A recent trend – pulling a tyre out of the forest that someone else left there and then getting annoyed that a waste collector didn't take it away – obscures the question: “Why would anyone think a tyre should be in the forest in the first place?” If a forest feels right to its owner, a guest, and a bird, is it acceptable for someone to want to throw such a tyre around their necks, for example, in the form of a restriction. Who will benefit, or who will actually benefit?

What does the word “green” mean to you personally?

A simple question, but not an easy one to answer. Over time, political movements have emerged and developed around the word, and, indeed, it can even be used as a slur. To me, “green” means living in harmony with oneself – so that I and my loved ones can be well. It is in human nature and genes to be “green”, because we originated from nature and are a part of it. How we understand and express our “greenness” at the moment depends on everyone's different experiences: social, cultural, and expressions of extreme or less extreme thoughts in different directions. Being green means: being natural!

Speaking of green plans in Europe and the Green Deal, we hear very different information from ministries and from the associations of sectors likely to be affected. The voices and thoughts of local governments are not being heard: does it just seem that way, or were the local governments occupied with the administrative-territorial reform and recent elections until now?

Local governments are not staying silent; they are thinking about these matters. Perhaps their thoughts or opinions haven't been heard broadly enough. It is clear to local governments that there will be a lot of work in the context of the Green Deal, but... the important question is: who will pay for it all? One thing is that measures are necessary; another is that someone has to pay for them. Our concern is about a situation quite typical for Latvia: every ministry talks about issues close to it, whether it be energy (Ministry of Economics), eco-friendly transport (Ministry of Transport), or agriculture and climate (Ministry of Agriculture). There is a lack of a unified, national perspective, and there is also no clear concept of the Green Deal in the country as a whole. To put it figuratively: “The picture is large, but we do not see how to achieve the planned goals within it.” We are concerned, for example, that there might not be enough funds available to reach the targets. Understanding that the Green Deal “blanket” is currently being tugged in different directions, local governments are anxious about the feasibility of these plans; we are talking about this with the Prime Minister, in the Cabinet of Ministers, and elsewhere.

In previous interviews, I have compared the current explanation of the Green Deal to something happy and uplifting: let's go, smile, rejoice, and hum the “Green Song”. At the same time, over 30 years, a large part of society has not achieved the prosperity they hoped for. How large is this group of the population, and has any thought been given to them? For example, Krišjānis Kariņš's remarks about Latvia's old vehicle fleet. I think many would like a new car, but – how many can afford one? Is “green living” intended for everyone or only for the wealthy?

It is not popular to talk about how much the planned changes will cost every citizen of the country. For example, upon learning and understanding the potential financial scale, one might think: “I don't need it at that price!” That would be one thing.

Secondly, if a person has to change their habits, and realizing that the income (livelihood) level in Latvia is still not sufficient (we still haven't formed and stabilized a middle class, which we have been talking about for long enough), we must clearly understand our actual capabilities. For example, when talking about Latvia's vehicle fleet, I personally understand very well why it should be changed, and I understand why emissions should be reduced. Yes, if I had the funds, I would gladly buy a new electric car! But! Can I afford it? In discussions about potential support for buying electric cars, it becomes clear that it would be support for the wealthier segment of the population that can afford more expensive cars. For the average Latvian resident, it is still not “affordable”. I think, in connection with the Green Deal, we talk too little about national finances, forgetting about each citizen's individual financial capabilities entirely.

I would like to emphasize again that green ideas are very good and necessary; the question is another: how do we implement them, in what order does it happen, and who will pay for it. For example, speaking of air pollution, its prevention, and the replacement of old heating systems (coal, firewood) or connection to centralized heating grids (where possible). At the moment, this is relevant in Rīga, Liepāja, and Rēzekne, where funding is also earmarked. But! It will not cover all the necessary costs, and people whose income levels are not high live in such houses. If you also take into account that such houses usually lack centralized water supply and sewage, the question arises: “Is the smart and correct plan actually feasible?”

On one hand, I understand very well that people need financial support, on the other – it is immoral to financially support such processes through handouts. In any normal society, it shouldn't be that way.

Until these matters are (have been) sorted out, for a large part of the population, the Green Deal will be a bogeyman, rather than an acceptable and understandably executable thing.

Not only professionals in the forest sector often feel that instead of looking for better solutions, information from EU institutions is accepted in Latvia without question (like an order in the army). Is it routine or inertia, and how can this system be changed?

