An interview (with responses, without questions) with Uldis Ameriks, Chairman of the Board of Laflora

Speaking of the idea contained in new European Union plans and documents: that a certain percentage (30%) of member states' territory should be set aside for environmental protection, I am very concerned about the potential arbitrary decisions in this regard. I believe the aforementioned idea was born as a result of the pressure from that European public, which was quite accurately personified by the young lady from Sweden, Greta. Namely, 'everything is dying, everything is collapsing, something must be done, and very quickly!' In the haste and anxiety, the foundation for serious decisions on serious matters is very often lost. Environmental issues are long-term; therefore, to act, decide, or act hastily under the influence of emotions will be neither sustainable nor viable in the long run. The consequences of today's or this year's decisions will be felt for many years into the distant future. In my opinion, a decision must be weighed and well-founded. One must not forget that the European Union encompasses a large area of a relatively small part of the world with very different conditions and experiences. There is Scandinavia, there is the Baltics, there are Mediterranean countries, there are islands. For example, it is often said: '35% of the country's territory is already protected in Slovenia, the Slovenians are fine.' Excuse me, those are uninhabited mountain regions where there are probably some natural values, but...

I am very fond of and close to the concept of sustainability; every document, every strategy, every normative act should be viewed in accordance with it – so that the environmental, social (human), and economic aspects are in balance. Speaking of nature and biodiversity, man as a component or 'product' of nature is being forgotten. Unjustifiably and undeservedly!

In Latvia, I am concerned about the concept of ethnos in its deepest essence. How do I understand it? In every place where people have lived and currently live, one can see the sum of the 'footprints' (works, life paths, etc.) left by these people. These footprints, of course, are fading. The President of the State has highlighted this issue in his vision by proposing a draft law on Latvia's historical lands and territories (Latvian Historical Lands Law). We know that Selonians, Semigallians, Curonians, Livonians, etc., have lived in Latvia. In many places, we can only judge these people by the names of places or geographical objects.

If we look, for example, at the Teiči Nature Reserve (established in 1982), there is discussion about how the birds and plants feel there, talk about wetlands, the marsh, but... people have lived and continue to live there. Siksala, a settlement of Old Believers in the middle of the marsh! By the way, the Lubāna area has one of the oldest known human settlements in the territory of present-day Latvia. Is that talked about much and loudly? No! There are conventions, there are documents, there are strategies... Even in the certification rules, there are theses on protecting local communities. Wait! Who in whose perception are local residents? In a way, the Siksala Old Believers are being driven away from Teiči...

Yes, we are great achievers – in Latvia, we have 40% of the world's population of the Lesser Spotted Eagle; the eagle feels good here. But – do the people who have lived with the eagle (and the eagle with them) wonderfully until now feel good here? Are their rights not being restricted? Is their quality of life being maintained? Certainly not! People are leaving their family homes and... we forget about them.

For example, the Livonians: at the moment, a small group of people is trying in various ways to find and preserve their Livonian roots.

I am a native of Liepāja. I have always been delighted and surprised by the Kurzeme triangle – Rucava, Nīca, Bārta. Look at their folk costumes! The competition and the vividness – what will be the best, what will be the most valuable!

In this regard, European regulations and the potential 'mandatory protected percentages' are similar to the classic Procrustean bed. In the Soviet years, one could consider the 'ideological framework' set at that time as such – we will build communism, we will be happy (everyone!!!!) and... by about 1980, it will all be done.

In parables – today we hear numbers named by some official or politician, vivid promises, while at the same time not noticing the differences between countries and regions. Moreover, every country has its own independence and sovereignty, and every country has its most significant asset – land (both the resource under the ground – minerals, including peat, and the soil and forest). To deny the opportunity to act and use Latvia's resources reasonably and skillfully is our robbery! By naming or setting some percentages, this territory is being taken away from both us and future generations. The speeches sound beautiful: 'we are protecting for future generations.'

I remember well a conversation* where Doctor of Geological Sciences Ilze Ozola (Lake and Mire Research Center) mentioned the possibility of counting unused and unusable peatlands as protected areas, thus fulfilling potential rules. I think that won't fly! It's not about these peatlands being handed over for extraction; we have many areas with worthless habitats where peat extraction is possible, and there are areas where some work has already begun.

