The quantity and area of protected territories in Latvia will most likely have to be increased, but in order not to significantly reduce the amount of land used for economic activity, the area of protected territories could be substantially increased at the expense of peatlands that are not used in the national economy.
Such a proposal was put forward during a discussion on protected areas in Latvia, their potential expansion, possible consequences, and seeking an answer to the question: what landowners should expect, which was held in cooperation with the portal zemeunvalsts.lv.
Different points of view
“28.2% of Latvia's area consists of protected territories, which is both a lot and a little at the same time. Of course, if one knows that only 3.4% of the area is subject to a total ban on any kind of economic activity and 13.7% of forests have restrictions on forestry activities, these indicators are lower than the EU average, yet higher than in Sweden and close to Finland's figures,” explains Māris Liopa, Chairman of the Board of the Forest Owners and Managers Confederation of Latvia, adding that the state forest manager, Latvijas valsts meži, voluntarily protects significant forest areas, with approximately 20% of forests thus excluded from economic circulation. “The designation of any new protected territories cannot be approached mechanically or arbitrarily – just because it is needed,” says M. Liopa. He does not deny that in the context of specially protected territories, it would be incorrect to compare Latvia with, for example, Spain, Italy, Finland, or Sweden, which are considered Europe's forestry superpowers. “Sweden and Finland solve the problem of protected areas by declaring mountains and tundra (in other words, areas that are difficult to manage and generate little economic benefit) as specially protected. In Latvia, however, if we exclude a narrow strip along the Baltic Sea coast, there are no such areas, and therefore such protected territories have to be located in forests (territories) that are economically used,” says M. Liopa. He reminds that a similar picture to that in Scandinavia (regarding protected areas) can also be seen in Mediterranean countries, where protected territories include coastal cliffs and mountainous regions where economic activity, apart from tourism, is almost impossible.
Reserves found in peatlands
“Latvia has excellent reserves that could be used to increase the volume of protected areas,” believes Ilze Ozola, a board member of the Lake and Peat Research Centre, substantiating this: only 20% of the peatlands in Latvia have a designated protection status. “Currently, peat extraction takes place in only 4% (or 26,000 ha) of peatlands, in another 11,522 ha (2%) of peatlands the peat has been extracted, another 150,000 ha (23%) have been drained and are used in forestry and agriculture, while 318,129 ha (or 50% of all peatlands) are ‘free’, some of which could be designated as specially protected nature territories. These 50% include peatlands that are so valuable from a biodiversity perspective that they will never be viewed as peat extraction areas, and they should be included in the list of protected territories, thus increasing the share of specially protected nature territories in Latvia. This would also allow us to improve our ‘green indicators’ on paper, not just in reality. Less valuable and degraded areas should not be ‘tormented’ with expensive restoration measures, but handed over for management,” suggests I. Ozola. “The world’s population will increase, and the demand for substrate raw materials used in food production will grow (at least 5-6 times). The fate of peat extraction, which is the basis for the production of these substrates, is shrouded in mist in Europe, and there are currently no signals that this industry will be able to survive. Consequently, a significant increase in areas for the economic use of peatlands specifically for peat extraction is unlikely. Ensuring the current volume of extraction will be a challenge, but not impossible,” I. Ozola answers when asked if there would be contradictions here. In her opinion, increasing the area of protected nature territories at the ‘expense’ of peatlands by 100,000 or 200,000 ha, or even more, will lift Latvia from the ‘laggards’ to a new level, and peat extraction will not suffer from this, neither today nor in the future. “If Europe does, however, significantly restrict peat extraction, it will mean that citizens will have to pay significantly more for fresh food because it will become more expensive. In Latvia, out of 640,000 ha of peatlands, we manage (extract peat from) only 26,000 ha, and even if we leave the same amount or five times more for this sector, large areas of peatlands will still remain ‘free’,” I. Ozola answers to a clarifying question (Will ‘placing’ peatlands into the category of protected territories not hinder peat extraction and substrate production in Latvia?).
Protected even without status
Jānis Švirksts, a board member of the forestry certification company BM Certification, points out that when talking about protected territories, people only mean those that are “recorded” or included in some database. “Forestry certification rules require that there be protected territories even without being recorded in any specially protected territory databases. This is the case in all timber-producing countries. The decision – which territories will be protected and which will be used economically – is made by forest managers or owners, thus in reality the area of protected forests is larger than official databases show,” concludes J. Švirksts. He admits that in the field of forestry certification, Latvia is in a similar situation to Estonia and Lithuania. “Of course, regarding economic benefit, conflicts exist not only between Latvian forest owners and ‘friends of nature’, but recently the conflict has also escalated in Estonia,” says J. Švirksts. He notes that in Lithuania, the inventory of natural values has already taken place, while in Latvia it is still ongoing.
Alarm!
