Radical differences in opinion and very few common ground points remain between landowners and environmental activists. This raises concerns and intensifies the fog of uncertainty surrounding future risks and opportunities.
This is the conclusion from the final discussion at the 4th international conference, "Forestry – A Pillar of Latvia's Economy in the Context of Bioeconomic Sector Development." Everyone understands that farmers, foresters, and environmental activists must at the very least maintain a dialogue, as the result of active hostilities between these groups could harm not only individual landowners, specific local regions in terms of employment and population, and even the forestry sector as a whole, but also the state itself—in terms of tax revenue, jobs, and total population. It must be noted that one of the priorities in the draft National Development Plan 2021–2027 is a high-quality living environment and territorial development, and the indicator for the "Nature and Environment" section is the farmland/forest bird index.
The National Development Plan is adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers and approved by the Saeima. There is no more time for lengthy discussions, as without the new NDP—essentially Latvia's development document for the coming years—the EU funding envelope might not be secured.
Demanding impact assessments for 30 years ahead
Although disputes between land managers and environmental activists are no surprise, others are increasingly being drawn into them. Jurģis Jansons, Director of the Latvian State Forest Research Institute Silava, cites as a peculiar example an official letter from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development that set the task of preparing precise information on the impact of a proposed measure (reducing the diameter for final felling) on carbon sequestration in 2050. "This letter reached the Latvian State Forest Research Institute Silava; it had the choice of responding that we cannot calculate it precisely, or attempting to obtain such information, even though it depends on a great many factors," says J. Jansons. He mentions the political factor first, as there will have been at least eight Saeima elections in Latvia by 2050, and each one will have the opportunity to influence the state's attitude towards the forest. "This forecast is also influenced by how accurate the tree growth models at the scientists' disposal are, and how accurately forest managers follow scientific recommendations in practice," notes J. Jansons. Furthermore, to carry out this task, one must know how many people—forest owners—will wish to perform felling in their property each year based on diameter. "Information on how much is felled in final felling by diameter was obtained from State Forest Service data, which show that an average of 37 ha is felled annually in state forests, while in private forests, it is 3996.6 ha, as a result of which the state sector must be excluded from modeling," explains J. Jansons. He admits that another question is how many forest owners choose tree felling by diameter. "According to State Forest Service information, only 13% of forest owners who own stands that could be felled by diameter use this method. The second source was a survey published in the newspaper 'Tukuma Ziņas' on whether people support reducing the main felling diameter, which showed that 72% do not support it, while 17% supported it. Combining the State Forest Service's 13% and the survey's 17%, one can assume on average that about 15% of forest owners might fell by diameter. "This would mean that standing timber volume could decrease in the near future, but so far, there has been an accumulation of growing stock. The dynamics of the exploitation fund in forests where the dominant tree species has reached the currently determined final felling age are positive; outside of nature conservation territories, this stock has increased by 40 million m3 over the last five years," emphasized J. Jansons.
Cats kill 4 million birds
As another example, J. Jansons mentioned a proposal from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development—to include in tree felling regulations that forestry must cease for three months a year in Latvia during the bird nesting season. "Such a ban would mean that large reserves must be built up in order not to work for three months," explained J. Jansons. A three-month shutdown would mean lower tax revenues; at the same time, there would be questions about what people do during these three months and whether they return to their jobs afterwards. For J. Jansons, the question concerns the factors affecting bird numbers in Latvia. "I assume such a proposal from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development is linked to the fact that bird numbers in Latvia are critically declining, and we must think about how to change this trend, so I chose to conduct a study at a homestead in the Upper Kurzeme region, using one impact factor—the rural cat—registering the wild birds killed and presented to the homestead owner," explained J. Jansons. He acknowledged that the methodology does not include those bird nestlings that a farm cat eats immediately. "One farm cat kills 28 birds a year, not counting those that were not presented to the homestead owners. Using Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences data, which states there are 142,000 homesteads in Latvia, and assuming that every homestead has one cat, then at least 3.98 million birds lose their lives annually (rounding up, that would be 40 million birds in 10 years, and as many as 400 million in 100 years)," says J. Jansons. He acknowledges that there are already homesteads where more than one cat lives, where the number of birds killed will be even more impressive. "One could calculate how many years it would take for there to be no birds left in Latvia at this trend, if only we knew how many birds there are in Latvia, so we must think about how to save birds, for example, by stipulating that from 2029 cats in rural homesteads cannot roam freely, and creating an appropriate oversight service to ensure this rule is enforced," J. Jansons said ironically. At the same time, there was a question about how many and which birds are needed.
