"I separated those Indrāni that fill my purse from those that gladden my heart," said the father of the Indrāni in Rūdolfs Blaumanis's drama. The play ended with the ash trees being felled and the old owners driven off to the sauna. How the conflict between forest owners and industry entrepreneurs on one side and the guardians of natural values on the other will end is currently unknown. Forest owners say they do not oppose the protection of bird nests, but they are unhappy with the paltry compensation for logging bans and restrictions.
Hoped for money in retirement
Three years ago, a lesser spotted eagle's nest was found in a forest belonging to Kārlis Priedītis's family in the Krape parish of Ogre municipality. He owns nearly six hectares in the micro-reserve, where all economic activity is now prohibited. "My father retired. Pensions are, as we know, what they are. He decided to fell the forest. By coincidence, the surveyors turned up in the forest at the same time as the bird nest seekers. They told us straight – you won't be cutting anything here, we are going to impose a restriction. We went to the forestry office to get a permit, but they didn't give us one for four months, making all sorts of excuses, even though the restriction hadn't been imposed yet and, theoretically, we could have cut. After four months, they said – you know, you have a restriction there, we won't issue a permit," says Kārlis.
The family received letters from the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP) and the "bird seekers" – the Latvian Fund for Nature (LDF). "Something like a public consultation took place; they asked for our view on whether a restriction was needed. We, of course, put forward our arguments that we would suffer losses," says K. Priedītis. However, in his opinion, it was all "a bit of a circus" because the result was clear beforehand, even though all the forest owners said "no!". There are several activists who intend to complain to the Constitutional Court, so there will be precise calculations soon, but at the moment K. Priedītis estimates his losses at around 30,000–40,000 euros.
No time to battle the state
"Nobody is interested in the fact that it is a lot of money and what it means for our family," says the forest owner. He knows that in such cases, compensation of 160 euros per hectare is due. "Against the 40 thousand we haven't received for the forest, we will get about five or six hundred a year. This is a measure for 80 years. In the meantime, there is inflation, everything else, and who lives for 80 years? Moreover, we haven't received the compensation because it is granted by the Rural Support Service, but they take the information about the area from the DAP. For the third year now, they haven't been able to synchronise their databases. First, you call one place, then the other. 'Oh, you've already missed the deadline this year!' When I meet the deadline, there's some hitch in the databases. Then the taxation is too old. When the new taxation is ready, it turns out it hasn't been registered yet. Every year you run into some new excuse. I don't have time to battle the state; I have other things to do to provide for my family. It would be normal if, the moment a restriction was imposed, I just had to provide an account number for the money to be paid into," K. Priedītis believes.
Mārtiņš Prūsis is in a similar situation in Smiltene. His forest is in the buffer zone of a white-tailed eagle micro-reserve, and the owner very much hopes it will stay that way. However, there will be restrictions on economic activity. "It is one of my most beautiful forests," he says, "the nest was found in a hundred-year-old forest; I will lose a huge amount of money. To recover my losses through compensation, I would have to live for 150 years." This forest property was not inherited, M. Prūsis bought it, but now he is considering selling because "there is no point in keeping a forest where you can never do anything."
Count, don't just ban
"Don't let them rob your bank!" – this is how SIA "Stiga RM" addresses private forest owners in advertisements placed in the media. The company claims that as a result of the 'nature census', or the identification of protected habitats of EU importance, more than a hundred micro-reserves have been established in forests, which will never again allow owners to carry out logging and earn income from the sale of trees. After receiving notification of the nature census, "Stiga RM" urges immediate logging, otherwise the forest property will turn into a nature park. The DAP has complained to the Consumer Rights Protection Centre about the misleading advertisement. "It is not an advertisement, but information and a warning for forest owners," says Andris Ramoliņš, a board member of "Stiga RM". "Since the nature census began, the number of micro-reserves in forests is constantly growing. Yes, the DAP does not impose the restriction, the State Forest Service does, but people are being ruined. There are families who have to leave Latvia because they cannot harvest the forest inherited over generations."
Ilze Reinika, assistant to the head of the nature census at the DAP, says that since the start of the nature census in 2017, the DAP has not initiated or created a single micro-reserve in Latvian territory: "The nature census is taking place because, upon joining the EU, we assumed obligations in the field of nature as well. Every six to seven years, we must submit the latest data on habitats – how many we have, what kind they are, and what their quality is. The nature census is not conducted to increase the number of micro-reserves." This year, 247 experts from four different countries are counting natural values according to a set methodology. Areas have been selected from previously known databases where there are no clear-cuts and where the forest is not younger than 50 years. "When going into the forests, they look at how they have grown, whether the trees correspond to the habitat. From the type of management over many decades, it is clear whether a habitat has formed, or if this plot of land was managed incorrectly at some point, perhaps not so environmentally friendly, and it is no longer as valuable. Large trees might look the same, but it is visually apparent that one forest will have a habitat while another will not," says I. Reinika.
