A conversation with Dr. biol. Uldis Valainis, Head of the Biosystematics Department at the Daugavpils University DZTI

You have worked in universities and science for almost 20 years. How have student views, trends, and practices changed during this time?

Trends, as always, are varied. When a student arrives at university after finishing secondary school, they lack experience in independent work. In school, they are used to performing specific types of tasks. At university, a certain portion of the credits a student must earn is 'provided' by independent work. This is not free time, as it is often perceived, but work on oneself – supplementing knowledge and acquiring skills. This system exists throughout Europe. Here, young people often perceive independent work as free time, even though it is actually self-improvement. The lecturer indicates the direction in which to work, but the rest is up to the student. School is undoubtedly different – each subject has a standard that must be met. Everything is fitted into 'boxes' according to the requirements. There is no need for specific 'frames or boxes' at university; a person must become independent! Unfortunately, that does not happen! In the first year, it is quite difficult for a young person to get used to a different system of processes and requirements! There is a 'weeding out' of young students, especially in the exact sciences, because, without a doubt, the workload is greater.

Working in the field of education, what do you see as the profession of today and tomorrow? What is it that one should know today because it will be necessary tomorrow?

Of course, information technology! If I look even at my own experience – 20 years ago, when I came to study at the university, I had a large, heavy phone with an antenna… What are the phones like now and everything else?… 20 years is not a long time, but huge differences are visible in global development. If previously we heard our grandmothers and grandfathers saying: 'It wasn't like that in our day!', now such a long time – decades or generations – is not necessary. If you don't keep up with what is happening, you will fall behind rapidly!

What about environmental specialists and technologists in the bioeconomy, the use of renewable resources, and climate change?

Given current trends in the use of sustainable resources and the problems we associate with global warming and overpopulation, environmental specialists will be necessary, and environmental issues will need to be integrated not only into university and vocational education programmes but also into schools. The attitude towards nature, especially towards the recycling of waste, will become more serious every year. It is no secret that we spend a large part of the resources we obtain irrationally!

The inhabitants of the Northern Hemisphere are, however, friendlier to the environment and resources, at least we think so ourselves. Can we balance what is happening in the Southern Hemisphere or in further corners of the world, where the environment is treated more recklessly or carelessly?

It is a certain battle with windmills, but we live on one planet. For example, pollution is higher in less developed countries, but the amount of waste in the oceans is definitely on the conscience of industrially developed countries.

Trends regarding more environmentally friendly living…

It is a challenge! If we look at, for example, electric cars and the latest generation of automobiles, they are undoubtedly intended for a much longer service life. However – one must not forget the human desire for the latest and most modern. Of course, not everyone has it, but a large part of people certainly do! One wants the latest model of phone, wants a new car – everything latest and modern requires production. I will repeat: it is known that a large part of the resources available to us can be used for longer! This can apply not only to, for example, a mobile phone or computer but also to clothing. Here I will mention a trend that is well known to us and observable in many places, the so-called 'second hand' or used clothing shops, where sufficiently well-off people shop, thus showing their position – to save resources, and – this is not about money! The 'chase' after fashion items is essentially quite ridiculous… We will have heard or read about dresses or hats that, once worn, can no longer be used because someone has already seen them at another social event!

If we believe that our children need a new and latest model phone in every class, that is not a forward-looking action and way of thinking! Our children's generation is and will be the one that will have to live and face and solve the problems we will have created beforehand.

What worries you as a scientist in Latvia?

Speaking of environmental matters, I think one of the unresolved issues in Latvia is the introduction of a deposit system. In any form, it works! It functions! This is a question of political will, and the right solution must be found in Latvia. A mechanism must be offered to the person to encourage understanding: 'By buying a bottle of beer, drinking it, and returning it, they will receive some money back.'

A good example can be seen in Lithuania, where we conduct research on biological diversity. While moving through the forests of the neighboring country, watching and observing, we see that the situation before and after the introduction of the deposit system is different. We no longer see bottles lying around wherever. Yes, one can say that this work is done by the lowest social stratum, the homeless and alcoholics, but – the problem is being solved and a new volume of bottles does not appear in the forests! The existing one, in turn, is shrinking. That was and is the goal of the deposit system!

The much-cited biological diversity… 'Buzzwords' and conversations. What is it, should one fear it?