If I knew what to do...

I assume there are many discussions in the Association of Local and Regional Governments about issues important to the country.

Inertia in state administration is quite large. When talking about the civil service and state administration institutions, one more nuance must be taken into account, namely, it is considered that civil servants are the people who cannot decide for themselves, because a civil servant's personal decision is evidence of corruption. It sounds strange, but... civil servants are the public administration employees who execute what is written somewhere. If civil servants were allowed to make human mistakes (within the limits of reason, of course) and decide in a balanced way, analyzing several options and several alternatives, without immediately labelling a decision or the decision-making process as bribery, corruption, or a violation of rules, we would be much better off; decisions would be more understandable and of higher quality.

For example, when talking about environmental protection issues, a specific date is set in the country from which one can start catching pike. This can be set on paper, but... the situation depends on the weather conditions in spring (which can vary each year). In Kurzeme, rivers and lakes are ice-free, but in Latgale, the men are still busy with ice fishing. The example is very simple, but it is precisely in such simple cases that the decision must be made “on the spot”. If it is wrongly assumed that such decision-making is almost punishable, the bureaucracy will continue to be “little robots that follow instructions”.

Continuing: many processes directly related to nature conservation currently look “over-bureaucratized”. As conversations about specific events arise, the event itself becomes unimportant; what is important are the documents related to it, which are hardly known to the flying squirrel, the red-breasted merganser, or the oak grove... The discussion is not about the environment, nature, or developments, but about how everyone has understood or misunderstood the description of events. It is distracting.

It is distracting! On one hand, a process should “fit” into norms or laws, because if we want to manage the country, some framework of law or rules must exist. On the other hand, nature lives its own life; it does not submit to human laws, and the situation in every place is and will be different. If we do nothing in one place (Moricsala) and it is not needed, in another place action is necessary. It is impossible to describe everything in laws and regulations, so I will repeat what I said before: “For specific cases, experts must be allowed to decide, specifically those who are ‘on the spot’.” Another important point: there is a lack of belief in experts among the population in Latvia. Whether it is a nature conservation specialist, a doctor, a teacher, or a professional in another field. This is a very bad situation! If this belief and conviction existed, decisions and solutions could be created “on the spot”; there would be no obstacles to that.

Forest owners are very dissatisfied and angry about the situation: a forest has been managed for many years, where a neighbour resides and nests (hawk, buzzard, eagle, kite). A stranger, having encountered this neighbour and announced it to the authorities, puts the “forest under a restriction seal”. The forest changes, the neighbour disappears. Instead of protection, we get a struggle with restriction.

You are asking very accurately: it is not about the fact that we don't need to protect, and it is not about the fact that environmental and nature conservation measures are not needed, but it is about the implementation.

Speaking of restrictions, in my view, ideal nature conservation is without a single restriction and not a single protected area, because we all (everyone!) would know how to live and work: we would manage the land, and nature would be right there – side by side. An ideal variant!

Currently, the situation with nature conservation can be characterized as “two ditches, which are not empty...” One “was being dug” back in the Soviet era. For example, in Ainaži, there is the “Randu pļavas” nature reserve. Historically, cows were always grazed in these meadows; the meadows had to be grazed and mown, and there was excellent biodiversity, including rare and protected species. During the Soviet era, following a relatively orthodox idea of nature conservation, grazing cows in the meadows was forbidden. Now, instead of meadows, there are large reed fields; nature's riches are being lost, and they are trying to “get them back” step by step. This is an example where management is necessary for nature's splendour.

Now, there is much talk about meadows, and it is clear: they absolutely must be managed. If we speak about forests and forest habitats: we must understand what we are protecting – is it a specific habitat, as it is now, or is the natural process being protected? If the latter is protected, it is understandable that we do nothing, letting species change as it happens in nature. But – it must be clearly understood that the habitat we are protecting in this way will not exist after a shorter or longer time. It might “return” to this place after several hundred years, when the natural cycle closes. If we are protecting a specific habitat, we must understand what it needs, how it can be managed, and what should be done so that we keep it as it is. These are two different things, and both are necessary. The aforementioned Moricsala Reserve, where we do nothing, letting natural processes take their course. It is not always viewable and pleasant, because old trees also die in beautiful places, but it is a place where nature lives by itself. Regarding the rest, where a master's hand is needed, we must ensure that we manage it so that humans benefit and natural values also feel good.

