Retrospection. So, 2017.

In our Latvia, a project with the romantic title “Nature Census” has begun. Landowners know that it refers to the project “Inventory of EU Protected Habitats in Latvia”. It will be implemented by the association “SIA Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment (ELLE) and the Latvian Fund for Nature (LDF)”. It seems that the data obtained during the mapping of key habitats in the late nineties is considered old and everything must be started from scratch. But perhaps since the previous mapping, a new generation of nature enthusiasts and experts has grown up, who want to participate in the acquisition of funds—which are primarily European Union funds—and are therefore searching for and happily finding ever more profitable activities.

The habitat inventory costs 9.5 million euros. It is no wonder that this is enough for both a philosophical survey on “What does nature mean to a Latvian?”, for hiring a PR firm, for launching the “Grand Nature Census”, and for other activities, not to mention approximately one hundred and seventy nature experts who will be guaranteed work and pay over several years.

However, there are sectors of the economy that question the utility of this expensive project, because there is great uncertainty about what will happen once the mapping concludes. The project’s proponents say—we will complete the assessment of all habitats, draw up new plans, and then we will see. Let’s think realistically—habitat mapping is not a theoretical discovery of the world. This is precisely what frightens people, primarily farmers and forest landowners who have inherited or purchased their properties before the big census and did not count on such a turn of events. Unfortunately, many in Latvia have a very sad experience in this field because they know how much such restrictions cost.

The question is very simple—who will pay compensation for restrictions on economic activity in places where valuable habitats are found. Currently, when we are shedding tears that there is no money for healthcare, collapsed roads, rural schools, and we cannot deal with tar ponds, is it realistic to hope that after 2020 there will be money for compensation (our own, earned by ourselves, not granted by Europe)? Won’t it be the case that the natural values enjoyed by the whole of society will be paid for only by the landowners? Currently, for an inherited ten-hectare forest in a nature reserve, the owner receives only 1,600 euros a year in compensation. Perhaps it is better for the state not to spend money and not take on obligations that it has no money to fulfill.
Let us remember that the term “habitat” was once developed to find the raisins in the cake (particularly significant natural values), rather than declaring the entire cake a raisin (a habitat).

The subjectivity of experts is alarming

Latvia has a centuries-old history of forestry; “foresters” have managed both to derive economic benefit for the state and to preserve resources for future generations—even during the interwar period, when there was less forest in Latvia because land was used more intensively for agriculture. Identifying habitats can promote the preservation of valuable species. Currently, it is unclear how these interact with forestry goals, what values should be taken into account, and what consequences this creates. For example, effective forest use according to studies is the best way to reduce climate change, because growing, not rotting, forests absorb carbon dioxide, and furthermore, renewable resources—wood—can replace oil and coal. Therefore, forests that are not considered valuable enough for society to allocate resources to them should be used for economic activity in accordance with the landowner’s intentions.
Concerns are also raised by the subjectivity factor in searching for and finding habitats. We know that a habitat is an area which, based on the structure of the general assessment, species content, history, and physical environment, has a very significant impact on flora and fauna.
However, when assessing significance, habitat experts often arrive at very different conclusions about whether it is a habitat or not. The precise delineation of the habitat’s boundaries also varies depending on the experts. Owners and managers have experienced that individual experts have different standards for the state and for smaller private landowners. Conversely, in cases where disputes arise, those involved, including the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP), do not correctly evaluate the fact that a habitat has been found based on a more or less subjective assessment made by one person, who holds no specific liability for their decisions (experts do not have official status).
I am not talking about cases where, for example, certain non-governmental organizations “find” more and more “unique” habitats just to stop logging. Currently, declaring an area a habitat is easy, but it is almost impossible to prove that it is not one. It is at least theoretically possible to combat subjectivity by approving detailed instructions, increasing clarity about which areas are key habitats, and continuously improving the qualifications of experts.

What is happening? The state is taking on obligations it cannot or does not want to fund sufficiently. As a result, the forest owner is not proud of the habitats in their property but wants, or even encourages, them not to exist. Newly discovered habitats will most severely impact small family forestry operations, where forest management is often the sole source of livelihood.

It is unlikely that any nature counter, while walking across Latvia, thinks about the fact that every day citizens leave the country because they cannot find suitable work, especially in rural areas. That is why foresters and farmers are not expressing delight about the nature census, but are waiting with great concern for the changes it will bring.

2024 – the uncertainty continues. Is the property a burden and a punishment?

If regarding the experience of neighbours, for example, in Finland, new habitats on private land are established only with the owner’s consent, which is usually granted because the compensation from the state side is adequate to the value of the forest…