Explaining it simply – biological diversity is the sum of different organisms and ecosystems. Usually, biological diversity is divided into three different levels – ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity. One must realize that, when talking about biological diversity in a specific territory, we will not be able and it will not be possible to evaluate everything! For example, if we examine 50 m2 in a specially protected nature area, it is unlikely we will count the diversity of all species found on this small patch of land! Microorganisms, insects, and other living creatures – all together it will be a huge volume! How to count it? To judge biological diversity and its 'well-being' or threat level, biologists usually evaluate the so-called occurrence of indicator species in a specific territory and the quality of the habitats adapted to them. The yardstick is this: if indicator species, which have specific ecological requirements towards the surrounding environment, feel good in a territory, the ecosystem in which they live is also to be evaluated as high-value from the perspective of biological diversity. This is a simplified approach to evaluation and the implementation of various protection measures. Looking from the nature conservation point of view – if there is a suitable environment for indicator species to live, not only indicator species will live there, but also a large number of other organisms that have similar ecological requirements. Many organisms can adapt, but – where is the limit of adaptation? A precise boundary cannot be drawn! If we look at economic activity and nature conservation – they will almost always 'argue'. Of course, there are specific species for which human activity is desirable and necessary!

Any organism needs conditions in which it can live, develop, and reproduce normally. If we talk about the forest, the 'conflict' lies in the circumstance: organisms associated with deadwood are 'interested' in the same forest as we are – from the perspective of forestry. Organisms that inhabit deadwood are 'interested' in forests that will have many old, fallen, or dried trees and the like. From a forestry perspective, I would call them overmature stands. I would not want to say that there is an abundance of overmature stands in Latvia. Of course, that does not mean at all that all forests should be left untouched, but there must be a balance between obtaining economic benefit and nature conservation. Overmature stands must also exist, and moreover in sufficient numbers so that the natural values found in them can survive.

It is understandable that the arguments I mentioned about the values found in the forest will be insignificant to a forest owner who has planned to sell or cut down their forest, and I understand this position of the owner. Nature conservation requirements cannot be 'placed' on the shoulders of private owners without appropriate compensation! That is not right! The system must be organized! Regarding this issue, I do not see differences in opinion between forest owners and nature conservation specialists, but the decision must be made at a higher level! If the compensation mechanism were appropriate, the situation would certainly be different and many disputes would be avoided.

Looking at the balance more broadly, as we understand it… In Latvia, one of the biggest problems is monocentric development. As a result, there is a concentration of the economy and investments closer to Riga or in certain development centers. As a result, a large part of the region's inhabitants are forced to move to live in Riga, closer to the capital, or look for work outside the country's borders. Unfortunately, it has been state policy that has encouraged this process here. In many regions, there is currently a tendency for the area of contiguous lands used for industrial agricultural needs to increase, as a result of which quite grim living conditions are created not only for biological diversity but also for local inhabitants. I would like to emphasize that there is no axiom – 'in regions far from Riga or Daugavpils, or Liepāja, or another city, it is possible to develop only agriculture or forestry'. Balance is 'demanded' here too! Quite a few Rigans or city dwellers right here in Latgale also have a summer house or family home where they or their family spend time occasionally, live, and feel quite good. Would these people be content if everything around was sown with rapeseed?

Is rapeseed a monoculture?

If we look from the perspective of rational use of resources, I do not support the use of agricultural land areas for growing crops that are used to obtain so-called 'green energy'. A large part of rapeseed 'goes' to the production of biodiesel, while other crops, for example, corn – for the extraction of biomass energy. I call this a very inefficient use of resources (areas). We beautifully call it green energy, and some receive an OIK (mandatory procurement component) payment for it, but in fact, it is the depletion of the land! The question is – what crop could or could have grown instead of rapeseed? What would we grow in these areas or how else would we use them? If we look from the perspective of biological diversity, neither one nor the other option would be good in large contiguous areas – neither agriculture nor forestry. Especially if we remember that natural grasslands in Latvia occupy only about 0.7% of the country's territory, while, for example, the sowing areas of that same rapeseed are at least twice as large.

In many places in Zemgale, sugar beets grew instead of rapeseed…

Is that better? If a field is plowed, it must be used! If we talk about natural grasslands, we must preserve at least those that we still have left! One must count on the fact that only after 50 years can a 'more or less natural' grassland appear in place of sugar beets or rapeseed, provided it is managed in an appropriate way all this time. Of course, we cannot compare today with the Ulmanis era, when there was a different type of farming in the countryside. One must understand that there will be no such agriculture (as in the Ulmanis era) anymore! Livestock was grazed, hay was obtained, etc. One must count on the fact that bees and other pollinators, in territories where there are many monocultures, will not be able to survive in the long term. In Europe, that is a problem! Beekeepers are shouting about the lack of natural grasslands at the top of their voices. Of course, we can talk about beehives on some roof in Riga, but – one cannot forget the volume of honey obtained in Riga's hives… Little! And it is not only the lack of honey that we should worry about…

In China, there is a palpable anxiety because, due to the intensive use of agricultural chemicals, natural pollinators have disappeared in many areas. That is a huge problem in this Asian great power! The same can be observed in the European Union, in places where chemistry is used quite intensively in fields. In Europe, many countries once went down the wrong path, initially depleting ecosystems, while now, they are spending huge resources on their restoration. That could have been avoided! Which path Latvia will take is up to us!