Nature conservation policy and consistency. Why is the work handed over to NGOs, which also have their own interests?

Nature conservation is a field where you will not see results immediately; they will be years and decades away; it is quite possible that those working now will never see the results of their work. Nature conservation, natural processes, and ecology are not physics or mathematics where formulas help. Looking from another side, if we look at habitat mapping data and conclude that more than half of the European-importance habitats are located outside specially protected nature areas, we must ask: “Were the protected areas created in the right place back then, or are the management and protection regimes of these areas such that the habitats would be preserved and be of high quality?” The data obtained in habitat mapping shows: something has not been right until now. Understandably, questions arise about such a situation. People talk about correcting mistakes and improving protection, but... before that, a very careful and clear analysis would definitely be needed as to why this has happened and what has been wrong. Currently, I do not have clear understanding or knowledge of the reasons why the mapping results are like this. They should not be like that!

How correct is the principle: we will talk about problems while forgetting the existing wealth.

Unfortunately, in any field, people tend to emphasize the negative, not only in nature conservation. I cannot agree with this stance because I read and gain more information than people not associated with nature conservation processes. Nature conservation issues are my profession; I know them well. I think we have enough information about the good things we have as well.

The explanation could be very simple: we have learned very well how to use information if it is needed for certain interests or goals. If the goal is to get new restrictions and limitations, you definitely have to sound off about how bad and terrible everything is, exaggerating negative information. If it is necessary to express how good everything is, information is sought about the number of species, newly discovered species, etc. The two things are not usually viewed in conjunction: that is another problem.

A question I tend to ask often, but... reading the objections of various (neighbourhood, environmental, political) activists against many things, waste should not be in forests, ditches, groves, or roadsides. It is there, and the volumes are increasing.

During the pandemic, this trend has intensified – the volume of waste in forests and recreation areas is increasing. “Latvijas valsts meži”, the Nature Conservation Agency, local governments, and individuals are all fighting against it. We have talked a lot about this with representatives of local governments; it is a problem. One – people have been heading out into nature more in the last year and a half. Two – there is a part of the population that, until recently, viewed Latvian nature in the context of: “We have nothing!” That part of society, whose leisure essentially involved warm countries or mountains, has now headed to the Latvian wilds, not knowing or understanding how to behave in nature. In many places, there are no waste bins, which is correct: “What you take into the forest, you take out!” People still do not know where and how to put waste. For example, this year I organized repairs at a country house... where to put construction debris? I solved the issue, but it wasn't simple. There are people who don't have much money; they can't or don't really want to pay; where to find a manager, when to look... It's easier – take it to the forest!

Speaking of taking household waste into the forest, I will never understand the thought process and motivation of these people: a waste container by the house doesn't cost overly much, but (if you decide to take it to the forest) you have to find a car to take it away, you have to think – where to take it, there are fuel expenses, you have to think about the time and place where to take it, and you have to think about not getting caught! In my opinion, that is much, much more complicated than organizing a container by the house.

How, in your opinion, can the information “Oh, how bad everything is!” be used? What does it give, is it truly an opportunity to write a project so that the “bad becomes good”?

I will not agree that it is needed for writing projects, even if it is acceptable that it is done that way. Firstly, the essence and mission of NGOs is to draw attention, and non-governmental organizations can do it by completely different methods than state institutions. This is correct; it happens everywhere. The question is different: “Are NGOs in Latvia funded as they are elsewhere in the world? Is it correct that NGOs are some of the main implementers of environmental policy? Should NGOs be the main performers of practical measures in preserving biodiversity?” We have a state institution, the Nature Conservation Agency, whose tasks include this work. What is the capacity of the NCA? What are the abilities to carry out their duties? Does it depend on state policy? It would be normal if the state took care of the protected areas created by state institutions itself, because the state (the institution) created them. In Latvia, there are currently many unmanaged protected areas and unattended protected natural values. It is not correct for NGOs to take care of them. Yes, NGOs can use exaggerations to draw attention to problems, but the solution must definitely be in other hands than it is at the moment.

How long can a group in society talk in an exaggerated way and create a wrong impression about something? The responsible state institution is silent. A distorted and false message is taking root in society, which is not simple to change. As we see at the moment, this is not applicable to environmental issues alone.

