The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development hosted the first working group meeting to address the pressing issue of the scale of compensation for restrictions on economic activity. The matter concerns Latvian residents, the nature conservation system, and, to a significant extent, the state budget.

First, for the sake of clarity, it must be emphasised that there are approximately 135 thousand forest owners in Latvia who, outside of specially protected nature areas, engage in forestry according to their own goals, knowledge, and means—whether for timber production, landscape, conservation of natural values, recreation, whilst naturally adhering to the requirements set out in regulatory acts, or not managing the land at all.

Forest owners do not want to receive a single cent from the state budget in compensation if they have the opportunity to manage their land in accordance with the Forest Law and other legislation, including adhering to nature conservation requirements in forest management, paying income and land taxes into state and municipal coffers, and continuing to create the values so necessary to society that productive forestry provides—timber, CO2 sequestration, air and water quality, opportunities for mushroom and berry picking and recreation, jobs, habitats for that part of the wildlife capable of existing in such multifunctional forests, etc. However, if society believes that certain special natural values should be protected using methods that cause the owner financial loss, then society (everyone collectively) must pay for it.

September publications in “Latvijas Vēstnesis”: State Forest Service notifications regarding the creation of micro-reserves outside specially protected nature areas, i.e., the expropriation of management rights:

3.09. in Zalve Parish, 4.09. 5.15 ha in Skulte Parish, 4.09. in Sakstagals Parish, 5.09. in Jaunpils Parish,

10.09. in Viesati Parish, 10.09. in Bārbele Parish, 11.09. in Zante Parish, 11.09. in Sakstagals Parish,

17.09. in Kalēti Parish, 17.09. in Viesati Parish, 17.09. in Zaņa and Kursīši parishes, 17.09. in Vītiņi Parish,

18.09. in Prauliena Parish, 25.09. in Viesīte Parish, 26.09. in Drusti Parish, 30.09. 4.53 ha in Sigulda Parish.

A generous influx of micro-reserves in September alone... Every other day, a landowner suddenly has their rights to manage their land taken away, just as they had been doing for decades or since acquiring the property. What exactly is going on?

The Forest Owners Association of Latvia (LMIB) has for years been sounding the alarm about the injustice being directed at Latvian citizens who manage their own properties. Unfortunately, since the economic crisis, this uncomfortable issue has not been addressed. It has not been addressed because we have so many natural values that, if we want to protect everything in succession, we simply cannot afford it! Also because forestry and the timber industry are significant parts of our economy, and the losses that would arise would be disproportionate and unsustainable for the state budget.

To put it in terms of an analogy, it would be like going to a shop, but saying at the checkout: there is no money to pay for the goods. What do we call that? That is what is currently happening with the creation of micro-reserves. Environmental NGOs, with an environmental expert certificate in hand, as if representing the interests of society, enter someone else's property, find a bird species for which Cabinet regulations provide for the creation of a micro-reserve, and prepare an application to the State Forest Service (VMD). Following the procedure written in the regulations, the VMD, with a few exceptions, establishes a micro-reserve, thereby effectively stripping the landowner of their management rights. It is clear that special and very rare natural values must be protected, and it is clear that if a property is restricted in the public interest, society should “chip in” from its own pockets to compensate the owner for the losses. But since society has other, more urgent priorities than compensating a few hundred landowners for those values they have created on their own property with their own knowledge, labour, or bank loans, then the only payer for these public interests is the owner themselves.

So to speak—it is one’s own fault for managing one’s forest in such a way that special natural values like to dwell in it. Although it would be normal for a forest owner to be able to safely plan the development of their holding without fearing the mentioned risks. Here, responsibility must be taken by the responsible state institutions that have long failed to resolve this contradictory situation, either by amending the conditions or by providing adequate compensation.

One of the factors exacerbating the situation is the Lesser Spotted Eagle conservation project implemented by the Latvian Fund for Nature (LDF), one of the main tasks of which is to find 500 new nests and ensure their protection.

The listed influx of micro-reserves is the result of this project. This is an excellent example that reflects not systematic nature conservation, where the state has defined goals, priorities, measures, and a budget to achieve them, including in cooperation with landowners, but rather environmental NGOs using the force of law to pursue a desire to remove as much forest area as possible from economic circulation. The project implementers have chosen not some rare bird species in Latvia, but the most abundant eagle species—the Lesser Spotted Eagle, whose population in Latvia is stable. For perspective—around 4,000 pairs of Lesser Spotted Eagles live in Latvia, which is half of the entire European population of Lesser Spotted Eagles. By comparison: Germany, with nearly four times the forest area, has about 90 pairs. Moreover, out of the 2.2 million EUR that is the LDF project budget, a round zero has been allocated for building cooperation with landowners. Within the framework of the project, under the guidance of Latvia's leading Lesser Spotted Eagle researcher Dr.biol. U. Bergmanis, a Species Protection Plan for the Lesser Spotted Eagle was drafted this year. This is a scientific justification for the species conservation plan. The final version included a proposal based on scientific findings that would ensure the protection of the Lesser Spotted Eagle with an alternative regulation instead of a micro-reserve, which would significantly change the owners' attitude in a positive direction. LMIB hopes that this proposal will be kept in the plan and implemented as soon as possible.

