An interview with Uģis Bergmanis, ornithologist and Senior Environmental Expert at Latvijas valsts meži

A very important point I want to start with: environmental experts definitely need basic knowledge of the economic value of forests. At the moment, as you can see, that knowledge is lacking!

Forest owners reported that the idea of replacing restrictions with a special short-term solution in the lesser spotted eagle species protection plan had been rejected. Why, and what kind of solution are we talking about?

Understanding that forest owners often do not support various types of restrictions on forest land, I wanted to find a temporary solution. The biggest problem at the moment is the lack of adequate compensation for restrictions on economic activity. One might assume that over many years, compensation covers the benefits not gained in the short term, but one cannot evaluate it that way because people plan their lives more or less as they wish, and they plan for the foreseeable future. The question of compensation cannot be solved quickly, even if there were political will. The political will may have emerged, but it is doubtful that the time when there will be enough money for compensation will arrive so soon! Therefore, I proposed a transition period solution in the lesser spotted eagle protection plan while compensation is determined and calculated. Firstly, provide for including lesser spotted eagle nests found in private forests in a national-level database (the “Ozols” nature data database managed by the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP)), because one can only protect what is known and officially registered. Secondly, establish a strict protection zone in a 100-metre radius around the nest for three years. Why three? The average occupancy duration of a single nest is three years. I emphasise – the average! A lesser spotted eagle can live in one nest for 12 years! So, within the 100-metre radius zone, I proposed to establish a ban on forestry activities in stands that have reached the age suitable for nesting (if, for example, young stands were located in the zone, the restriction would not apply to them). During these three years, the private forest owner or owners would receive 160 euros per hectare in compensation or rent. That would be payment for the owner not using the forest for three years. After three years, a certified bird expert would assess whether the eagle is nesting in the respective territory or not! Knowing that eagles regularly build new nests and the average relocation distance is about 500 m, the expert would have to conscientiously find out where the eagle is nesting! If the bird has moved elsewhere, a new protected area should be created, allowing activity in the previous one. In this case, eagle protection would be dynamic, looking at the real situation in nature!

What happens to restrictions “afterwards”… Time passes, the forest has grown older or collapsed…

The first micro-reserves began to be created relatively recently – in 1987. As with all new things, many things move in one direction: the areas of micro-reserves are increasing. Existing legislation on the creation of micro-reserves is built in such a way that it is effectively impossible to cancel a micro-reserve. That is not right! The process must be two-way: the creation of micro-reserves must continue, ensuring protection for occupied nesting sites, but it must be possible to cancel the status of a micro-reserve if it can be proven that the nesting site has moved! In my opinion, the micro-reserve system should be dynamic! At the moment, the mechanism is not correct and creates justified resistance and dissatisfaction among forest owners, which often results in harm to protected species. If a forest owner knew that, upon receiving a letter about the creation of a micro-reserve, it would be created, for example, for the next 5 or 10 years and that the status would definitely be reviewed after this time, the attitude would change. Currently, there are no precedents for cancelling micro-reserves! By the way, birds also adapt when choosing a place to live. In nature, I have seen only one micro-reserve where you can see the forest has completely “collapsed”! I have also seen forests where there have been windfalls or other troubles, but the birds continue to live there. A nest that has fallen naturally is an understandable thing; nests or piles of branches (as we often call them) fall quite often, and just as often, birds rebuild them right there. There are more nests in the forest than we think!

From which year has the lesser spotted eagle population been studied in Latvia, and for which time period can we speak of the beginning of research?

My experience in researching the lesser spotted eagle is about 40 years long.

Purposeful work on studying the population dynamics of the lesser spotted eagle has been ongoing since the 90s. Before that, there were data from 1983, when there was a smaller number of study sample plots. At present, information is more complete. I will say: the species is relatively well known!

My interest in the lesser spotted eagle arose while I was a first-year student at the Faculty of Biology of the University of Latvia, when my diploma and doctoral thesis supervisor, Professor J. Vīksne, suggested I focus on this species, because in the early 80s very, very little was known about it! It was known that it nested in Latvia, it was known that there was a very similar species in Latvia – the lesser spotted eagle, but, for example, there was no clue about the number of lesser spotted eagles! There were times when the lesser spotted eagle and the greater spotted eagle were considered two subspecies of one species, but studies (including mine) at the turn of the 80s and 90s ruled out these doubts, as they proved that the lesser spotted eagle and the greater spotted eagle are two different species. The greater spotted eagle is either not in Latvia or it nests very irregularly. There are small populations of the greater spotted eagle in Poland and Belarus, and it is also found in small numbers in Estonia, with a few pairs in Lithuania. In our region, the greater spotted eagle is disappearing; its main range is the European part of Russia and the Asian part of Russia. Latvia is located at the extreme west of the species' range. By the way, contrary to the classical definition of a species, in the range overlap zone, where we are also located, both species (lesser and greater) cross-breed, and contrary to this definition, the hybrids of both species are fertile!

