The Latvian Fund for Nature and associated ornithology experts are blocking an increasing number of private forest territories by using a scheme involving the creation of micro-reserves for widespread bird species. The goal is profit from European Union projects, state budget funding for conducting expert assessments, and removing as much area as possible from economic circulation. This also affects people in the Riga region heading towards Vidzeme.

The Forest Owners' Association is raising the alarm about what is happening, as another 100 new micro-reserves are on their way to being approved. As a rule, these are created in the most economically valuable forests, which have been planted and carefully managed for decades and now tower over the surrounding forest mass. It is precisely there that the lesser spotted eagle finds it convenient to build a nest and observe its hunting grounds, and where it is convenient for ornithologists to observe the bird. It is an absurd situation, as taking care of one's own forest literally means that it will be taken away from the owner.

Formally, of course, the land register remains in the owner's name, but nothing more than pine cones and ten cubic metres of deadwood per year may be collected in the restricted zone. One may apply for compensation – 160 euros per hectare per year – and even that the state sometimes pays, but mostly does not, as it is not a priority. If you add up the work invested in forest management over the years and the lost profits, for rural people these are losses that can be estimated in the tens of thousands of euros. A huge amount of money. It can only be compared to the nationalisation of the Soviet era, when the authorities came and took away the owners' forest, pigs, crops, and even moved strangers into their homes to stay.

You can coexist with birds!

Last October, the family of Laima Vosa, a resident of Saulkrasti, received a notice that a micro-reserve was planned in their forest near Limbazi. Its area will be two hectares, with a five-hectare buffer zone. So, more than a third of the property's total 20-hectare area. And this micro-reserve will also affect the neighbour's property. The strict regime is being set in the most economically valuable part, where young growth was once tended, money was invested, and a European Union project was implemented. The family wrote a reply to the State Forest Service, asking not to create a micro-reserve on their property. The lesser spotted eagle has been living in this forest for many years, and economic activity has not disturbed it. People can coexist with birds, but, as it turns out, not with bird researchers.

In an unofficial conversation with a representative of the State Forest Service, the owners were told that the chances of challenging the creation of a micro-reserve are close to zero. Even if the service takes the side of the private owner, the Latvian Fund for Nature initiates litigation and always wins. The Forest Service has already lost three court cases, and it is perfectly clear that the institution no longer sees the point in defending meaningful forest management. The ornithologists will win regardless. The last of these lawsuits was so absurd that a reserve was established in a place where the forest had been felled even before the micro-reserve was created, and where not even theoretically could there be a nest. Nevertheless, the micro-reserve remained in effect – as a lesson to this and other owners.

Owners ask for protection

The ornithologists' calculation, creating a micro-reserve for every nest that exists or is imagined in nature, is based on financial motives. The Latvian Fund for Nature is implementing a 2.5 million euro project called "LIFE AQPOM: Securing the conservation of the lesser spotted eagle in Latvia". Within its framework, it is planned to provide protection for 500 nests, meaning 500 new micro-reserves must be created by the autumn of next year. This will directly affect the well-being of forest owners and rural people. They will become poorer, the ornithologists richer. It is that simple.

It is not fair, which is why the Forest Owners' Association has addressed an open letter to the country's highest officials – the President and the Prime Minister. It has been signed by more than 600 forest owners. They are demanding two things to be done immediately:

1) to impose a moratorium on the creation of micro-reserves in private forests, because this process, which has no defined achievable or priority goals, has for many years caused a disproportionate limitation of personal property rights, unjustifiably reduces the productive forest area, and implements nature conservation practices that do not comply with the European Commission's recommendations;

2) to cancel the Lesser Spotted Eagle (Clanga pomarina) conservation plan in Latvia approved on 8 January 2020, during the development of which principles of good governance were violated, as a result of which deep and long-standing problems in nature conservation are not resolved, and to find a way to prevent further disproportionate infringement of private rights for forest owners.

The lesser spotted eagle (Clanga pomarina) feels great in Latvia, and the main reason for this is Latvia's forestry traditions. Since 2001, the State Forest Service has established 509 micro-reserves for the well-being of this bird and the ornithologists, with a total area of 6,092 hectares. And the next hundreds of micro-reserves are already on their way to approval. This is an exaggeration.

Jānis Ķuze might show up!

