Interview with Guntis Gūtmanis, LOSP Board
Speaking about the issue recently highlighted by various social groups demanding fair compensation for forest owners, I did a small calculation. By felling 3 ha of good forest at the age of maturity, an owner will receive around 60,000 euros. If we look at the "lifetime compensation" (as mentioned by VARA Minister Juris Pūce), the owner, having planted and tended the forest until the felling age, will receive only half of the potential sum, given the current level of compensation. Furthermore, one must calculate the investment in the forest and consider that "money is often needed now!" Children need school, university, and there are other life situations. Neither the ministry nor anyone else can predict at what moment a resident of Latvia, including a forest owner, will need a substantial sum of money! The minister's idea "sounds" good, but in reality, it is mystical and illusory.
However, there is one thing that would satisfy foresters, farmers, and environmentalists alike: the state buying these forests or fields of high natural value! If Latvia understands: "We like nature, we want to live green" – that's it! We pay honestly for it: "We all pay!" The purchase is made for the common needs of society. "Green thinking" cannot be developed at the expense of only one part of society, whether large or small! It cannot be that the lesser spotted eagle lives in the fold of a beautiful forest, we want to go and watch it, or "be aware" that it nests there, but the cost of our desire to "watch" and "be aware" is paid not by us (the ones who want to, the "green thinkers"), but by the forest owner alone. That is not fair!
Will society agree to such a solution? If something happens at the expense of one, two, or a few people, only those people are worried! As soon as calculations and estimates appear, problems will arise. Moreover, in Latvia, the view is often cultivated: "If you own something, you are rich and one can 'take' from you, so one should take!" Furthermore – predictably – comparisons will be made: six or eight hectares of forest with eagles' or buzzards' or… nests versus a salary increase for teachers or nurses!
The question can be evaluated in different ways, just like people. There is a group of people who can be considered self-sufficient. There will be people who say: "I don't need anything, it's enough for me if the property goes to the state!" Or: "Let the bird live there!" It sounds unusual, but such people exist! It happens that people want to give their property to the state!
Others will react differently: "The forest is the only chance for me to provide a good education for my children. I need money! I'm selling!"
The third situation is more serious; the solution will require work, effort, and energy, but: 1/5 of the world's population of lesser spotted eagles lives in Latvia, and we are protecting it as a bird of European importance! Why doesn't Europe (the EU) want to compensate us for this? Or perhaps it hasn't been discussed! It should be determined whether Latvian representatives in the relevant EU or EC bodies are discussing, inquiring about, and defending Latvia's interests in this matter!
As for salaries… Those in charge are very good at "putting together" teachers with police officers and pensioners with nurses. The field of environmental protection is also in the public interest, and it must be paid for by everyone, not just a few!
At the first discussion meeting on the species (lesser spotted eagle) protection plan, we observed various reactions: "There is only so much money!", "Europe won't do it, it's not worth talking about!", or the representative of the state institution left the discussion...
Mostly, the money will be little or too little! But you cannot effectively deprive a person of their property for a ridiculous compensation!
There are other significant matters – family property, inherited from generation to generation, and "we want to manage it ourselves, not receive compensation"...
In the law, the authors have provided for property exchange (compensating areas)… This is not happening! I know cases where a micro-reserve has been set on a person's property; they go to the State Forest Service and say – buy, take, exchange! That would be a normal part of business. Unfortunately, it is not working at the moment!
In Latvia, researchers at the LLU are beginning to pay significant attention to climate change issues. People usually talk about forests, but now they are preparing to focus on agricultural land… Is this not again "leaning" towards restrictions, this time on agricultural land..."
I think – definitely. We discussed this at the meeting for the lesser spotted eagle species protection plan. The main problem is not in the forests; the eagle likes living on the edge of a clear-cut. Agriculture (intensive agriculture) causes problems for the eagle's food base. There is a prohibition, there is a buffer zone; currently, one can work in the buffer zone.
We really, really wanted to join the European Union, and the conditions in 2004 were what they were. Now some time has passed – 15 years – and the moment should have come to review these conditions.
The question (about conditions) would have to be resolved at the prime ministers' meeting regarding the next European planning period: it is one evening or one night, only EU prime ministers (not advisors or consultants) are at the negotiating table – who speak and reach an agreement. Last time we were represented by Valdis Dombrovskis, now it will be Krišjānis Kariņš. We hope for a firm stance from Mr. Kariņš. By the way – before K. Kariņš was prime minister, farmers had a meeting with him. I asked: "Will you use veto rights at the prime ministers' meeting if we are offered unfair, unequal conditions?" At first, he said he didn't know about the existence of such an option, but – if the situation turns unfavourable, he could use it.
A question we have discussed more than once: perhaps it would be necessary to set some total volume of nature conservation or green territory in the country! A certain part of the territory would be "taken" from the country's total area. If a new reserve with special values is needed, we look: perhaps a reserve is no longer necessary in another place. The principle of communicating vessels.
Is a reserve the only form of nature conservation?
If we look historically, we currently have the largest volume of forest we have ever had. Forest areas are increasing. As far as it is understood, all forests in Latvia have emerged as a result of human activity; there are no absolutely (100%) natural forests. If there are enough protected plants, animals, and birds in the forests, they like this environment. An environment that has been shaped by human activity! Therefore, we can coexist, and we are coexisting normally! I understand that one shouldn't destroy nests and shouldn't harvest the forest during the nesting season, but by solving these issues together and reasonably, forest owners and the Nature Conservation Agency could reach an agreement. It wouldn't be difficult – how and in what way one can manage one's property! A reserve in Latvia is currently a punishment for good and successful management so far!
