The state lacks money for doctors', teachers', and police officers' salaries, pensions, maternity benefits, and road repairs. Farmers are protesting against muddy roads, the situation in orphanages is nearing a crisis, and in the field of education, we are rapidly falling behind even our closest neighbours. Yet, there are things for which Latvia is regularly able to allocate significant sums – quite like a very, very developed and very, very prosperous country.
A few examples
Many have already heard that a project titled “Improving the conservation status of specially protected bird species in the Natura 2000 territory 'Ādaži'” has been running from 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2017. Its total budget is 1,537,988 EUR, of which 50% is European Union (EU) funding, 21% is from the Environmental Protection Fund of Latvia (322,977 EUR of state money), and 29% is funded by project partners.
However, bird counting is by no means all there is to it. For example, on 06.01.2015, the Nature Conservation Agency signed a contract for the surveying of wintering waterbirds worth 47,698 EUR, and on 09.07.2016, another for the surveying of wintering waterbirds worth 89,398 EUR. The recipient of the money was the Latvian Ornithological Society.
On 01.08.2016, the Society received a further 21,000 EUR for the project “Discover the magic of bird migration!”. Then, on 24.11.2016, the Society was tasked with “developing a species protection plan for the bird species 'Owls'” for 46,031.26 EUR. It is interesting that the contract stipulates that some of the information will be confidential and/or restricted. Imagine: the research conducted with taxpayers' money, the methods used, the results – everything is confidential. Much like the dead souls in a property management firm. Furthermore, bird monitoring has been carried out from 19.05.2015 to 01.11.2016 for 98,175 EUR.
The Ornithological Society is not the only one that is truly fortunate. On 01.08.2016, the association “Zaļā upe” received 30,725 EUR to study dragonflies “from the origins of research to a gift for Latvia's centenary”, while the Latvian Fund for Nature received 75,374 EUR for the project “Biodiversity in Latvian landscapes. Landscapes speak!”.
And what about the biggest catch for the counters of hitherto unknown natural values – in 2017, the Nature Conservation Agency plans to start habitat mapping for a mere 9.5 million EUR, in order to eventually develop five species protection plans and at least 20 nature conservation plans.
But the appetite is so great that they do not even wait for the results of the research and planning, but assume that something must be saved urgently. With money, of course. A clear example is the attempt to use EU fund resources for habitat restoration. In a letter to the EU Funds (ERDF, ESF, CF) Monitoring Committee regarding the developed amendments to the “Growth and Employment” operational programme, the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments (LPS) rightly pointed out that no evidence has been provided that any of these habitats have completely disappeared, and that spending funds to restore habitats in one of the greenest countries in the world is unacceptable.
The LPS also objected to the use of a regional policy financial instrument – Cohesion Fund resources – for environmental protection and biodiversity restoration, as these funds are intended to level out economic and social disparities and finance large-scale infrastructure development measures. Thus, the goal of restoring habitats is placed above a favourable quality of life for people, which is conceptually unacceptable. Let us add that it was planned to ensure a favourable conservation status for habitats and species by redistributing 7.8 million euros from the Cohesion Fund's reserve funding.
The result of concern for habitats is always the “halting and reduction of adverse anthropogenic impacts” or new prohibitions and restrictions on economic activity, which happen despite calls to develop production, ensure even regional development, etc. The costs are usually shifted onto the shoulders of landowners and managers, who, at best, receive symbolic compensation. Because there is enough money for research, counting, and public awareness, but not for compensation.
In Latvia, funds disproportionate to our means are spent on researching dragonflies, owls, “green offices”, and other miraculous things, while forgetting the most important – the people of Latvia. Recently, I met a forester who has worked in his industry for 47 years, has given his life to caring for Latvia's forests, and has honestly and responsibly ensured that our country could also receive the fruits of this forester's work, yet he receives a pension of 262 EUR per month. Then it starts to seem that perhaps we determine priorities in this country based on who has the greatest “special” ability to prove that the insignificant is actually very significant. But the answer is quite simple. The sums paid for bird counting are not received by the birds; on the contrary, the birds are neither hot nor cold because of it. This money, through associations, ends up in the pockets of so-called experts – bird counters – who are excellent at the art of lobbying so that money from the budget flows in ever-increasing amounts every year. Conversely, when we talk about our children's future, the answer is simple – for that, we do not have enough.
How can one pay tens of thousands of euros for counting wintering birds in Latvia at a time when 20,000 people have left the country in the last year alone? Not like migratory birds that return in the spring, but for good. And the so-called “return benefits” that were pompously announced turned out to be pathetic… After all, we constantly talk about the priority: “Latvia's value is its people”...
People in rural areas often ask: “Why don't you talk about it there in Riga so that everyone can hear that we want to live and work here?” Let them let us work here, stop wasting our money on unnecessary things and projects that do not provide any benefit to our people! These are projects for only a few who receive such large sums for measures that are essentially unnecessary, at a time when schools are being closed and states of emergency are being declared due to crumbling roads to save money.
People ask – what are those who allocate these funds thinking, for example? Who are the people spending this money? Where did they “come from”? Do they care about the people of Latvia? Who supports them? Or would it not be wiser to find the missing four and a half million euros to maintain boarding schools, where children from needy or disadvantaged families mainly study, rather than counting all of Latvia's dragonflies and birds in honour of Latvia's centenary?
The situation is not encouraging – according to the Central Statistical Bureau, 606 thousand, or 30.9 percent of the population, are at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Latvia.