I agree, there must be limits to exaggeration; even NGOs cannot provide false information. The Association of Local and Regional Governments is also a non-governmental organization; we also must draw the government's attention to important and even painful issues. Of course, it must happen in negotiations; we must not operate and use false figures or facts. But... if we do not draw the attention of the government and politicians, the issues will not be solved. In environmental protection, there are institutions for which this is a basic task. In environmental issues, NGOs are among the most active everywhere in the world.

In Latvia, attention is drawn in a strange way, as a result of which some people do not see the difference between “logging” and “clear-cutting” or “drinking” and “drinking away”. Moreover, when talking about banning something, the question becomes secondary (seemingly): “Where to get finances for balancing the ban?” Talking about the desire to ban or forbid something: “Is there a possibility that a local government could operate in Latvia that doesn't need entrepreneurs?”

If a local government had decided that there would be no entrepreneurs and business activity in its territory, that could only happen in the case that the residents of the local government decided it: they don't need entrepreneurs, and they will live in the local government with lower incomes and fewer benefits. The local government would have to take the residents' opinion into account. I say this with a little irony.

But in everyday life, every local government wants and is interested in a normal life, sufficient funding, whether it be the health sector, education, or environmental protection. A local government is interested in having entrepreneurs working in its territory.

For example, when talking about the law on local governments, a discussion was underway in the Saeima working group about an NGO proposal to determine the responsibility of local governments for preserving natural capital and biodiversity in their territories regardless of ownership. The Association of Local and Regional Governments strictly objected to this idea because local governments are responsible for the development of their territories; when planning territories, all factors must be taken into account – economic ones, development, environmental... That is the local government's job (planning), an agreement with society (discussion). If society has agreed, the binding regulations are also approved by the VARAM (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development). If the plan is agreed upon and approved, it is the local government's duty to observe it. I do not know of a local government that would be interested in the depletion of natural resources. People increasingly want closeness to nature, without forgetting to have work and development, and, just as importantly, to have the means for development, to live and be educated, to have the means to enjoy this nature and the means to protect and maintain it.

The idea to impose a duty on local governments to ensure the preservation of biodiversity regardless of ownership violates all existing principles, including the owner's responsibility. Therefore, the private owner will not be responsible for actions on their private land, the state will not be responsible for its properties, but the local government will be the responsible party. This is unacceptable.

What is the currently unresolved environmental problem that has been somewhat forgotten and that should be brought to the fore?

There are several things that have been forgotten against the background of the noise of other issues. They are not primarily important, but by not showing interest and not solving them, they can become such. The problem of Latvia and former Soviet bloc countries is historically contaminated sites, for the remediation and cleaning of which large financial resources are needed. I am not talking about a well-known and large object – the Inčukalns tar ponds; there is a register of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites, which should be thoroughly revised. There are sites in the register that should have been cleaned up a long time ago. Taking into account that climate change is causing us one or another extreme natural phenomenon, for example, more intense rainfall, floods, stronger wind, they can “disturb” and “tear open” existing contamination... That might not be a large-scale problem, but it is certainly very unpleasant and sad on a local scale. I would also like to mention our abandoned and remediation-“awaiting” mineral extraction quarries, where there is a series of problems: ownership, extraction stage (What to do – extract to the end or leave as it is?). I know that VARAM has started thinking about this issue, a working group will be created that will solve the issue. These are our natural riches, the future of which should be clearly determined: what, where, and when we do, and how we act.

In Latvia, a series of processes is expected that will begin or continue in connection with European topicalities – biodiversity, climate issues, pollution, and sewage – certain amounts have been allocated to these issues in European structural funds, and there exists – better or worse – state policy. Regarding the issues I mentioned, we are not threatened from the outside (fines or sanctions), but they must be solved. Personally, I am concerned about the sewage issue. Why? Until now, it was said that small, not very wealthy local governments couldn't cope with it, now the reform has happened, and there are large and wealthy local governments... Excuse me, wealth does not come from nothing, and current local governments will have to look after the outskirts. I am concerned about the water and sewage systems in those populated places where there are <2000 residents. These are places that neither EU nor Latvian funding has reached. Until now, more attention has been paid to large cities, forgetting the small ones. In small populated places, people live whom you cannot forget! In a specific place, the pollution is small, but in the country as a whole, it adds up. Small places and things are often forgotten.