A reasonable approach is needed
Guntis Vilnītis, Secretary General of the Farmers Parliament, had questions about whether everything is really being done in a way that is good—reasonable. Specifically, there is a situation where pasqueflowers begin to grow in a clear-cut area, and a ban on economic activity is imposed on this territory. By not carrying out economic activity, the forest begins to naturally regenerate after a few years, shading the pasqueflowers, and the habitat begins its decline. If a ban had not been set, then by managing it reasonably, the benefit would go to the landowner, and the pasqueflower would continue to delight the owner. The second story relates to the lesser spotted eagle, which begins its life in a forest adjacent to agricultural land. Consequently, a ban on economic activity is set both in the forest and on the adjacent agricultural land, and a buffer zone is established. As a result, the agricultural land begins to overgrow, but it is a good place for the lesser spotted eagle's food. Thus, rational nature conservation is hindered, and large areas of agricultural land will in the future be removed from the possibility of providing food for humanity. G. Vilnītis expressed concern that the EU may in time also apply regulation to the buffer zone that will prohibit economic activity.
Ignoring reality
"EU directives are written very well, but sometimes locals overdo it with implementation, and then we are surprised that they do not really work," pointed out Aiga Grasmane, Executive Director of the Latvian Forest Owners Association. An example is the lesser spotted eagle project—a species protection plan, which results in the creation of many micro-reserves—mostly in private forests. "Meanwhile, the lead researcher, based on studies about the conditions needed for the lesser spotted eagle's nesting and feeding, had included as an alternative to a micro-reserve a proposal to protect the specific nesting site for a limited time, because this bird species nests in one place for several years but then changes its nesting site. Since there are approximately 4,000 pairs of lesser spotted eagles in Latvia, we could cover large territories over the years by chasing after them with micro-reserves. However, when this plan reached the Nature Conservation Agency, this proposal—to protect the specific nesting site for a limited time—was simply deleted, and it was submitted to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development with these corrections," explained A. Grasmane.
Science and politics
"Science and politics must be strictly separated, as they are two different things, where politicians may try to persuade each other with scientific or less scientific arguments, but if scientific institutions begin to speak politically, it is unclear where that will lead," emphasized Lelde Eņģele, board member of the Latvian Fund for Nature. In her opinion, the issue of felling smaller diameter trees has not been sufficiently evaluated, and it should be assessed in the context of the new Forest Sector Guidelines and the results of the nature census. "Better forest management must be viewed in the context of better nature conservation, and then attempts should be made to balance these things," explained L. Eņģele regarding her position. In her view, scientific studies must be outside of politics, and objectively scientific studies can best be used for creating policy.
The first step towards a compromise
"In my opinion, Latvia is a green country, and a compromise between all involved parties must be found. One of the contact points between nature conservation, forestry, and agriculture is compensation—so that the landowner is not the only one who pays for what society needs," emphasized lawyer Artūrs Surmovičs. In his opinion, this is the first compromise between nature advocates and landowners (managers), which could be followed by others. Looking at various bans, in A. Surmovičs' opinion, one should talk about reasonable compensation for owners who are being prohibited from something.
At the same time, the view is expressed that the situation with biodiversity in Latvia is not good, even though understanding of it differs. Furthermore, it is not clear how much of the country should be turned into protected territory and have economic activity restricted. It must be noted that in 1925, forest cover in Latvia was only 27%, while in 2019, it was 52% of the country's area. Latvia is currently the fourth or fifth most forested country in Europe, and it is unclear what proportion of the area should be occupied by forests.
Reliability of data
"When talking with Brussels officials, it is important to have data to show and to prove, and if there is not enough funding for science, we are weak in our representation," concluded A. Grasmane. In turn, A. Surmovičs reacted to this with a story about his experience during the adoption of a bill in the corridors of power. Specifically, one interested party brought their data, but the other party claimed it was not so. The former brought even more data, but nothing changed. "Scientific data are a good thing, but the most important thing is for the data from these studies to be visible, heard, and, most importantly, understood, because scientists should also come down from their ivory towers and, together with the relevant industry, figure out how to present the obtained data in a user-friendly form," pointed out A. Surmovičs. He added that often the most important things are not the data obtained, but how convincingly they are presented and how much they are accepted by the other side. "It is impossible to exclude such a risk," answered A. Surmovičs to the question of whether the other side could ignore or not accept the obtained data. In his opinion, the data obtained in Latvia is only the start of the journey, the continuation of which is the ability of domestic politicians to talk with politicians from other countries and EU officials.
"We already heard one example about the emission calculation example for 2050. That did not come from Brussels. The data are already being questioned in Latvia. That is also the most essential thing that makes Brussels say: first sort it out yourselves and then come with one opinion," says Jānis Eglīts, Head of the Office of the Minister of Agriculture Kaspars Gerhards. He recalls that when leading negotiations on changes to the felling diameter, he encountered the position of environmental activists: we do not believe the studies! "There are not even arguments against such a situation," says J. Eglīts.