Listening, I am improvising! Would it be enough to have a responsible representative (employee) of the SFS or another institution who would be an expert in these matters?
Of course, in no matter should one allow, or should it be allowed, to reach extremes. People are different, and some would try to kill the birds or act in ways they shouldn't. At the meeting (the lesser spotted eagle protection plan discussion), we saw that people try and can live in an environmentally friendly way. And – those who try are the losers. A farmer divided their farm, trying to farm organically in one part. In this part, biodiversity "appears," along with better environmental conditions. At the moment, three lesser spotted eagle nests have been found there. A fairly large area has been excluded from economic circulation, and in order to recoup this loss, they are turning the organic farm back into intensive farming. That is absurd! A person lives considerately, friendly, and harmoniously with neighbours, and... Ha! You have a better situation, here you go – a reserve! The farmer is forced to return to intensive farming!
My conclusion – in a large part of Latvia, the result of nature conservation measures is less than the damage caused! I am not talking about extreme cases and people who do not think! There must be regulations, there must be a certain level of control, but… the system is built wrongly and does not work. The owner and the conservationist are separated!
Returning to the current situation in Latvia regarding nature conservation, birds, and reserves, I want to repeat what I said earlier – nature conservationists and researchers are the culprits, environmental culprits! My conviction – if a person receives a letter that something has been found in their forest, the first thing they do is – cut it down! The forest might still be able to grow for another 20 years, but that is human logic, self-preservation. They are trying to save and salvage their property!
In Latvia, all nature conservation developments are carried out at the expense of forest and land owners, who, forced, are the only ones taking care of the common good. That is happening now, and it is wrong!
"Regional Reform" project. The draft has been submitted to society. Interesting was what the mayor of Jelgava, Andris Rāviņš, said, that by merging Jelgava with the county and Ozolnieki, Jelgava could financially benefit much more. A finding that is well known to people in more than one municipality – the centre has a surplus, the periphery gets nothing...
The mentioned problems are known; their solution depends on the head of the municipality! If there is a good municipal head who can reasonably and plannedly organise work throughout the entire territory, the outskirts will never lag behind. The question is – how is the municipal head able to use the given opportunities?
I have previously worked at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs – at that time, they were preparing the previous reform. I participated in almost "everything," I visited almost every municipality in Latvia. The map is patchy right now because the decisions are only those that can be made! Those that parliament supports! That is why a map with 119 municipalities "came to be"! There is a lot of reason and logic in the VARAM proposal, and a lot of problems. Logic – even now, there are many municipalities that do not meet the criteria set by law. In reality, "we are closing our eyes" because there are municipalities that could not exist! The biggest problem of the proposal will be disputes about borders and directions. For example, Ikšķile. Towards Ogre. The people of Ikšķile say: "We travel more to Riga (for work, studies), we don't need to go in the opposite direction!" Līgatne and Sigulda – the same! The Pierīga region is generally a very complicated region. Here another question arises again – the municipal equalisation fund. For example, Garkalne and Mārupe counties pay large sums into this fund. Part of the money from the fund is received by Rēzekne, which has free public transport, a concert hall, and a swimming pool. Pierīga municipalities borrow money for the construction of schools and kindergartens. Will Pierīga be satisfied? Municipalities that "receive" arrange infrastructure more easily!??? The ministry's team will have to go on trips around Latvia, explain, and meet with residents.
Municipalities are different, but in many places, daily work is the election of a new mayor. 15 deputies, 8:7 or 7:8, and the cycle begins. Just recently it was Burtnieki, Jēkabpils, not so long ago – Daugavpils… Can someone guarantee a team for a good mayor, a personality, that will accept a professionally strong mayor?
There are municipalities where a party or a list has an absolute majority; there is order there. In the municipalities you mentioned, you can see the shadow side of democracy – 8:7… Such is the will of democracy and the residents. A good example is Liepāja, where two leaders (Uldis Sesks and Jānis Vilnītis) reached an agreement, fulfilled their promise, and during this electoral period replaced one another. Instead of quarrelling, they agreed, and both worked for the good of the city! Others could and should learn from Liepāja! But there are municipalities where an unstable balance exists year after year.
Regional reform needs support; the ministry is looking for reasons in documents as to how to correctly or incorrectly survey the population. The old idea of referendums in municipalities: alive, relevant, supportable?
The answer will be twofold. For years it has been said that residents should be given the opportunity to participate in local referendums in municipalities. Municipalities were against it – referendums are not needed, they are not objective, how will we organise them, it will be expensive! So – they are not needed! Now, regarding territorial reform, the future of the county – we will organise them!
I also understand the ministry's position. In this government or parliament, no political force has a huge "lead" – a large majority of votes. A ministry representative from a party with "double-digit percent support" in society (in elections) arrives in a municipality whose mayor is supported by 40% of the residents. Whom will the residents in this municipality trust? Whom will they listen to? It must be taken into account that VARAM represents "Attīstībai/Par!", which effectively has no representatives in municipalities!
May this year be successful for us, for farmers, foresters, and nature conservationists alike!