessed lower than it actually is. But, primarily, this was linked to the fact that there was no data, and so on, due to this lack of data.” (The article outlines the situation that “data will be coming”. But…)

For an introduction. It has not been long since that beautiful summer when we read the slogan “People are the most important!” on many buses and vans. There was also a portrait of the person who uttered those important words...

I think it is not always clear to the people of Latvia, and it is not always explained to them, whether the document that the people of the system refer to or use as an excuse corresponds to reality, events, and the situation in nature (please see the introduction).

We often hear: “We are acting this way because the law dictates it (the law dictates nothing; it is the authors of the law who wished to dictate) or European regulations.” Before such a claim, it would be good to hear the justification for why the person in question is acting this way, according to the instructions, and whether they know that by acting according to the instructions, they are acting reasonably, for the benefit of society, and in a way that does not harm others. The document is accepted without question: “Europe, the Government, who else – they know better!”

When I was invited to participate in one-day habitat mapping, I thought that some articles on zemeunvalsts.lv had offended someone, and I was being invited to “see the difficult everyday work of a mapper with my own eyes.” I was wrong; my conclusions were self-critical and premature! I was invited as someone interested and a bit knowledgeable, and – within the limits of my knowledge – as an evaluator and someone to clear up a few doubts. But – I participated!

A story from the forest. Five hours and about five kilometres, mapping habitats. Latvia, 2019.

Getting out of the car and pulling on rubber boots, it starts to drizzle. The Song Festival raincoat protects quite well against the wetness – it will rain until the end of the “circuit” in the forest. We need to check a few forest plots once more because “desk and office people*” believe that something was missed last year! Is that so?

The forest is damp, wet, boggy, swampy. Of course, I don’t know what it was like during last year’s dry summer.

The first stand of trees. My companion says: “Normal productive forest! I don’t see a habitat here!” There is no moss, there is grass, dampness, and birch trees. We look at deadwood (>20 cm in diameter), dry trees (the same dimensions), there are few of them. The required number per hectare is not reached. While my companion evaluates the tree storeys and ground cover, I examine a blackbird’s nest. Talking, we conclude that both of us are oriented in tree stands and ground cover, but I am also quite “decently” familiar with birds. Mushrooms and lichens are not within the scope of our knowledge. We do not mention insects!

A ditch. Full and deep. About 200 metres to the left is the reason for the fullness and depth – a family of beavers. We get across. The second stand of trees. Slightly older. The situation is the same.

Step by step, a pine and an occasional aspen appear. It is a different plot, and life becomes more interesting. The pine is thick, maybe around 150 years young, but there are few pines. Birch still dominates, fallen birches, and a friend, the grey alder, appears. We talk about the “three-finger combination” in habitat identification, which quite loosely leads to an attitude (not by me or my companion) towards the forest stand and the property we are in. It is a beautiful, damp forest. No habitats.

To get to another plot, we cross a meadow. It was mapped last year. The meadow is unmanaged, rich in flowering plants, and bit by bit, pine and an occasional birch and aspen “shoot” are “marching in”. We talk about how natural meadows should be mown and the hay collected so that too many nutrients do not accumulate. “The leaner, the better!” It is to be expected that if the beautiful meadow is not mown or grazed, in two years there will be more pines and birches. It is a good thing that there is no grey alder too close by.

Similar conditions continue until the end of the survey. Rubber boots come in very handy. In the plots, there are one or two overgrown little lakes that you cannot get close to (you could get stuck!). The dampness in the tree stand does its job; I am constantly wrong in determining the age of the trees because they all look quite healthy even in the abundance of water.

Realising that we do not want to go for a swim, we cross a beaver dam. Latvia’s chief engineer has done their best; it is possible that in our walk, more than one hectare is under “beaver-water”. We pass by the site of a homestead, mentioning March 1949. That is how it looks! Lilacs and the place...

Still birch stands. Healthy and typical for Latvia. Good, valuable productive forests!

Conclusions

The counter has the opportunity to miss something. As can be understood, the evaluator pays attention to what they know or recognise better. Not every birdwatcher will notice a rare mushroom and lichen, and a forestry specialist might walk past a short-toed eagle’s nest.

