Forestry. For several landowners, the visits from the nature counters have already materialised into letters regarding the designation of nature conservation areas on their properties; the owners are outraged, promising to take legal action and demanding accountability for the failure to keep promises.
“It is nonsense, because it essentially makes the further economic use of the property impossible,” explains landowner Kārlis Priedītis regarding the situation. The property recovered by his parents contains a forest, the felling of which has been postponed for many years. Last year, the first felling permit was obtained and a small plot was harvested, but this year he received a letter stating that all economic activity in the forest must cease because a sea eagle’s nest has been found. “It is strange that for 20 years no one saw this nest (or did not want to see it, or were unable to), but last year it was seen, and as a result, I can no longer harvest the timber (pine, spruce) that has reached felling age, in the amount of more than 1000 m3, which at February’s price levels is worth at least 40–60 thousand euros. Furthermore, there are no discounts on the property tax bill, and there are no documents stating that someone will compensate me for anything,” a frustrated K. Priedītis says.
In his view, it would be logical if, along with the prohibition on economic activity, they had sent notification that the property tax for the area included in the restriction was zero euros, and included a document saying “please provide the account number to which the compensation for the established restriction should be transferred.” “Unfortunately, there is nothing like that, and the owner himself has to try to hack his way through the bureaucratic jungle to receive what is rightfully his,” says K. Priedītis. He admits that after these restrictions are imposed, it is time to put an end to the land management. “Of course we could have,” the entrepreneur replies to the question of whether this forest could have been felled several years ago.
Promising legal action
Even more categorical is one of the largest private forest owners, Andris Ramoliņš, who after the “walkabouts” of the nature counters has already received two letters informing him of new restrictions on economic activity (one covering an area of 8 ha and another 5 ha). “I do not understand whether it is appropriate for a state governed by the rule of law that, first, some people wander around my property without my consent or presence, then announce that they have found something, even though they have not provided any concrete evidence, and I do not even have any opportunity to disagree with it,” an outraged A. Ramoliņš says. He vows to appeal the restrictions mentioned in the letters received to the Administrative Court. “If someone is willing to delve into the actual facts of the case, there will be one decision, but if it is just a formal paperwork exercise where anything can be written, even things that do not exist in reality, then the owners have little hope of proving their case,” says A. Ramoliņš. He also does not understand how something that might exist can serve as evidence, even though no proof of its existence is provided. “It leans towards a kind of totalitarianism, where it does not matter what the evidence of guilt is or is not, but the most important thing is the opinion of the necessary ‘experts’ that one is guilty,” A. Ramoliņš says, drawing historical parallels.
Only together with the owner
In his opinion, so-called nature counters should only be allowed to enter a forest with the owner or their authorised person. “Then one can also talk about fair conduct; moreover, landowners could hire their own experts, and then let them evaluate together with the owner or their authorised person – whether there is a protected plant or not, and whether the nest is occupied or has been standing empty for years,” suggests A. Ramoliņš.
Several other forest owners also believe that habitat inventories should have been carried out in the presence of the owner or their authorised representative, so that there would be clarity as to what needs to be protected, while at the same time avoiding a lack of information – namely, that landowners are not informed about the designation of new protected areas or restrictions, as a result of which the owner finds out about them only when they are penalised for violating these protection conditions on their own property. There are also situations in which forest owners, upon learning of intended restrictions, make an effort to fell the intended protected areas while economic activity in them is still permitted. The example of Vecpiebalga is cited, where local owners protested after learning of the planned restrictions, but they were “not heard,” and as a result, the forest owners chose to fell all the forests allowed by regulations, and the planners of the restrictions no longer had a “need” to designate them. This example, as it turns out, has inspired other landowners who, upon learning of possible encumbrances, legally obtained felling permits and used them. However, such a response from private forest owners is considered excessive because it would flood the market with a very large amount of timber, which would reduce its sale price. For these reasons, a good solution is considered to be the involvement of the landowner in the process of setting restrictions, and there is even an idea proposed of requiring the owner’s written consent for the establishment of a micro-reserve, thus avoiding the situation where the owner does not know of its existence. Unfortunately, none of this has been implemented, and rights belong only to one side (the counters), while landowners have only obligations.
Uncontrolled circumstances
DB already wrote (07.02.2017) that several forest owners surveyed by DB are concerned that habitat inventorying will simply be used to increase the size of protected areas. Furthermore, if basically the entire territory of Latvia can be declared a natural value—biological diversity—especially when viewed from those European countries where natural forest is already an exotic rarity in itself. “If politicians and officials just shrug their shoulders and allow these so-called nature counters to do whatever they want, then there will be no jobs, no taxes, and no residents in Latvia, and the state as such will cease to exist,” A. Ramoliņš is harsh in his assessment. He does not hold high illusions about the currently ruling politicians and officials, however. “How could they allow something like this? Especially when officials promised that an environmental assessment would be carried out first and only after everything had been evaluated would restrictions on economic activity be set. In reality, everything is the other way around, yet the leadership of the respective state institutions remains firmly in their seats. This means they can promise anything and fulfil nothing, because those currently in power are unable or unwilling to demand accountability. The only solution would be to introduce personal liability for officials for the decisions made (or not made) and for the situation where they say one thing but do something completely different,” says A. Ramoliņš.