Hasn't a name been given to them yet, for example, the lesser greater spotted eagle?

No, it hasn't! It is very difficult to identify them in nature; the most accurate way is DNA analysis!

The lesser spotted eagle is considered a current topic. How about other large predators, of which there are quite a few in Latvia!

We have the lesser spotted, greater spotted, golden, white-tailed, osprey and short-toed snake eagle. The red kite and black kite. The marsh, hen and Montagu's harrier. The peregrine falcon was last seen as a nesting bird in the 70s (in 1977 in the Teiči bog). The honey buzzard and common buzzard. The goshawk and sparrowhawk. The population dynamics of the individual species vary. We cannot say that everything is bad and it's a disaster! By no means, no! Of course, economic activity in the 20th and 21st centuries became and continues to become more intense, which is a fact! Such are the areas of human activity. Different bird species react to human activity differently! There are more sensitive ones, there are less sensitive ones. There are species that adapt, and moreover, it happens that as the intensity of human activity increases, the species' population also increases. Of course, there are also opposite processes! For example, a problem species in Latvia is the black stork, its population is decreasing both in terms of numbers and nesting success. There are several reasons: both the food base, forestry, and the combination of influencing factors during migration. A species whose number of nesting pairs has grown significantly is the white-tailed eagle. If we remember the early 80s – 3-5 pairs nested in Latvia. Spotting a white-tailed eagle back then was an event! Currently, 150-200 pairs of white-tailed eagles nest in Latvia! The species has successfully found its niche in Latvia. 34% of Latvia's white-tailed eagles nest in ecological trees, similarly to the osprey. The number of golden eagles in Latvia is not large, but it is increasing. We estimate: about 8-10 pairs, which is significantly more than 30 years ago! There will never be as many golden eagles as white-tailed eagles, because the population is linked to large bog massifs, and there are as many as there are! Best-case scenario: about 20 pairs! Golden eagles traditionally nest in Eastern Latvia, and in recent years, a stable population has also formed in Kurzeme (previously it was like that 100 years ago). We attribute this to the growth of the species' population in Scandinavia!

The number of kites is steadily low; there have never been many of them. The red kite has started nesting in Latvia again; there was a period when that did not happen. It is a southern, south-eastern species that migrated into Latvia, but now several pairs are nesting in the southern part of Latvia. The black kite, in turn, nests close to water.

In Riga, in Torņakalns, coots and the great egret are bustling about quite busily.

The coot is like a mallard – it sees water and gets right in! The great egret was a faunistic rarity in Latvia 30 years ago; today, in some places, it can be seen more often than the grey heron. It is a species that has arrived as a result of climate change.

If we talk about fluctuations in the number of bird species, they are determined by different methods. “Latvijas valsts meži” also participates in bird monitoring; counts covering a larger number of species are carried out by the Latvian Ornithological Society, and the count allows for calculating bird indices and estimating population dynamics. Bird monitoring only determines population dynamics; monitoring does not analyse the reasons for fluctuations! Often, therefore, disputes arise, and “myths and interpretations” are created. The arrival or disappearance of a species in a territory is usually determined by a combination of many factors. For example, the ptarmigan! It is clear that it has almost disappeared from Latvia; perhaps once every ten or twenty years an individual is observed in Eastern Latvia, but that is of a random nature and there is no hope that the species could return. This is the result of climate change! It is too warm for the ptarmigan here!

Speaking of bird indices and significant changes in bird numbers. There are species whose population dynamics are significantly negative. One of them is the hazel grouse. A resident bird, therefore, this species is highly likely to be affected by local factors, although the influence of climate change cannot be ruled out. Ornithologists see two factors – either forestry or climate change, i.e., a thin snow cover. Currently, it is impossible to say which of the two is more significant! Both have an influence!

Natural enemies of the hazel grouse?

As I mentioned, the species is influenced by a combination of many factors! If a species feels good in a territory, the influence of individual factors is insignificant compared to the situation if the species is experiencing a population decline. If the hazel grouse is seeing a decline in numbers, natural enemies may prove to be much more significant influencers of the species than in a situation where the number of hazel grouse were stable or increasing. In a positive situation, for example, goshawks or martens could hunt hazel grouse as much as their hearts desire, and it would not affect the population!

I think it might be too warm for the hazel grouse in Latvia because it is a typical bird of the boreal or northern region; the hazel grouse needs snow, which is its hiding place! There is no snow or very little, there is nowhere to hide. Consequently, the impact of predators could be much more significant!

Another species whose number is decreasing is the fieldfare (one of the thrushes). Here, forestry is definitely not to blame, but the climate! In Estonia, the decline of this species is not as significant as in Latvia; the influence of forestry in Estonia is similar to that in Latvia, but… Estonia is further north. In Scandinavia, the number of fieldfares is considered stable.