Fear of habitats
She points out that there is no direct cooperation with the State Forest Service (VMD). If an application for the initiation of a micro-reserve is received, it is reviewed by the DAP and then passed on to the VMD. Parallel to the nature census project, other projects are taking place with the goal of imposing micro-reserves, one of which is implemented by the LDF. "Even if DAP researchers see birds, they only count plants. Our experts are very busy, the volume of work is huge. We are unable to do the side tasks we are being accused of," notes I. Reinika. Asked why those who make the accusations blame the DAP specifically, I. Reinika admits that large foresters and the forest industry in general are very afraid of habitats: "Many industries connected with forestry refuse to purchase firewood if they know that the forest contains a habitat plot. These are losses, that's why they are very afraid for their forests and fight against the project as such." DAP representatives have also spoken with foresters and agree that the compensation system is not motivating – payment for a micro-reserve does not correspond to the situation. "That is the state's position, and everyone together needs to understand how to change it. A dialogue has begun, but with such attacks, the position will not change," I. Reinika believes.
The list is long
Andis Purs, Head of the Environmental Protection Department at the VMD, says that anyone can propose the creation of a micro-reserve. However, upon receiving an application, the service checks whether there is an expert opinion, as required by Cabinet regulations. "We unfortunately have to admit that there is no funding to hire experts. In cases where we have received applications that do not include an expert opinion, we refuse to create a micro-reserve," he says. If there is an opinion from a certified expert, the VMD compiles the information and sends it to the forest owner, the municipality, and other involved structures, requesting opinions and additions. After evaluating all information, the VMD makes a decision, which can be appealed to the Director General of the Service and subsequently to the court. In certain cases, decisions lead to litigation, says A. Purs.
In the event of a micro-reserve being established, forest owners are entitled to compensation for "NATURA 2000" territories. For areas up to 1 ha, one must apply to the DAP, for larger areas – to the Rural Support Service (LAD). "There have been isolated cases where the awarding of compensation is delayed, these are being resolved, and it is not always a story about us," notes A. Purs. A micro-reserve means that an end is put to forestry activity, but there are also buffer zones around bird nests, which have seasonal restrictions – economic activity can take place before and after the nesting period. "For the lesser spotted eagle, they create the smallest possible micro-reserve areas and larger buffer zones. Regulations are designed according to the species. There is a long list of especially protected species of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, vascular plants, fungi, and lichens for which a micro-reserve is created. Whether one can find something like that in every corner of the forest, everything must be seen on site," explains A. Purs. The status of a micro-reserve can be revoked if representatives of the especially protected species are no longer present there. The area of the reserve can be clarified. "If there has been a micro-reserve for the lesser spotted eagle, but a 'storm has passed', the forest stand has been destroyed, that is one case where the micro-reserve 'can be reviewed and revoked'. The same applies if the bird has not nested there for more than five years," notes the VMD representative. He also claims that the currently established micro-reserves have no connection to the nature census. Their number has increased in recent years specifically in connection with the lesser spotted eagle project.
Benefit for the future
Jānis Ķuze, a council member of the Latvian Fund for Nature, disagrees with the forest owners' statement that their opinion is asked for in vain: "Micro-reserves are not always created in the proposed areas. There are many circumstances that can influence the decision, and the attitude of the owner is the first one. There have been cases where, for the sake of compromise, the plan is changed, reducing the area included in the reserve to a minimum or changing its location. J. Ķuze stresses that strict protection (forestry activity completely prohibited or main felling prohibited) is applied to relatively small forest areas in Latvia – only about 7%, and the vast majority of these are in state forests. Micro-reserves have been created in only 1.5% of the total forest area, while buffer zones occupy about as much again. "That is not enough for us to be able to ensure the preservation of natural values in the long term. There is a series of especially protected species for whose existence old forest is necessary; likewise, natural forest habitats in most cases require a non-intervention regime. If we want to preserve our natural values, we must accept such restrictions – black stork nesting pines are on average 200 years old, black woodpeckers need thick trees to carve out hollows, many rare species of lichens and mosses can grow only in places where the forest has existed for a long time, providing a special microclimate. The white-backed woodpecker needs a large amount of dead wood, which does not exist in commercially cultivated forests," says the ornithologist. Protecting old forests from timber production causes economic losses, however, this issue can be resolved with a fair compensation mechanism. J. Ķuze admits that owners are asked to carry out forest management planning, which means evaluating its economic benefit, while natural values have so far been considered something secondary. "The result of this long-standing attitude is what nature conservation specialists see daily in Latvia's forests – felled nest trees, felled especially protected habitats, disturbances during the nesting season. This situation could be changed by introducing a new approach that would view natural values in the forest management planning process the same way as economic ones. The final decision on applying a certain management model could then be a compromise that, in situations where preserving natural values is necessary, also provides for adequate and fair compensation," he says. "Even though society does not see the benefits of nature conservation as quickly as the economic benefit provided by a felled forest, it is fundamentally important for our future."
