“Rīgas Apriņķa Avīze” continues to investigate the situation that has arisen in the Garkalne municipality, where the Voronkov family was granted 12.5 hectares of land as compensation for property nationalised during the Soviet era. Soon after, the “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve was established for the protection of the European roller and other rare bird species, thereby preventing the Voronkovs from fully managing their real estate. The Voronkovs were forced to move to Ireland, and if nothing changes, they will not be coming back.
This time, “Rīgas Apriņķa Avīze” heard the perspectives and views of two nature conservation specialists – the nature management plan developer Kristīne Vilciņa and ornithologist Edmunds Račinskis. Their goal and duty is the protection of rare species and habitats, but both have had to spend a large portion of their energy and time searching for compromises with dissatisfied landowners who acquired their properties mostly as a result of ill-considered and short-sighted privatisation and compensation schemes.
The nature management plan also addresses the problems of landowners
In the Garkalne nature management plan, which was completed and submitted some time ago, Kristīne Vilciņa represented the consultancy firm that was fulfilling a commission for the Nature Conservation Agency. Speaking about nature management plans in general, K. Vilciņa explained that such a plan is a document used to address problems of species and habitat protection in specially protected nature areas, as well as to coordinate the various, often conflicting, interests of parties, including landowners, regarding territorial development and nature conservation.
Regarding the “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve, the nature conservation specialist explained that several problems were already known before the plan was initiated; they were linked to the proximity of Riga and the closeness of residential areas, which is why the Nature Conservation Agency decided to develop a nature management plan for this territory. Of course, this is not the only such area in Latvia, but priority is given to places where a nature management plan is urgently needed. Plans have not yet been developed for all specially protected nature areas. Each nature management plan begins with an assessment of the current situation, which is done with the involvement of the public.
A good example of this is the Garkalne municipality, where owners of land included in the nature reserve formed the “Garkalnes meži” association to protect their interests when the development of the nature management plan began, and they were very active. Many meetings were held during this time – both in person and remotely. A representative of the landowners (Aigars Orskis, a board member of the “Garkalnes meži” association) was included in the nature management plan monitoring group. Kristīne Vilciņa believes that in the Garkalne case, public involvement was very high.
K. Vilciņa emphasises that a nature management plan is only advisory in nature; it is by no means a law. When speaking about the territory of the former Soviet army base in Garkalne, where the conflict is currently at its sharpest, one must remember: what is permitted or prohibited in a specific area is determined by individual property use regulations approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. A nature management plan itself cannot “change” the legal use of a territory; it is only an advisory document for further action. A complex plan is intended to be developed for the former army base area, but the nature management plan is only a draft of this layout. This means that the plan marks areas where owners could build new buildings, erect fences, etc., in place of former structures.
The draft plan for the “Medņi” real estate belonging to the Voronkov family provides for an access road and marks areas for two houses, each with a building footprint of 600 m2, although subdividing the land for each house is not permitted. Since the owners of the plot have declared that they would like to live there, their wish could be fulfilled in this scenario – the Voronkovs could build two houses for themselves and live in them, while at the same time ensuring suitable living conditions for the European rollers.
Historically, there was once an open strip around the former army base that specifically attracted the European roller. These birds require open territories with not-too-long grass, such as grey dunes, where the European rollers can most easily find food – this is important for the birds because they have to feed their young in a very short time. There are only two areas in the Garkalne municipality suitable for European rollers. To ensure they remain suitable in the future, a few clearings should be created; controlled burning of trees is also being considered. European rollers also nest in the Ādaži municipality, on the territory of the National Armed Forces base. Very active measures to improve the living environment for these birds are already being carried out there. However, there is a different problem in Ādaži – the European rollers are disturbed by military exercises, which have become significantly more intense recently.
The nature conservation specialist explains that in places where European rollers reside, any economic activity must be extensive. Of course, construction, people living on-site, driving cars, loud music, and also cats and dogs are a considerable disturbance to the birds; however, some kind of compromise is being sought so that people can live in these specific places, staying and managing their homes and yards daily, while the rest of the territory remains with its nature conservation value, with the exception that open areas where the birds search for food would have to be restored, created, and maintained. K. Vilciņa does not deny: it would be ideal if only open territories were maintained in these forests, but it is now accepted that people could do something on their properties so that they have an incentive to maintain them.