The lesser spotted eagle is not a rare bird. It is widely found throughout the territory of Latvia, so currently, virtually every forest owner's property is at risk, because one day, uncalled and uninvited, ornithologist Jānis Ķuze, who is the project manager for the lesser spotted eagle, an expert, and a micro-reserve applicant all in one person, might wander onto the property. Or one of his lackeys.

One of them also visited the property of forest science doctor and academic Tālis Gaitnieks, and now a micro-reserve has also been applied for in the scientist's forest. He has accordingly prepared a rejecting response: "Thank you for your information regarding the lesser spotted eagle nest in my forest property "Biezdoriņi". While fully respecting the importance of the nest in preserving the eagle population in Latvia, I do not agree to the creation of a micro-reserve for the following reasons: [..]" The letter points to both the bird's wide distribution in Latvia, which has been recorded in international studies and reflected in a prestigious journal, and the fact that initially, the species conservation plan provided for term-limited economic activity restrictions – to be introduced temporarily. These were recommended by Latvia's leading specialist in lesser spotted eagle biology, Uģis Bergmanis. But the Nature Conservation Agency has voluntarily deleted this compromise between people and birds.

The state punishes citizens

"The current system, through which it is intended to promote the lesser spotted eagle population in Latvia in private forests, is not only illiterate but even destructive. If I, as a forest owner, have taken care of my forest in the interests of the entire country (in segments 2 and 8, logging could have been carried out 52 and 27 years ago, respectively) and I have preserved the old trees, it is clear that sooner or later a rare bird will build a nest there. Will there be a new reserve then? So, if a forest is managed by taking care of one's property in the long term, the state is essentially punishing its citizens by establishing new micro-reserves. This is short-term thinking, which is currently, unfortunately, practised by incompetent bureaucrats at the Nature Conservation Agency, following the instructions of the "experts" implementing short-term plans." This is what academic Tālis Gaitnieks writes to the State Forest Service, sarcastically adding: "I look forward with great enthusiasm to when conservation plans will be developed and implemented in Latvia not only for various bird species, but also for pensioners, teachers, medical workers, emeritus scientists, etc."

Protected areas continue to grow

Those who have turned nature conservation into an unethical business systematically claim that nature in Latvia is insufficiently protected, that forests are being irreversibly logged and habitats lost, and that the sea is dying. Myths are being created. But in reality, the areas of protected territories where economic activity is restricted or prohibited altogether have been increasing in Latvia year after year.

According to data from the Nature Conservation Agency, 18.21% of Latvia's territory, or 1,682,960 hectares, currently has a special protection status. These include nature parks, reserves, and protected landscape areas. In a fifth of the country, nature is strictly protected, and human needs there are secondary. But that is not enough. Micro-reserves are being created – to ensure the protection of a specially protected species or habitat outside of specially protected nature areas, as well as within specially protected nature areas if any of the functional zones do not provide for it. However, the activities of ornithologists in recent years have made the creation of micro-reserves an end in itself. Last autumn, the total area of micro-reserves barely exceeded 40 thousand hectares, but now it already exceeds 46 thousand hectares. The number of micro-reserves is approaching three thousand. Each micro-reserve means unharvested and un-replanted forests, lost income, poorer landowners, and an overall poorer country. It is not just about the lesser spotted eagle.

For reference

There are 2,755 registered micro-reserves in Latvia. The Nature Conservation Agency has made decisions on the creation of 212 micro-reserves; the Ministry of Agriculture has created one micro-reserve; the State Forest Service has created 2,633 micro-reserves.

Of all the micro-reserves:

• 821 were created for various habitats (4,436.09 ha);
• 2 – for amphibians (34.18 ha);
• 24 – for invertebrates (123 ha);
• 1 – for fish;
• 1,700 – for birds (40,287.45 ha);
• 1 – for mammals (4.4 ha);
• 157 – for vascular plants and ferns (899.1 ha);
• 11 – for lichens (71.9 ha);
• 33 – for mosses (207.4 ha);
• 5 – for fungi (14.8 ha)

Source: Nature data system "Ozols"
The article was first published on 19 May 2020 on the portal www.aprinkis.lv
Republishing on zemeunvalsts.lv takes place with the kind permission of editor Eva Lūse. Photographs from zemeunvalsts.lv were used