Facts
• In Latvia, the majority (about 85%) of micro-reserves have been established for especially protected birds.
• The area of micro-reserves is approximately 43,000–44,000 hectares. Of these, about 91% are in state forests, 7% in private, and the remaining part – in municipal forests.
• According to the information available in the nature data management system "Ozols", a total of 134 micro-reserves have been created in Latvia since 2017; in all cases, the decision-maker is the State Forest Service. (Source: VMD)
Micro-reserves are territories that are designated to ensure the protection of an especially protected species or habitat outside of especially protected nature territories, as well as in especially protected nature territories if one of the functional zones does not provide it.
Micro-reserves in Latvia can be created by the Nature Conservation Agency (in non-forest lands, as well as in nature reserves and national parks), the State Forest Service (in forest lands outside nature reserves and national parks), and the Ministry of Agriculture (in spawning grounds for especially protected fish species).
Since especially rare species are protected in micro-reserves, data on micro-reserves and the species found in them are kept in the Nature Conservation Agency's database, which is accessible only to registered users. (Source: DAP)
A forest cannot be "conserved"
Forests in Latvia are very valuable – both with a very high volume of timber (currently the growing stock volume in Latvian forests exceeds 700 million cubic metres, which is 3.5 times more than in the Ulmanis era) and with the natural values found in them. It would be wrong to think that this has come about by itself – the current Latvian forests are the result of planned and professional work by foresters over more than 200 years. There are practically no natural or untouched and unmanaged forests in Latvia, such as those found near the Amazon or in Brazil. According to data from biological researchers, the area of such forests in Latvia does not exceed 0.5%. Therefore, concern is raised by the creation of such reserves where forest management is not allowed, because the situation in a forest cannot be "conserved" like buildings from the last or second-to-last century in the Open-Air Museum – the forest is constantly growing and changing. The excellent Latvian forests have been created not by doing nothing, but by regularly renewing them and skillfully tending to them. For example, coastal pine forests have been created by Latvian foresters in the last century by planting pines on migrating dunes. The excellent pine forests in Latvia have been created by both sowing and planting them after regeneration felling or forest fires. Historically, seeds from the best pine cones were obtained at the Vijciems cone kiln, but today we sow selected seeds, of the best quality, obtained in the world-renowned company "Rīgas priedes". (Tomass Kotovičs, Head of the Communications Department of a/s "Latvijas Valsts meži")
What would you do if you owned a forest?
Jūlijs Broks – former sailor: - I would not sell it to anyone because the forest is a great asset. I am a farmer's son, but I don't have a forest now. My parents experienced their forest and land being taken away by the Soviet power. There is a saying – not all trees in the forest are straight. That means you have to be a wise owner and know how to manage the forest. Without work, nothing happens anywhere.
Anna Fiļipska – housewife: - I would put up posters everywhere that nature must be nurtured and that it must not be littered. Nature is our best friend, but people are always hurting it. My heart aches for it. If I owned a piece of forest, I would protect it very much and would not cut anything under any circumstances, so that the animals, birds, and all living creatures would feel safe there.
Gaļina Levina – works: - If I owned a forest, I would be a rich woman. I would definitely find forest experts, professionals, who would help me, tell me what is better to do, and how to take care of the forest. I would have no objections if others gathered berries and mushrooms in my forest, but it is important that those visiting take their rubbish with them.
Ingrīda Baumane – pensioner: - I would not sell my forest, but would manage it and rejoice in nature. I would gather mushrooms and berries. An owner certainly needs to take care of the forest. Just as for everything else. The owner is the one who not only consumes, but also cares.
Ārija – from Liepāja: - Once my mother owned a forest, which she gave to relatives' children living in the countryside, but the forest was mismanaged. Everything that could possibly be done in the forest was done, and nothing was planted in its place. Now nothing can be saved.
"It is my bank," claim many forest owners. Unique natural values can also be deposited in a forest, for the sake of which one will never be able to make a profit from trees. An unresolved problem at the moment is proper compensation for forest owners for the creation of micro-reserves.
We are republishing the article with the kind permission of the "Kurzemes Vārds" newspaper. Photos from zemeunvalsts.lv used for illustration