Probably no official 18 years ago, when the first version of the Cabinet regulations on the procedure for creating and managing micro-reserves was drafted, could have foreseen that projects like these would be implemented with such a major impact on managed forests, which would create so many conflict situations and, furthermore, reduce the contribution of the forest sector to the state budget, which has so many needs. Besides, the Lesser Spotted Eagle is only one of 23 bird species for which micro-reserves are to be established; there are other eagles, various woodpeckers, various owls, and others, and each of them likes slightly different types of forests, and they certainly do not reside only in protected areas.

Speaking of significant public interests, we can compare the situation with the Rail Baltica project. It is being implemented in the interests of the wider public—a railway line of European importance is being built, and it cannot be built anywhere else but on land. Private properties have been identified that must be expropriated, and this is done by offering to buy back the owner's property at market price. This reflects the approach of fair compensation. Of course, there are nuances, but in comparison to the management rights expropriated from forest owners, to use an analogy, it would be this: the property is bought back not at market price, but payment is made only for the woodshed, and not for the residential house!

Now the owner has to go and find another place to live for the value of the woodshed. Currently, the approximate value of timber in a mature forest is about 10,000 EUR. The compensation an owner can receive is 160 EUR/ha annually. The average area of a micro-reserve is 5-7 ha, so with one decision, the owner is stripped of 60,000 EUR, while being offered about 900 EUR a year in compensation. Thus, the owner would have to live another 50-60 years to receive halfway fair compensation. Show us the people who would be happy to give up their personal home for one nest—that is the price of one micro-reserve. There is a large portion of owners who hold onto their forest as a bank to be used when the need arises—retirement, children's schooling, solving health problems, building a new house, barn repairs, investing in another sector of the economy, etc. All these goals are an understandable way for a person to manage their capital.

On the day the decision to create a micro-reserve is received, all these listed possibilities are swept away. At that moment, a huge conflict begins! And what do other owners think, who have also managed their land similarly—both carefully and frugally? Is the natural value on their property a source of pride, or is it, after all, a massive and real risk?

There have been many discussions about this issue, and responsible officials have for years been saying: solutions must be found. To find solutions, we must start thinking realistically and in the interests of society! Until now, the precautionary principle has dominated in nature conservation—without knowing exactly how to preserve what is rare and worth protecting, a complete ban on economic activity is applied. Other countries do it smarter—there are clear conditions that are important for a specific species for it to successfully exist, and the owner observes these conditions. For example, in Finland, in bird protection, the bird's nesting site is protected, not the forest. While the bird is nesting, no economic activity is carried out within a certain radius; during the rest of the time, low-intensity forestry is permitted.

That does not cost the state as dearly as the Latvian micro-reserve scenario. Moreover, by imposing a total ban on economic activity in a forest, there is no guarantee that the natural value will be preserved there. The same eagles build new nests in different places after a certain period of time, and the forest can be destroyed by storms or bark beetles. Even if the owner has received adequate compensation, the site is no longer suitable for nesting... What then? The money has been spent, the nesting site is gone. Therefore, a contract for the protection of natural values is needed, which is a much more flexible and effective approach; furthermore, such cooperation could attract the interest of forest owners.

To sum up, firstly, foresters want to engage in forestry and create value for society, rather than demand compensation. Secondly, if an owner incurs losses due to restrictions on economic activity, they must be adequately compensated, both in protected areas and outside them. Thirdly, outside specially protected areas, special natural values should be protected on a contractual basis, with the parties agreeing on management conditions and the amount of compensation, which would allow for the preservation of the forest's multifunctionality over a longer period.

zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

(From an interview with Daiga Vilkaste, Director of the Nature Protection Department at VARAM)
Is a ban the only way to protect nature?
A ban is definitely not the only way to protect! Nearly all European countries started with strict bans at one time, only to conclude in the end that bans do not always ensure results and that other solutions must be sought. What would be the alternative? We are currently talking about voluntary commitment to protect, which will certainly have to be looked at in the context of the Lesser Spotted Eagle and compensation. During the drafting of the Lesser Spotted Eagle Species Protection Plan, there was talk about reaching an agreement and finding other types of solutions, not just micro-reserves! How successful that will be and whether the drafters of the plan will arrive at that is another question.
So, is it time in Latvia not only to ban but also to cooperate?
Yes, absolutely! Landowners are ready for it; a mechanism must be found for how this could work so that it does not create an unnecessary administrative burden for state institutions.

* article first published on the portal "Delfi" on 5 October 2019