The influence of office specialists is felt, which can steer doubtful situations in one direction or another. Is there a need for “reports” after including areas in the list of habitats, who thought of this and is implementing it, and what is the justification for it? Does a commitment exist to turn a certain part of Latvia into a nature reserve without consulting the owners and the public? Who thought of basing nature conservation on restrictions, prohibitions, and sterility?

Seeing our speed of movement – 1 km/h, it is to be expected that one could survey up to 20-25 hectares a day (if the forests are of a dry type). One must look, measure, evaluate, etc. – delve into it. Are the organisers sure that everyone acts this way? What is the average time for surveying a hectare or a plot?

Recently we criticised mappers walking on private properties. We were in a private forest. Who and where the owner is – is not known. I assume that the Data Regulation comes to the aid of the mappers. I understand both sides, but – when planning time and work – it is possible for the owner or their representative and the surveyor to meet in the plot! If such a prerequisite exists!

The most important question – the mapper’s responsibility (I, however, would say – the responsibility of the mapping organisers!). It is a matter of private property and our forests, meadows, and bogs. How seriously and with what knowledge and – most importantly – according to what standard are these quite widely known works being carried out? I very much doubt that the information and narrative I heard were made up especially for my trip. Problems are and exist! It seems essential to me – how thoroughly each plot is evaluated and whether and how there is a possibility to change the status (again!) in some office? Does the taxation of plots affect the desire to “see” a habitat at any cost? The most tragic thing is – each mapper can view the plot to be mapped differently! Here the view of the owner, the biologist, the forester, the entomologist, etc., is needed! Whichever view is superior for the person concerned, that is what we get! I fully trust my companion’s assessment and doubts, I understand their concerns and questions. For example, has anyone informed or taught (explained to) the landowner how exactly their 0.73-hectare natural meadow should be managed? Is there an algorithm according to which the owner pays less tax for this meadow because they maintain it in order and value? Is the Nature Conservation Agency interested in a good or bad state of habitats? And – as is known from a Nature Conservation Agency official – if previously data had been “transmitted” emotionally and “meagrely”, what exactly guarantees the maximum correctness and accuracy of this data for every Latvian citizen this time?

Summary. European and budget money is our money – yours, mine, the neighbour’s, and a friend’s. Taking into account the figure intended for habitat mapping, there must be a certainty that 10 years after that (the end of the mapping), the situation in forests, meadows, and bogs will be clear and understandable. And not to a narrow circle, but to the owner, the forester, the citizen in the neighbouring parish, and the natural science teacher. The situation I saw, listened to, and felt gives the impression that we have another train procurement, another library, and a Deglava bridge repair, which is called the identification of natural values. Namely – the necessary reports are being created so that – depending on who wants it – it looks beautiful or not so beautiful in European institutions, but for the eagle, the bolete, the Cladonia, the woodcutter, and the owner on their own land and forest, only problems and headaches will remain from it!

Contradictions

We already wrote that “The Nature Conservation Agency has announced plans to fell 236 hectares of trees in the Green Bog territory in Kemeri National Park this year. In total, it is planned to fell 333 hectares, with the work being finished next year. This is being done to promote faster bog restoration. It is, however, unclear why it is necessary to intervene so seriously in natural processes in order to supposedly preserve the natural environment.”

Opposed to that: “In Latvia, we are facing a problem found elsewhere in Europe that is not characteristic of us: natural bogs are a rarity in many places; Germany and the Netherlands have the “loudest voices” in European structures and... have no bogs. But - these countries have money to devote to nature conservation matters. A strange situation is forming - they themselves (in Germany and the Netherlands) have nothing to protect, but they come to Latvia and tell us how we should act so as not to end up in the situation in which they currently find themselves, having industrially extracted about 90% of their bogs!” (Interview with Ilze Ozola, Deputy Chair of the Board of the Lake and Bog Research Centre)

* desk and office people – residents of Latvia and Europe who only know the forest and the countryside from sitting at their desks in their offices