In my opinion, thinking about the future, these areas should be reserved. Peatlands are our great resource: 1.5 billion tonnes, which is already encumbered (I am not talking about reserves or 'Natura 2000' areas). A reserve must be left for future generations! We are thinking about the production of peat products, and peat processors provide high value added. Peat has great potential in the production of various products, but... if we limit ourselves... 'getting into' 'Natura 2000' can be done quickly. Getting out? You won't!

Analyzing 'Natura 2000' areas with all their restrictions, it is visible – for unknown reasons, habitat quality is declining. From the moment the territory began to be protected, as time passes, the respective plants in this territory are no longer found or are found in significantly smaller numbers than hoped. In the mentioned area, the plant or animal was accustomed to a certain cohabitation with man and his work. Now that is no longer the case and... That is talked about little.

Speaking of biodiversity, reading documents, I see that it is more about conservation, which I understand as a wish or desire to stop time. Can it be done?

Speaking of climate change and species distribution, which I follow in various scientific sources... For example, the bark beetle known to many in Latvia is 'traveling'. If we read about the problems caused by the bark beetle in Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic and know that the beetle is moving towards us, I, while reading plans about the desire for a connected (continuous) 'Natura 2000' network from one corner of Europe to the opposite, have to remember the saying: 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' By promoting biodiversity, it will simultaneously promote the wandering of invasive species. What about that? Is it thought of?

Peat and climate. Peat extraction is a strong Latvian (local) sector of the national economy that has 'lived' through the centuries. It is historically recorded that the first peat extraction sites in our territory operated as early as the time of Duke Jacob. Peat has always 'saved' people in crises, for example, in the wars that affected our territory. If we remember what forest areas we had after World War I...

In Soviet times, peat was one of the basic energy resources; it was not for nothing that many peat factories were built – Seda, Aizpute, Līvāni, Baloži, Strūžāni, Zilaiskalns... In the Soviet state, energy was a strategic sector that could be put on the same shelf as the defense industry. That would be one story about peat. In those same times in Latvia and its neighbors, agriculture performed well; people living in the big Soviet cities needed to eat, livestock farming had to be developed. As is known, many farms were built where peat was used heavily for bedding – slightly decomposed light sphagnum peat, by the way, is sterile. In Kaigu bog, there operated the largest peat bedding production facility in Latvia, which fully supplied the Dobele and Jelgava districts.

Upon regaining independence, other winds began to blow in the field of energy: yes, peat is available, but... it has to be extracted, transported, it creates dust. .... We have gas available: cheap fuel, we are abandoning peat. Allies in the West continued to use peat, even today, if we look at where else in Europe peat is used – the answer will be – in energy! With us, therefore, 20 years ago, the situation in energy changed.

Latvian peat is an ideal raw material for peat substrate, where to grow vegetables, flowering plants, seedlings for the forest, etc. After all, there was and is a demand for such products, and a reorientation took place in Latvia. So, I will repeat – 20 years ago, what is happening in Europe only today happened in Latvia! We have outpaced Europe by 20 years. We were more far-sighted and contemporary! We are ahead of the Finns, the Irish, the Swedes. We produce the extracted peat for healthy food and forest seedlings.

Recently, contradictions and manipulations have been seen and read in many places – what exactly is peat. In the European understanding, peat is a fossil, non-renewable resource: this does not correspond to reality. Latvian scientists have concluded that peat is slowly regenerating; Latvia's balance in terms of peat is positive because its extraction takes place in only 4% of the total area of bogs. In untouched or slightly touched bogs, or where sphagnum moss grows, the process of peat formation continues. For example, in the Teiči Nature Reserve, the peat layer increases by 4 mm per year. Why talk about the fossil nature of peat in this case? Why such a limited approach?

If we talk about energy, let it be! But peat used in gardening is a stable part of the circular economy. Personally, I am angry and outraged – there are spheres that create GHG emissions that need attention, but... the approach to determining them has been extremely careless, 'by just taking a glance'. 'Peat is fossil, it is burned somewhere...' There is an assumption that by extracting peat (for energy or horticultural purposes), a significant amount of CO2 is released into the air. Excuse me, that is a mistake! By extracting peat, by producing substrate, CO2 is retained and oxidizes: in China, the USA, Australia – everywhere our product arrives. Similarly, I would evaluate the opinion – 'driving a car is correct because emissions should be calculated for oil extractors.' If such questions are viewed so superficially and so simply... We, as peat producers and extractors, are put in an awkward situation, creating a skewed and false impression of us.