He assumes that all this “counting” will turn into the establishment of new restrictions on economic activity, which is also likely to have been the original goal, although it was well-masked in the eyes of the public. “If nothing is done, then I predict new restrictions on economic activity that will cause a loss of jobs in agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, as well as in related industries—food processing, wood processing, peat product manufacturing—bringing with them the service sectors that support these fields, especially transport, and simultaneously creating additional pressure for people to go abroad to earn a living,” believes A. Ramoliņš.
QUOTE
Andris Ramoliņš: “Officials should be held liable for their decisions with their own personal assets; then they would think ten times before making negative decisions for people so irresponsibly and lightly.”
OPINION
Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Board of the Forest Owners and Managers Confederation of Latvia:
We are seeing the situation that industry organisations, as well as farmers and other realistic people, warned about previously. I also warned at the very beginning of the “wonderful nature counting” about potential problems and the possible problematic situations regarding owners’ rights during the habitat mapping process. So far there have been only two habitat mapping monitoring group meetings; this process seems to be starting to live a “life of its own,” and various “miracles” and nonsense, which we have pointed out before, are appearing, for example, what is happening in the territory of the Abava Nature Park, also in Vecpiebalga, etc. The strangest thing is that the officials working at the Nature Conservation Agency under the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development do not shy away from spreading the most absurd things to supposedly characterise the “terrible” situation in Latvia, and praise the “magnificent” nature conservation system during the Soviet era, despite the fact that the Daugava ancient valley was destroyed. At the same time, this institution implements projects that would make anyone “weep blood” to see—for example, the ringing of living, growing pine trees, leaving ring-shaped scars around the tree—and it is worth adding that this costs more than 800,000 euros. And what are the answers!
For example: Question: “Is the goal of nature counting to increase specially protected nature areas or to set restrictions on economic activity?” NCA answer: “The goal of nature counting is to obtain information, not to increase or decrease the number of specially protected nature areas. Nature counting will help to identify missing information and collect data. The goal of the project is not to set prohibitions on economic activity. Restrictions on economic activity are set only in accordance with regulatory enactments on the establishment of specially protected nature areas or micro-reserves according to habitat conservation goals and their ecological requirements.” Question: “If a specially protected habitat is found on a landowner’s property, will any restrictions on economic activity be set?” NCA answer: “Concerns about the impact of mapping on economic activity are most often unfounded.” What can be added here?! No one is accountable with their own wallet, and the promise of responsibility is very far removed from actions.
COMMENTARY
No new territories
Elīna Ezeriņa, Head of the Public Relations and Environmental Education Division of the Nature Conservation Agency
In 2017 and at the beginning of 2018, no new specially protected nature areas (SPNA) have been established in Latvia. Currently, proposals prepared in 2016 to clarify the list of state-protected avenues, as well as to review and clarify the boundaries of geological and geomorphological natural monuments, are being evaluated and promoted at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM), as are some proposals for new geological and geomorphological monuments. However, these are already existing natural monuments of national or local significance, for which state protection is being set. Furthermore, this is determined due to their scenic or other values, not in connection with the detection of any habitat in the territory. These natural monuments include avenues, springs, steep banks, caves, and other geological formations.
In 2017, the boundaries of existing micro-reserves were reviewed and updated, and new micro-reserves were also created. This was done primarily for the protection of bird species, and their number is in the tens. You can clarify this issue at the State Forest Service, whose competence is the establishment and protection of micro-reserves.
Since the establishment of SPNAs in the late 1990s, the registration of encumbrances on properties within the territory has not been carried out. Landowners have not been interested in resolving this issue either. By comparing and updating data in the databases of various state institutions, the Nature Conservation Agency is currently asking the State Land Service to update information on SPNAs in the Cadastre Information System. Consequently, in many places, owners are only now learning about the encumbrances, even though they have lived and managed their land in the protected area for a couple of decades already.
Nature counting is a large-scale nature inventory. It provides detailed information on the distribution and quality of habitats, allowing this information to be harmonised between state institutions and their databases. As a result, the issuance and receipt of various permits and approvals will be facilitated for everyone, and timelines and expenses will decrease for both private owners and state institutions.
Until now, the precautionary principle was followed in nature conservation, determining land management methods. The comparable data covering all of Latvia obtained during the project will allow for an assessment of the true situation and for reasoned decisions to be made on exactly what nature conservation measures should be carried out in order to balance nature conservation and economic development. The task of this project is not to create new specially protected nature areas or to set any restrictions for landowners. Within the framework of the “Nature Counting” project, no new protected nature areas have been proposed or established.