At the forestry sector conference held at the end of November, the Nature Conservation Agency debunked the myth that Latvia is the greenest country in the world - claiming it is not so green after all. However, upon checking the statistics compiled by the very same institution, one has to conclude that it is deliberately diluting the colours. Latvia is greener than environmental institutions are willing to admit.

Why is this being questioned, and why are environmental interests systematically set against the needs of the Latvian economy? The answer most likely lies in money. The more dramatic the situation, the greater the need to research, defend, develop various plans and access available funding, which is truly substantial for the circle of environmental experts close to state institutions.

The largest reserve overlooked

The presentation by the Nature Conservation Agency and the information subsequently distributed to the media included several incorrect claims. Firstly, the supposedly "debunked" myth about the greenest country. The Agency's Director General Juris Jātnieks states that the area of specially protected nature territories covers 11.5% of Latvia's land area, which is allegedly the third-lowest figure in the European Union. In wealthy Estonia, to which we like to compare ourselves, it is said to be more than 17%. In fact, Latvia is ahead of Estonia and a number of other countries... On the Nature Conservation Agency's website, we can read loud and clear that, in total, specially protected nature territories cover 19% of Latvia's land. In turn, a figure closer to (and still higher than) the one mentioned by Director General Jātnieks is formed if one "discards" the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve from the statistics, which covers 457,708 hectares or 7% of the land. This is a huge area where economic restrictions must be taken into account, even if they are not as significant as in other types of protection zones. There are also micro-reserves, the number of which increases almost after every walk by an environmental expert or ornithologist in someone else's forest. Furthermore, if the objective 19% figure is supplemented by another 15.6% of Latvia's maritime territory, which has been granted a protected status, Latvia can be considered a leader in environmental protection.

All the best for the barnacle

In the sea, there are another 436,468 hectares where economic activity is restricted. No wind turbines, oil drilling or other extraction of mineral resources, or regular fishing. Restrictions on ship traffic. In the sea and the gulf, one must protect, for example, the red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), the black-throated diver (Gavia arctica), hard substrate reefs with Furcellaria lumbricalis vegetation, and hard substrate reefs exposed to open water with barnacle (Balanus improvisus) incrustations.

That is not all, because the emerging Maritime Spatial Plan, which will regulate economic life in Latvian waters until 2030, identifies areas for research into natural values. And if values are found there, it is likely that new restrictions in line with environmental protection requirements will also be imposed there. It should be remembered that this is exactly why farmers, forest owners and rural residents in general are worried about the so-called "nature census project", which has been taking place on land for the second year already and will continue next year.

It does not add up yet

The official name of the nature census is "Creation of prerequisites for better preservation of biodiversity and protection of ecosystems in Latvia". The project costs 9.5 million euros. Environmental experts are writing species protection plans, walking through meadows, forests and the seashore. They tick protected habitats on maps according to a catalogue, but according to an unwritten agreement of the outgoing government, one cannot demand protection regimes until the project is completed. What the point of the project is, apart from absorbing Cohesion Fund money, no institution or minister has yet explained in a clear and correct way. At the very least, identifying habitats for the sake of identification and counting for the sake of counting cannot be considered an explanation. According to the evaluation of the first season of the nature census, only 18% of meadow habitats are in good condition. We will find out the consequences of this conclusion after all habitats have been counted. In this section, the project should conclude at the end of 2019. A credible version is that the identification of natural values will trigger a further chain of restrictions on economic activity and the removal of new areas from economic circulation. But every hectare on which restrictions are placed means lost profit, uncollected taxes, and jobs not created. And - compensation must be paid to owners from taxpayers' money. Although it is symbolic, compared to the value of the forest donated to environmental protection statistics - 160 euros. There is no money for fair compensation, and allocating it will not be a priority for the new government either, yet restrictions and their areas continue to be increased. Against this background, the Nature Conservation Agency's call that "we must all fight for compensation together!!!" seems highly artificial. Just like the call to reconcile nature conservation and economic interests by absorbing funding available in the LIFE programme. In reality, green money is only available to commercial entities "on paper".

Keeping the money within their own circle

We are talking about a lot of money – 3.4 billion euros in this EU financial planning period. And the same is predicted for the next seven-year cycle. State and municipal institutions, public organisations and, theoretically, entrepreneurs can apply for funding, but in practice, the latter do not get the money even if they qualify for it. At least in the case of Latvia, preference is given to the same institutions, as well as the same closely associated researchers. In November, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, together with the Environmental Protection Fund, raised the programme's implementation capacity by awarding prizes to various projects in different categories.

Researching the lesser spotted eagle for 2.22 million has been named the most ambitious project, and the 1.6 million book on Natura 2000 management is the most nationally significant project. The most territorially extensive project is the almost one-million-worth Life Hydroplan, known to the general public as the Ķemeri wetland restoration project. In total, 48 LIFE projects worth approximately 40 million have been implemented in Latvia so far, but only one merchant has received the flowerpot gifted by the Ministry of Environment – SIA Balticfloc, which has invented how to manufacture insulation for house building from hemp fibre and waste paper. The project budget is almost three million – it offers a finished factory prototype. The EU-promised co-financing is 1.8 million. However, the entrepreneur is already tired of walking back and forth to banks, because no bank wants to provide the guarantees requested by the distributors of LIFE programme money, and he is implementing the project with his own funds, mortgaging everything he owns. There is already talk in the corridors of Brussels that "there is no point letting merchants have access to this money". Too messy! It is simpler if the money is counted by state institutions or public entities that have grown together with them. For example, the Nature Conservation Agency for writing a book on the management of EU-importance nature conservation areas Natura 2000 until 2030.

Which one is the real tiger

In conclusion, another debatable idea that Juris Jātnieks included in his presentation at the Forestry sector conference. First, he invokes Blaumanis' Indrāni, because "cut down that little tree, and you will have ruined the soul of this Place", but uses the example of the "Asian tiger" – South Korea – to illustrate that one can earn money without growing or cutting down forests. Nature tourism and showcasing modest reed beds in that country are said to bring in huge profits - up to 900,000 dollars a day for one regional municipality. Just a very significant nuance: Latvia's area is not even half as small, yet the population is 26 times smaller than in the aforementioned Eastern country! Of course, one can hope that showing off marshes will become a pillar of Latvia's economy in the future. However, it is safer to rely on productive sectors that are already performing this function. And, among other things, using taxes to maintain Latvia's environmental diversity and natural wealth.