zemeunvalsts.lv editorial
A court ruling in a neighbouring country forces us to take a serious look at the situation in Latvia. The discussion regarding compensation for justified or unjustified restrictions has been going on for long enough. Naturally, decision-makers and advisors of various ranks may pretend to be resolving the issue, but during the formulation of this year's budget, it became clear that landowners will not be seeing any money in the near future. Unless some brave soul finds the initiative to source it from European funds. Money is, in fact, lacking everywhere, so why compensate those who already own something? What if it were fair to do so?
At a recent interrogation of three ministers organised by the "Green Barometer" and the subsequent reaction on social media and in the press, Latvia’s most prominent environmental business representatives clearly indicated that they would not retreat from their hard-line stance – that regulations, requirements, restrictions, orders and directives should form the basis of nature conservation – rather than the collaboration promised for years. It should be recalled that everything listed above imposes no responsibility on the strict regime's proponents and seekers, with the entire burden falling on the shoulders of the landowner and the state budget's slender purse.
In Latvia, it has become popular to live in poverty, complain about a lack of money, and do everything possible to ensure that there is no money for oneself, the state or entrepreneurs. And here, we can hardly blame the 50 years of occupation, Russian influence, oligarchs' stipendiaries or anything else...
The Supreme Court of Sweden has awarded the company Hargs Bruk the right to compensation for logging activities halted in 2017, which were stopped by invoking species protection regulations. The court ruled that the company Hargs Bruk is entitled to compensation from the state in the amount of 3.4 million Swedish kronor because the Swedish Forest Agency halted planned logging in a 17-hectare area as this territory was a site for capercaillie lekking.
The case has garnered significant attention in Sweden as it is the first time the Supreme Court of Sweden has examined the right to compensation in relation to species protection regulations, and it is therefore considered a precedent. Unfortunately, the landowner Hargs Bruk had a long road to travel before the case was resolved. The company’s logging plans were notified as early as 2015, and it was only in 2017 that the Forest Agency issued a logging ban, additionally imposing a 1.5 million krona fine. Hargs Bruk appealed the decision to the Land and Environment Court, which rejected the appeal.
The regional administration rejected the company’s application
When the County Administrative Board also rejected the application for an exemption from the imposed protection measures and restrictions, Hargs Bruk took legal action against the state, demanding compensation for a significant impairment of land use. At the time, the compensation related to 22 hectares, as a smaller area without a logging ban lies in the middle of the 17.4-hectare territory subject to the logging ban, which also cannot be used due to the aforementioned ban.
The Land and Environment Court of Appeal supported the landowner's interests, and Hargs Bruk received compensation corresponding to the decrease in property value, plus a 25% surcharge. The state, through the Chamber of Justice, appealed this verdict to the Supreme Court, which has now ruled in favour of the landowner. In addition to the compensation, the state has been ordered to cover Hargs Bruk's legal expenses in the Supreme Court.
Hargs Bruk manages 20,000 hectares of forest. The state had halted economic activity on 22 hectares of this land due to the presence of capercaillie, which is why the court ordered the state to compensate the landowner for losses. The forest owner, who was denied logging due to a capercaillie lek, has a right to compensation according to the ruling set by the Supreme Court.
(...)
In 2017, the Swedish Forest Agency prevented a forestry company in Uppland from conducting logging on 20 hectares of company-owned land. The reason – logging in this area could disturb a capercaillie lek.
Now the Supreme Court has granted the landowner the right to compensation, with the economic impact estimated at just over 2.8 million Swedish kronor. At the same time, the court notes that there are no legal norms that guarantee remuneration or compensation. For example, you do not have such a right if the use of the land had already been restricted previously. This time, there was no such prior prohibition.
In this highly topical case, it was considered that the provisions of the Species Protection Regulation had caused a significant deterioration in land use opportunities on the affected part of the property.
“The restriction on land use was determined by circumstances that the forestry company could neither influence nor foresee,” the ruling states. LRF Skogsägarna (Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, a non-governmental business and interest organisation representing people and companies working in the green industries) considers the court's ruling to be a major victory for legal certainty.
“This is very welcome news. Once again, we have confirmation that authorities cannot restrict a forest owner's right to use their forest without paying compensation. This is a victory for rural regions and all forest owners who have had the courage to stand up for their forest,” says LRF Skogsägarna Chairman Paul Christensson.
LRF Skogsägarna estimates that with the current application of species protection rules, the state will have to compensate landowners several hundred billion kronor over the coming years.
”Given the fact that many protected species are found in almost every forest, the government will have to change the species protection rules so that money in the state budget does not run out. The point is to have the rules clarify that the presence of certain species should not be a reason to stop forestry worth millions of kronor,” Paul Christensson explains.
The Swedish Forest Agency believes that the ruling indicates that the right to compensation is valid in specific cases, for example, if forest owners have requested but were refused an exemption from a species protection order.
“We can conclude that a forest owner may be entitled to compensation if there are special circumstances. To a certain extent, we have received guidance on the question of the right to compensation, which is good. But in our future work, we will definitely have to return to the question of what the consequences are and how this will affect our working methods. We will certainly do so once we have analysed the court ruling in more detail,” says Herman Sundqvist, Director General of the Forest Agency, in a press release.
Thanks to Lars-Göran Hedlund, Södra Latvia, for the informative material
Sources
https://www.skogen.se/nyheter/hogsta-domstolen-gav-markagaren-ratt-i-tjadermal/
https://www.domstol.se/nyheter/2023/04/staten-har-i-ett-visst-fall-alagts-att-betala-ersattning-till-ett-skogsbolag-som-forbjudits-att-avverka-ett-skogsomrade/
https://www.atl.nu/staten-overklagar-om-ersattning-for-artskydd
https://www.atl.nu/mod-markagare-har-ratt-till-ersattning