An interview with Dainis Kreicbergs, a forest owner and farmer

Zvārde parish was once described as a closed zone in Soviet times, a training ground where the road was closed to locals. What is it like now?

My family has been farming in Zvārde parish since the 1990s. Initially, when the army left, there were both bushes and overgrown meadows. When we started our operations, we evaluated what the given territory was most suitable for – land cultivation or forestry. Over the years, we have achieved quite a bit. We have come to understand that we must also farm organically. There are many protected natural values in Zvārde parish. This also affects economic activity; one must follow science in order to be able to work and, while working, not endanger protected species. I will not say that it is easy. It happens that strangers want to decide instead of the owner what to do and how, which is not right! No one will know the situation in their forest or field better than the owner. Economic activity is the beginning of many things and processes that give a certain control over the territory. If there is no economic activity, control is lost, and no one knows what is happening in the territory. About 40% of our family's forest property is being “protected” (restricted). Planned economic activities do not take place there; we cannot cut trees when we need to or when it is profitable; consequently, this creates losses. The money we do not earn from planned forest management must be “found” in another part of the property where we can operate, somewhere we have to work more intensively. This creates certain problems, because it is not really possible to farm evenly and in an environmentally friendly way. The territories affected by restrictions have to be somehow compensated to the farmers themselves. The “creators” of the restrictions do not think about that!

How did this 40% come about?

In various ways. There is the historical story – in the Soviet years, the parish territory was not accessible to residents, and many areas became overgrown. This was used by birds and animals, which found an untouched, uninhabited territory; the environment in Zvārde was pleasant for them. Then came the years of independence and the Zvārde training ground was liquidated, properties were returned to their owners. Interest in Zvārde also arose from nature conservationists, who often entered the territory unauthorized during the Soviet years to film and document. With the help of these people, a certain clarity about the natural values found in the parish was formed. Upon Latvia joining the EU, areas dedicated to nature conservation were required, and a nature park was created in the parish. Later, its territory was expanded for relatively technical reasons. Landowners were formally heard: during meetings, one could “express” themselves, but no decisions in favor of the owners or in their interests were made. Properties have encumbrances, and no one is interested in the work invested in the forest until then. For example, if I own a spruce plantation that is growing on former agricultural land, it must be managed differently than a natural forest. In such a territory, achieving results desired for nature conservation is questionable, because trees overgrow, die, and root rot appears. This would not happen if there were an opportunity to work in the plot; such trees must be cut! In the Soviet years, the Morozov military forestry operated in Zvārde, which was not interested in Latvian forestry principles; it had its own! The requirement: afforest the territories! They even “planted forest” in meadows. We also bought such an area and wanted to farm.

As far as can be understood, in the times when Soviet military units were in Zvārde, management happened as it happened, no one particularly cared about nature conservation, but we received the much-cited “biodiversity”!

That could be said! The birds fared relatively well here! I will add that if “Soviet military forestry” had continued, over time, the situation would have changed drastically. Meadows and small fields grew over; in fact, currently only a few meadows have remained in the parish, which are an important place for birds to feed. In place of the former meadows, bushes and white alders are growing; soon the territory will not be suitable for birds. Human activity is necessary – forests must be tended and harvested, and meadows must be mowed! At the moment, as I already said, those meadows that are used by farmers have remained. The forest cover of Zvārde parish is about 90%.

One form of nature conservation is nature reserves and nature parks, which are considered “predictable”. They are formed in a relatively long process, people can plan, they are informed. This does not happen suddenly!

Things are happening differently for us! In February of last year, we received a letter about the commencement of the establishment of a micro-reserve. A surprise! (Before that, we received a refusal for a felling permit.) The letter indicated that a successfully nesting lesser spotted eagle had been found, which an expert had observed for two years. That would be one story. Three months later, we received another letter about a different plot. Within one year, for a farm, this is a palpable shock! What can we object to the experts? In my view, it is a barbaric act! It would be normal: if a restriction is needed, if it is necessary, there should be fair compensation! I think any owner would gladly see natural values in their territory that benefit the ecosystem and forest well-being, where we will all be winners. It is not reasonable to dump responsibility and problems only on a few owners! If the Latvian, European, or world society believes that a natural value must be protected, the responsibility and the material burden should be shared accordingly! The society wants it, the society pays! Not – the society wants it, one owner pays! We are protecting the lesser spotted eagle, which is not dying out in Latvia, but in Germany and elsewhere, where it is no longer there! We have to protect it, and for us, this process creates costs.

The bird and its habitat have been surveyed for two years. As far as can be understood, the owners were not informed about the surveying! Something was happening, but…

Yes! It happened that we have been observed for two years! We see the situation – what an owner thinks, an owner's rights to manage are actually just the owner's imagination and understanding alone. Someone can quietly observe your forest, study it, decide: “we will decide instead of you – you will not operate here now!” Whether we will hear your opinion, mere owner, depends on us!

I know only one country – neighboring Putin's Russia, where an owner can sow grain, tend and look after a field, but as the harvest comes in, black cars appear on the edge of the field, from which people step out who praise the owner for the excellent harvest and management, but remind him that they will take the harvest! Of course, there are nuances of the neighboring country's laws, but the situation here with us is similar. You are operating, and “someone” arrives. Or does not arrive, but sends a letter.