Nature conservation specialist: Serious mistakes were made during the land reform
It is highly unlikely that the nature reserve status for the Garkalne forests could be removed. The “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve was established in 2004, upon Latvia's accession to the European Union. For the reserve to no longer exist, there would have to be very serious arguments. Kristīne Vilciņa reminds us that the European roller is not the only rare bird species that inhabits or nests in Garkalne; it is only the most significant one, as these birds are found nowhere else in Latvia. Vilciņa explains that nature reserves have no deadlines – the Cabinet of Ministers sets them for an indefinite period; they “operate” (exist) as long as these natural values remain in them, and Latvia must also provide reports to the European Union regarding their preservation.
Regarding how the Voronkov family's fully buildable plot was compensated with supposedly equivalent land, which was soon after included in the nature reserve area, the nature conservation specialist admitted that, in her opinion, serious mistakes were made during the latest land reform. The territory of the former Soviet army base first came into state ownership, which in turn transferred it to the Garkalne parish, but a lot was done during the privatisation process that should not have been. It would have been more correct and far-sighted if the land, where the nature reserve was established slightly later, had not been divided among private owners through various means (privatisation, compensation, or simply as a gift).
Nature conservation specialists have inquired with both the Garkalne municipality and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development about whether this land could be bought back from the owners. Official responses reported that there is a special law regarding compensation in cases where economic activity is restricted in protected areas, therefore the buying back or exchange of land for another plot is not provided for. Buying back would only be possible in a nature reserve zone, but that is a different case.
K. Vilciņa reveals that the mentioned nature management plan provides for measures not only in the former army base but also nearby – on the territory of “Latvijas valsts meži” and SIA “Rīgas meži”. There, in places where the habitats are not as valuable, they will try to create open territories, as the priority value remains the European roller. Admittedly, the question remains whether the European rollers will fly there and whether they will like it... That cannot be known; it will be an experiment. At the same time, light pine stands with heaths and grey dunes are very useful for many invertebrate species, which is why this environment would also be suitable for other bird species, not just the European roller.
In conversation with “Rīgas Apriņķa Avīze”, the Voronkov family mentioned nature trails that the Nature Conservation Agency allegedly wanted to create on their property; when asked if this is true, Kristīne Vilciņa informed that something was misunderstood – there are no plans to create any nature trails in this location. It is a matter of something else. To prevent the possibility of entering the nature reserve area with mechanised vehicles, the plan is to place appropriate road signs and fencing. Traffic movement needs to be restricted if only so that waste is not brought into and dumped in the forest, as sometimes happens, and so that deadwood is not removed from there, which is a good environment for the larvae and worms necessary for the birds' food. The movement of the landowners themselves would not be restricted.
The Voronkovs have declared that they will not carry out any management measures to improve the European roller's living environment, effectively refusing any cooperation or compromises. In any case, no buildings are intended on the Voronkovs' land; the discussion is only about a car park at the end of Baraviku Street in Jāņu ciems and two information boards for people who might want to go on a hike, for example, to walk as far as the Krievupe river. However, those are currently just at the idea level.
Landowners must settle for compensation
The nature conservation specialist wished to explain that there is a significant difference between a nature reserve and a micro-reserve. A nature reserve is a specially protected nature area, while a micro-reserve has special rules – it is like operational nature protection if, for example, the nest of a rarely found bird or a habitat of a rare plant is discovered in a place far from a protected area. For example, the lesser spotted eagle, which needs a mosaic-like landscape where forest alternates with agricultural land.
The lesser spotted eagle builds its nest near the edge of the forest. Now, they are trying to make many micro-reserves for this bird as small as possible, including only enough territory so that the bird's nest is protected. The territory surrounding a micro-reserve acts as a kind of buffer zone, where restrictions are seasonal. There, trees may not be cut only during the bird's nesting period, but it can be done safely in winter. In micro-reserves, they try to affect landowners' interests as little as possible.
Speaking about the compensation system, Kristīne Vilciņa emphasises that currently the amount of compensation depends on the scope of the restrictions – whether economic activity in the forest is prohibited entirely, or if clear-cutting is simply not permitted. One must apply for the compensation every year, and it is paid out annually. Of course, the compensation does not cover the value of the forest stand; it is calculated roughly as, for example, a 100-year-old forest, only divided over the years. Naturally, landowners, like all people, want to receive more… The amount of compensation is calculated according to the age of the forest stand, but in principle, it is the same across the country – both on the Russian border and in the Riga region. Perhaps in Garkalne, where the landowner wants to build something, this compensation seems so negligible that it is not worth applying for, but in places further away (from Riga), people who own forest in a nature reserve or micro-reserve apply and feel happy.