This year, the export of peat substrate has increased by 15%. Why? People understand that it is an excellent material for gardening, people want quality food. For example, China has a state directive: 'we will eat what we have grown ourselves.' That is our opportunity! If, in the Covid-19 situation, which, unfortunately, we already know well, the sector's export is growing, the sector should be developed and supported! Another important thing I want to emphasize, our high-quality substrate is definitely widely usable right here in Latvia. The changing climate also works to our advantage – by growing vegetables here, on the spot, we can become the 'second Netherlands.' The Biodiversity Strategy provides for the planting of 3 billion trees in the urban environment (cities and suburbs): this is a great niche for Latvia – we have experience, we have a foundation (Latvijas valsts meži) with excellent nurseries. (By the way, within the framework of reclamation programs, we at 'Laflora' are also planning our own nursery.) Opportunities are great – they must be used!

Bogs and climate. In many documents where bogs are mentioned, it is often written: bogs – a huge carbon store. Let it be so, there is carbon in bogs, but there is another carbon-containing gas in bogs – methane. Emissions are divided into two groups – anthropogenic and natural. Peat extraction is considered the former, understandably, but – what about the latter? It is not mentioned and not considered (or considered little). Reading various literature sources, there are both scientific studies and Latvian folk songs (Dainas). How so? For Latvians, the bog has been quite a mysterious and dangerous place – better not go there, there are will-o'-the-wisps or money drying... Something nasty is there... In natural bogs, swamp gas (methane) is formed and released. If we have even an approximate inkling of the peat formation processes, know something about rotting and its chemical processes – peat is incompletely decomposed organics. At 6-9 meters, which is approximately the thickness of the peat layer in Latvia, anaerobic processes occur continuously, and if one delves into them and reads about methane, it is concluded that there is a lot of CO2 and methane in bogs. What is methane in the understanding of climate? In one source we find: CO2x10, in others – CO2x20, or even x80...

Where are the biggest bogs? In Siberia. What is the anxiety about? As a result of climate change, permafrost (tundra) is beginning to melt, and it is indicated in estimates that there could be 70 billion tonnes of methane in Siberia. If that starts to escape... ???? Numbers speak. By focusing only on the anthropogenic effect, we see the situation extremely narrowly. Speaking of reclamation and bog restoration, the situation is similar – 'CO2 and that's it.' Wait, but what happens with methane? In restored bogs, it will be there. How much, how? By the way, one doesn't have to look far; during the recent fuel crisis, our nearby neighbors the Finns intended to collect the methane available in their bogs in some way and use it in energy.

Which reclamation scenarios for drained and degraded bogs would be the most correct? Renaturalization options or the creation (restoration) of bogs on agricultural land certainly deserve evaluation, and without concentrating on CO2 alone, but on all possible side effects. Maybe I am wrong, but I see a deliberate avoidance to speak about natural (non-anthropogenic) factors in relation to bogs, because they, as it turns out, are much broader and have more influence compared to human activity. I am against assumptions, various interpretations, or outright lying that this or that view is based on scientific research. If any conclusion is scientifically sound, it cannot be based solely and exclusively on one aspect – all must be taken into account. In the case of peat and Latvia, one must know and remember that it is one of our great resources (I do not agree with those who call only oil, gas, and diamonds resources). Our resources are the land (fields), forests, minerals, which we also have, and the most important resource is people! The latter resource we are literally destroying today by creating conditions for them to leave Latvia, for a person to feel threatened, to be in ignorance about their property and its future. Following local-scale arbitrariness – micro-reserves – someone may have seen something on family property, and this 'something' creates an encumbrance for the property and the owner... What to call this? Dictatorship? Robbery? For Latvia, the main argument in relation to any EU documents is the 1.5 million Latvians living in Latvia: we must leave quality of life to future generations so that one can pick berries, pick mushrooms, take walks, and also work in the bog and forest. For that, one needs a plan, not to bow and agree: 'Yes, we will have 30-37-50%...!'
*https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/aizsargajamo-teritoriju-rezerves-meklejamas-purvos/1017
Photographs from Laflora and zemeunvalsts.lv used