What are ornithologists waiting to “arrive” in Latvia?

Predictions, of course, exist! There is a so-called climate atlas, which predicts the distribution of European birds under the influence of climate change. We have already welcomed some – the aforementioned great egrets, which are no longer a rarity in Latvia! It is a southern species that has appeared in Latvia in quite large numbers. A southerner is the red kite. Also, 20-30 years ago, no one imagined that a typical southern species – the bee-eater – could nest in Latvia… In Kurzeme, that is happening! There are a few more songbird species that are gradually “entering”. As I mentioned, the process is two-way: the ptarmigan is “leaving”, and the red-throated diver, which we see passing through in spring or wintering, also no longer nests.

What is a bird index?

A bird index is a value that characterises not the size of a species' population in absolute numbers, but indicates the value by which the bird population in a given year has increased or decreased relative to a so-called reference value. Bird counting has a specific reference year when counting began. Subsequent count results are compared with the situation in the reference year.

Is the bird index the most correct and precise number for characterising biodiversity?

It most definitely objectively characterises the dynamics of bird populations.

Birds are part of biodiversity!

Birds are one of the basic criteria that Latvia as an EU member state reports to EU structures. One EU directive is about birds; all other species that are not birds are included in the so-called habitats directive. Bird indices characterise the state of the population. Indices are calculated in different ways. Counts take place both in the forest and in the field – an index is calculated both for each forest bird species separately and for the forest bird index as a whole. The same with field birds! An index is not calculated for nesting waterfowl; there is a count of wintering waterfowl. Bird indices show: there are species whose numbers are stable, there are species whose numbers are uncertain, there are species whose numbers are decreasing (moderate or significant decline). An index is not calculated for all bird species, only those that can be identified in counts! The main trends are: the field bird index is decreasing because agricultural intensity is increasing; the forest bird index is also decreasing.

Regarding bird indices and baseline figures. How precise and correct are they? If we talk about the hazel grouse, which has been much discussed, various years and various changes are mentioned in the species protection plan. How much can these numbers be trusted? If a species is considered poorly researched, how credible is the reference figure? What is a well-researched species in Latvia – for example – the lesser spotted eagle, black stork, capercaillie... What else?

In every study and every count, there is a certain error; that is how it is, and researchers are aware of it. Modern statistical analysis methods allow analysing fluctuations in numbers over years with different amounts of information. The larger the amount of information, the smaller the error. The magnitude of the error is indicated by the so-called dispersion or confidence interval, or probability. The larger the dispersion interval, the larger the error – and the true value is located somewhere within the dispersion interval. For better understanding, below is an example with the lesser spotted eagle. In the 80s, we had fewer pairs analysed, and therefore the dispersion interval, or minimum and maximum estimate, of the population assessment was in a wider range than, for example, in the period from 2000. Specifically, the population assessment after 2000 is more precise than in the 80s. It is similar with the assessments of other species. However, there is no reason to doubt that the number of hazel grouse has decreased many times over; that really is a fact!

The lesser spotted eagle, black stork and capercaillie are certainly some of the most researched bird species in Latvia. Along with them, ducks and gulls should definitely be mentioned – fundamental population ecology studies of these species groups with broad recognition in Europe and also the World in the 60s-90s of the last century were carried out by researchers from the Ornithology Laboratory of the Institute of Biology. I would also note the tawny owl, Ural owl, white-tailed eagle and osprey; for these species as well, detailed information has been obtained, more than just trends in number dynamics.

How to evaluate the claim about such and such number of nests being knocked down?

Unfortunately, it is a fact! I see no justification for this action. Of course, I know why it happens! Nests are knocked down, nest trees are cut down. It does not happen widely; these are individual cases. The only information that allows one to grasp (estimate) the situation is the experience gained during the lesser spotted eagle project. Within the framework of the project, I have heard from people who look for nests, who propose protection and who have found that nests have been knocked down. Such cases do not promote cooperation. Of course, the same will be said by owners who have received a letter about a micro-reserve being created at their expense. That does not promote cooperation either! There are two views, between which there is political inaction or insufficiency of action. The conflict rolls like a snowball. I call on forest owners not to destroy nests and to be responsible! A solution needs to be sought, but destroying a nest is not a solution! Deliberate destruction of nests has become more intense with the implementation of the lesser spotted eagle protection plan.

In the lesser spotted eagle species protection plan, we have analysed habitats: the dominant tree species and the age of the block. Calculations show that 71.5% of all lesser spotted eagle blocks have reached the harvesting age! Theoretically, they could be developed, which does not mean that it will happen immediately.

The lesser spotted eagle project is linked to restrictions on forestry activities. This heightens emotions, and the owner, upon receiving a notification, is encouraged to resort to logging. While there is no micro-reserve, there is no basis to restrict anything. Even in such a situation, nesting sites of rare birds are at risk.