Concluding the conversation, Kristīne Vilciņa summarises that nature management plans are created to work and solve problems. Admittedly, it is very difficult to resolve everything done impulsively during the land reform. Processes were moving very fast back then. Latvia wanted to join the European Union, so nature reserve territories had to be created.
She admits that quite large compromises were made at the time. For example, Jāņu ciems, which is now built up – this territory was also important for European rollers and should have been included in the “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve. This was not done because people had already started building. A compromise was reached. However... currently, this is an object of new disputes – why can one build on that side of the road, but not on this one? Of course, there are no strict boundaries in nature, but a legal boundary must exist.
Ornithologist: There were very many compromises in the development of the plan
Edmunds Račinskis, of course, is not the only ornithologist; in conversation with “Rīgas Apriņķa Avīze”, he reveals that he specifically studies European rollers, and this pursuit is his hobby. He has been studying European rollers in Latvia for more than 20 years. As for the Garkalne vicinity, real estate, and their owners, Račinskis, as a certified expert, participated in the monitoring process for the development of the “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve management plan. The plan was produced in 2020, and a large part of its content discussion was taken up precisely by the interests, views, and needs of private landowners.
The ornithologist emphasises that in the nature management plan, when creating the zoning of the nature reserve and setting management regimes, the needs of landowners were taken into account to a very large extent. The new plan has not yet been approved, but it is “moving towards having the owners' interests taken into account”. E. Račinskis, as a researcher of European rollers and a certified expert, has been very accommodating to people by providing his expert opinion, based on which the Nature Conservation Agency, which developed this management plan, was able to relax the general regulations for the use of the nature reserve to a much greater extent.
The ornithologist, however, knows nothing about the Voronkov family's problems with their real estate; at least, he has heard nothing of it so far, and therefore cannot comment on this situation. He understands that every person and every plot of land has its own story and its own history. Already during the process of developing the nature management plan, the question was raised more than once that owners of small plots of land, whose real estate occupies a negligible part of the more than 2,000-hectare wide nature reserve territory, were asking why they could not use it for building, because the European roller does not nest on their property.
However, this issue should be viewed differently – there are not many of these birds in Latvia, and even if there were, they would not live so close to each other as to nest in every adjacent plot. It is about the overall picture, namely, the population of European rollers has become extremely small – even at the time the reserve was established, there were only 15–20 pairs left. The “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve was established for the protection of this species' nesting sites. Only afterwards were some pairs of European rollers “lured” to nest in the Ādaži municipality using bird boxes. The Garkalne forests remain the last and largest nesting site for European rollers in Latvia. Of course, European rollers do not nest on every piece of land, but it is impossible to remove every plot free of birds from the reserve.
The story, however, is not about that. The ornithologist reminds us of the major compromise offered to landowners. He does not see a difference between the Voronkov family and other owners who mostly achieved the satisfaction of their wishes. Račinskis does not know if the Voronkov family participated in the discussion of the nature management plan and made their wishes known, but they had and still have the same rights as everyone else to achieve more favourable terms, but that is by no means a question for ornithologists.
Speaking about compromises, Edmunds Račinskis emphasises that limited construction was permitted in the territory of the former army base, which could not even be discussed beforehand. He knew that these were specifically the compensated lands that, after the restoration of independence, were given to those owners to whom it was no longer possible to return their own original properties. The ornithologist thinks that this happened because there were no other free plots of land available elsewhere in Garkalne.
Regarding the fact that the plots of land provided for compensation were granted to people only a couple of years before the “Garkalnes meži” nature reserve was established, Edmunds Račinskis recalls that the Garkalne parish administration was very actively involved in land distribution at that time. A quarter of the former army base area was not included in the nature reserve because the municipality had managed to divide it into building plots. The ornithologist admits that the nature reserve for the European rollers should have been established even earlier, namely, when the land had not yet been divided into private properties. The reference point should have been 1998, when the European roller was chosen as the bird of the year. It was precisely after that that the necessary attention was paid to the protection of this bird species in Latvia.
The article was first published on 26 January 2021 in "Rīgas Apriņķa Avīze" and on the portal www.aprinkis.lv
Republication on zemeunvalsts.lv takes place with the kind permission of editor Eva Lūse. Photographs from zemeunvalsts.lv have been used