“The mapping of habitats of European importance in Latvia has been named ‘nature census’, but it is not clear what will happen after it,” emphasizes M. Liopa. He reminds that the nature surveyors use the manual on habitats of European importance as a basis for their work, and the features contained therein could correspond to approximately 345,000 ha of forest-related habitats (the habitats identified so far in state-managed forests – about 90,000 ha, and in private forests – about 40,000 ha). “If such areas are indeed removed from economic circulation, this step will have an impact not only on forestry and timber processing but on the entire national economy, and on jobs not only in the forest sector but also for related service providers and, of course, the payment of taxes,” points out M. Liopa. In his view, without a socio-economic impact assessment (as was promised in 2015), no decisions on the designation of additional habitat areas should be considered or evaluated. “The aforementioned significantly affects Latvia’s economic and social situation. It is surprising that the politicians who make these decisions are unable or unwilling to understand this,” concludes M. Liopa. In his opinion, decision-makers should not ignore the facts. “From time to time there are statements about the deterioration of habitat quality, but there are no answers as to why this has happened: as a result of human activity or the processes of ‘Mother Nature’. It must be remembered that the viability of many habitats is ensured by managing the areas,” says M. Liopa. He reminds that general phrases that do not correspond to reality are often used in the public domain. “If it is so bad in Latvia, why does the lesser spotted eagle have its largest population in the world in Latvia, as about 20% of these birds live here? The number of micro-reserves is constantly being increased. Last year, 172 micro-reserves were created in forest lands with a total area of 1415 ha; of these, 3% were in municipal and 39% in private forests, with the largest number of micro-reserves created for specially protected birds: 140 micro-reserves for the lesser spotted eagle, 10 for the black stork, and 3 for the white-tailed eagle,” shares M. Liopa. In his opinion, the compensation for owners is still pitiful. “At the same time, a disproportionate burden is imposed, and the property value falls. And that is by no means the only example,” says M. Liopa. He does not understand why several foresters' initiatives regarding forestry were blocked and postponed until the completion of the nature census in an absolutely illogical way. “In habitat mapping, two aspects are important – the type of habitat and ownership (state and large forest owners, who have 10,000 ha and more in one category, and private individuals with a few or a few dozen ha in another),” adds J. Švirksts. He assumes that the results of the nature census will be dominated by one or two types of forest habitats, as a result of which it will count as a rarity in Europe, but as commonly occurring in Latvia. “We are talking about old boreal forests, which are numerous in Latvia, but do not exist in other European countries! If the pressure or goal is to subject such territories to full protection, unfortunately, Latvia will lose its competitiveness,” says J. Švirksts. He notes that the Latvian state fulfils all requirements twice as much as requested, and the issue can only be regarding private forests. I. Ozola adds that there are large differences in Europe, but there is a strong desire, for example through certification, to put everyone in one frame, which is why one must think about certain exceptions.
Land – the foundation of prosperity
M. Liopa points out that the forest owner is portrayed as a not-so-positive character in a part of Latvian society. “Initiatives put forward by forest owners at the state level are ‘pushed aside’ as ‘inauthentic’, while forestry regulation (when and what one is allowed to do on one's own property) at the state level is very strict, even though competitors in Scandinavia do not have such special state requirements – when and what one is allowed to do in one’s own forest,” says M. Liopa. He reminds us that visions of Latvia as a financial bridge and business centre, as a transit superpower, have already been dreamt, and there will be nothing better than the rational management of land. Bans and restrictions essentially narrow the possibilities of benefiting from the land. “We look with anxiety at the new European documents, for example, the biodiversity strategy, which will be ‘fleshed out’ with a directive or regulation. Namely, so that Western Europe’s long-delayed reaction to what has happened in nature conservation does not consequently burden the rights of landowners in Latvia,” says M. Liopa. He reminds us that for those owners who have been subjected to economic activity restrictions or bans, the question was and will be about the adequacy of the compensation amount. “If these are habitats of European importance, it would be logical for the European Union to pay for them, for example from the ‘Green Deal’ support fund, and not for Latvia to pay from its already thin state purse,” believes M. Liopa.
In search of optimal percentages
What percentage of protected territories would be optimal (what would be necessary)? “Does this apply to every forest owner, for example, 2 ha where nothing can be done, but on the other 8 ha economic activity is permitted, or will it be a total state indicator,” says J. Švirksts. He admits that there are already owners whose properties have had bans or restrictions imposed on a third or half of their property, and it happens, on the entire property as well. The purchasing or exchange of protected territories (areas) for equivalent economically usable land (forest) is mentioned as a possible solution. “That would be one of the solutions; for now, the simplest would be adequate compensation, because their current amount (160 euros/ha if forestry activity is banned, 120 euros/ha if final felling is banned, and 45 euros/ha if clear-cutting is banned), regardless of what is growing there: alders or pines, is not fair. According to scientists’ calculations, the amount of initial compensation would exceed 200 million euros,” says M. Liopa. He draws attention to the fact that the number of micro-reserves continues to grow in Latvia. “It is impossible to sell properties that are restricted by bans or limitations, which is why forest owners often become a kind of hostage: the property exists, but nothing can be done with it, and the compensations are meagre,” says M. Liopa. By the way, how many micro-reserves have had such status revoked? In turn, J. Švirksts believes that for forest owners who want to sell the timber grown in their forests, certification is a mandatory prerequisite, whereas several years ago the existence of certification was an additional bonus. “Forest owners must be active in order to defend their interests at all levels,” suggests J. Švirksts. I. Ozola calls for not falling into the panic (for example, regarding climate, biodiversity) into which people are being pushed. “When a person is ‘pushed into panic’, they no longer think logically, and perhaps that has been the initial goal,” says I. Ozola. She reminds us that resources were, are, and will be necessary, only that their extraction will have very strict requirements in the future.
The video of the discussion is available here:
https://www.db.lv/zinas/video-aizsargajamo-teritoriju-rezerves-meklejamas-purvos-499196