I do not doubt the expert's qualification; he certainly knows what he is doing and how, but when interests are to be viewed in the big picture, another story begins. As far as can be understood – in the case of the lesser spotted eagle, economic activity and the bird's nesting are not compatible, or this possibility is not considered at all. Here, an accurate, fair compensation mechanism must immediately exist and be offered, which would fully cover the value of the timber accumulated in the forest!!!! I think if such a mechanism were actually working, forest owners would have no complaints against the life of a lesser spotted eagle (or another rare bird) in their territory. The second option that could be considered is an exchange. The state owns enough forests that could be exchanged; if protection (restrictions) is needed in the long term, the decision must be weighed and justified. At the moment, it looks like restrictions are determined without delving into the situation. Even just: there is no clarity whether the lesser spotted eagle or a common buzzard lives in the found nest. It is difficult to say how qualitatively the evaluation is taking place.

You take an interest in the experience elsewhere in Europe…

Becoming a forest manager, I started to take an interest in ornithology and concluded that the celebrated tolerance and friendliness towards feathered neighbors do not always and everywhere exist. In anger that the property is effectively being taken away, a person can destroy a nest. In European countries, the attitude towards birds of prey is different. There are still landowners who poison birds by using pesticides or poisoning bait. For example, in Austria, there is an old sport and tradition associated with carrier pigeons. The interests of pigeon owners are not heard, the number of birds of prey is increasing, the pigeon is a tasty meal for them …and the poisoning begins... Of course, the attitude is different in different regions of Europe, but – getting to know the situation as a whole – if the environment is favorable for the bird, the protection measures must be reasonable and balanced. The state must allow every member of society to manage as they consider right! If someone wishes or is determined to decide instead of the owner and manager, the decision must be strictly justified, weighed, defined, and monetarily or otherwise compensated.

There is an opportunity to compare the experience in Latvia and abroad. I have participated in various environmental protection activities and training elsewhere. Abroad, the work style is different – a person who is interested in the relevant territory arrives at the owner's place. Conversations take place, state institutions get involved in them, they discuss the desired result. In the end, an agreement (contract) is concluded regarding the goals that will be implemented on the respective property. The agreement is voluntary, the owner receives a certain payment or compensation. In Austria – if protectable natural values are detected in a property – a representative arrives at the owner with a contract that is concluded for 20 years. The owner has nothing to lose if their property has become liked for nest-weaving by a bird pair. After 20 years, this contract is reviewed depending on the situation. I visited a nature park in Great Britain, I talked with a landowner. He needed finances for his child's studies at a university. A solution was found, the owner developed the forest. The mentioned examples show that elsewhere, nature protectors understand that the people living in protected territories are just as big a value as a bird, plant, or meadow.

In other countries, in the course of conversations, they not only talk but listen, look for a solution, and then act. With us, they listen – I participated in the work of a monitoring group – the protection plan and individual protection regulations for the “Zvārde” nature reserve were created. As soon as we came to important economic matters – about the change of economic activity, about restrictions… The listening was over! I allow that the setting of restrictions in Zvārde is not essential (insignificant), one could allow controlled activity - namely – “the owner's view focused on the territory”. At the moment, there is a territory, there are restrictions, there are prohibitions, but – whether it has achieved the goal – is questionable! If a forest owner is not allowed to cut or tend the forest, the adjacent farmer can continue to farm without special rules and regulations. The nesting place for the bird is there, the feeding area… Is it, is it not? Speaking in the entrepreneur's language: “if there are resources, it would only be correct, by using them effectively, to try to produce more.” If we have nature reserves, in them and with them, natural values should be “produced” more. Do restrictions stimulate biodiversity?

If we look at the fact that the number of lesser spotted eagles in Latvia is about 4,000 pairs, protecting every nest would simultaneously be hindering the life and work of people in rural territories. In the countryside, a large part of owners earn from the land – whether birch, spruce, buckwheat, or rye grow on it! If the current protection conditions remain, we will have many, many territories that will not give the desired income to the national economy. The creation of every micro-reserve should be very carefully evaluated: whether such a territory is necessary at all, where it is necessary, etc. If there are three nests for a lesser spotted eagle in a small territory, one must think whether to protect all three. If state forest is nearby, perhaps it is worth “improving the situation” so that the eagle moves to the state forest. In my opinion, it would be a more reasonable solution than upsetting the small forest owners. Restrictions cannot be created so lightly. In the parish, already so many lands are to be protected; creating even more protectable territories is harmful to the parish. In Zvārde, according to calculations, 2 people live per square kilometer, which is already small, but this number at least remains constant. Nearby – in Jaunauce parish, looking at the restrictions, the number of residents is falling: “What to do if what is to be done is taken away?” When in 1991 the training ground was liquidated, there was a feeling – people will return, live, work the land and everything will happen. That is not the case at all, other interests have appeared…

In the parish, there are people who decide to sell their land because what is happening does not arouse good feelings in them. One moment you have been operating correctly, tending the land, planting a forest, now – a bird has flown in and chosen your forest for a nest, and for your work, a penalty follows. A penalty for correct behavior. Not everyone is able to balance such significant encumbrances and losses! It is good if these are local entrepreneurs or people who buy the land, but foreigners are also interested in it. Is that the goal of the restriction? What do we want to achieve? If we listen to the lesser spotted eagle researcher Mr. Bergmanis: one of the risks to the species' existence is the consolidation of properties – the coming of large areas into the hands of one or a few owners. In fact, it is exactly the restrictions that promote the consolidation of properties. In large properties, management is different – whether the creators of the restrictions understand that is not clear.