One night, the forest entered the city – that is how Imants Ziedonis’s “Green Fairy Tale” begins. This time, the forest people will enter the city: on 5 March, a protest action by forest owners and industry workers will take place outside the Cabinet of Ministers.

I must admit, we have not been quick to resort to loud slogans or protests until now. Growing a forest is not a one-year or even a half-century process; trees grow slowly, one must wait a long time for a timber harvest, and forest owners are accustomed to peaceful and thoughtful management. It is often said that foresters are better at talking to trees than to people. If we are ready to speak out loud, then the problems have truly escalated.

Nature conservation that does more harm than good

The main reason for the protest is the ill-considered and unfair nature conservation system in Latvia. Do not misunderstand me – no forest owner is against nature conservation, because one is not an enemy to one’s own property or one’s own children. We want to manage our forests so that in the future they will only be better and more productive, provide valuable timber to replace plastic and concrete, capture carbon dioxide emissions, and be strong enough to withstand climate challenges like severe drought or windthrow. But right now, the nature conservation system in Latvia is leading us in the opposite direction – to disengaged and desperate forest owners who have no rights because their forest has been designated as a specially protected nature area or micro-reserve. Depending on the zoning and the category of protection, this can mean a prohibition on performing a regeneration felling – yes, precisely a regeneration felling, because in place of the harvested forest there must be a new one – or even a total ban on forestry. The question is whether this really protects nature and how it affects the life of the forest owner.

Here is a real example from the Cēsis area. There, in a privately owned forest within the territory of the Gauja National Park (GNP), habitats of European importance were found in old spruce stands. In such habitats, no felling or other economic activity is allowed within the GNP, meaning the forest must be allowed to live its life without human intervention. When the devastating European spruce bark beetle infested the old spruce trees, the forest owner turned to the Nature Conservation Agency with a request to be allowed to fell the infested trees. Such permission was not granted. The old spruces have now died, and the much-protected habitat will soon be gone; in its place will grow a hazel scrub, which will provide neither value to the forest owner nor joy to the visitors of the GNP.

Downright unfair compensation for forest owners

But there is also another aspect, far more important than lost timber or overgrown walking trails. There are approximately 130,000 private forest owners in Latvia, but when multiplied by the average number of people in a household, the ban on managing forests and investing the income they bring into such basic needs as healthcare, pension savings, or children’s education affects almost four hundred thousand Latvian residents. The compensation that forest owners in Latvia receive for this annually is negligible, often even less than 1% of the forest’s value, or a maximum of 190 euros per hectare.

Since we like to look at good examples, say, the Nordic countries, let us look at how this issue is resolved in Sweden. There, forest owners receive adequate compensation for the value of the forest stand plus interest for the inconvenience caused. I like the Finnish example even better: they have a voluntary nature conservation system in place, which means that the state does not tell the forest owner – 'you will have a restriction here' – but rather the forest owner comes forward with a proposal – 'I have a part of the forest here that I could now hand over to nature conservation' – and signs an agreement with the state regarding the term for which this forest is designated as a protected area and the amount of compensation (needless to say, an adequate one). Our northern neighbours have understood that the nature conservation goals set by the European Union can be achieved much more effectively by involving rather than imposing.

How to find a way out of the woods?

I would prefer to call the European Green Deal the European Green Agreement – a 'deal' points in only one correct direction, whereas an 'agreement' means involving all parties and discussing how best to reach the goals together. Unfortunately, that is not happening in Latvia.

The goal set by the European Union is to ensure that at least 30% of the land territory is protected, including 10% that is strictly protected. It is by no means stipulated that every member state must reach this target. And here is the question of how strongly Latvia defends its interests. I must mention the Swedish example again: instead of the maximum target, Sweden has expressed a commitment to increase protected areas from 15.5% to 17.7% and areas in forests from 11% to 13%. Looking at the Natura 2000 territory maps, that is currently all in one place – mainly on the Norwegian border, where areas are less fertile and conditions for forest growth are harsher. In Latvia, conditions are quite uniform; all our forests are productive, so why do we not look for ways to protect them properly? It would be much wiser than constantly creating new protected areas, preventing forest owners from managing their own lands, to include in the records all existing territories with already existing restrictions, including buffer zones along watercourses and bodies of water, the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Riga coastline, etc.

This is also a question of static versus dynamic nature conservation: if a micro-reserve is designated because a bird species likes to nest in that forest, then why not allow, if not full-spectrum forestry, at least the harvesting of firewood for one's own needs during the winter period while the birds are not nesting there? The forest owner is not disturbing the birds at that time. Likewise, we should consider whether we set restrictions for eternity, or if we take into account that nature changes, and if the bird no longer nests there, restore the owner’s ability to manage their forest.

Forestry should by no means be set in opposition to nature conservation, but Latvia needs to be a smarter and firmer master of its own land. Those working in the forest industry are ready to help. We recently hoped to participate in the development of a nature conservation plan in the Gauja National Park. We asked for two things: when starting the plan's development, to survey local residents about their vision for the territory’s development, and to include forest owners with voting rights in the plan’s development oversight group. None of that happened. The fact that nothing happens is nothing new. I don't even remember how many ministers have already changed and how many working groups have discussed that forest owners should be compensated for the full value of the forest stand in cases of forestry bans, but the only change is another new minister. Meanwhile, tensions and exaggerations lead to protest actions. How can we be heard so that a well-considered nature conservation system is formed in Latvia, so that Latvian officials fight more for their country's interests in Europe, and so that the time does not come when people in the countryside have to be declared a protected species?