Habitat mapping, or "nature census" as it is often called, began in 2017. Since then, forest owners and the organisations representing the forestry sector have regularly approached the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM) and the Nature Conservation Agency (DAP), asking: what will happen, what can be expected once the mapping is complete. Unfortunately, there was no response, no discussions were started, and no working group was established. On 29 June 2021, when VARAM representatives published the mapping results and presented a draft of the Informative Report* (hereinafter - the report), it was the first time it was possible to gauge that we were starting talks on the future, as the mapping process had been concluded.

Unfortunately, as there were no discussions during the habitat mapping, the aforementioned report must now be approved in a relatively short time (by the end of the year, as planned). The time allowed to talk, argue, and understand what to expect and how the life of the forest owner and the state will be affected in the future is quite short. This is neither understandable nor acceptable.

Regarding the Informative Report on habitat mapping, with which we were introduced... we very much hope that it is only the first draft, which will be carefully and seriously revised and supplemented. The statement in the introduction of the report: "a project reviewed in the monitoring group" means that the project will still be discussed and will be changed and supplemented.

Regarding the content of the draft informative report. First of all, everyone should understand that the word (concept) "habitat" was invented by a human. It is not something that nature "knows" itself or that would be clear to everyone, namely, that the borders of a habitat are visible or found in some specific place. The term "habitat" is relatively old; it is used in geography to indicate areas inhabited by specific living beings. In the broader sense, as we know it today, the term began to be used in 1978. Over time, a specific classification has been created and developed for various types of habitats, and the criteria for subdividing habitats are also human-created.

In the report, we see the use of various terms. For example, "habitat of European importance" is correct and understandable. But the term "protected habitat of European importance" has also been used. If we look at the habitat mapping methodology*** approved in 2016 by VARAM, we are talking about mapping "habitats of European importance". Adding the word "protected" to the final report seems to be deliberate, in order to create the impression that all habitats should be protected in a certain way. The next question is: what does "protect" mean? Should it be understood as a mandatory restriction on economic activity, or is it something else, for example, a person has been managing the forest for centuries and, only thanks to them, a habitat has arisen and formed in the relevant place.

Regarding the data included in the report. We see that in the country as a whole (also in the Ozols database), information has been registered for 649,115 ha of habitats (These are all habitats!), of which 331 thousand ha are forest habitats of European importance. Mostly these are boreal forests (old or natural boreal forests) – 93 thousand ha; other more frequently found ones to mention are swampy forests and wooded coastal dunes.

Currently, 29% of the found habitats (96 thousand ha) are included in Natura 2000 areas, which means the majority of forest habitats – 71% or 235 thousand ha – were found outside Natura 2000 areas. More habitats were found in state-owned forests (76% or 252 thousand ha). The draft report includes general, non-specific indications about possible future actions. Based on a quality assessment (which, like the term "habitat", is a human-invented criterion), habitats were divided into four groups – excellent, good, medium, and low quality. Looking at the report, it is clear that most forest habitats are of good or excellent quality, which should be taken into account, as both economic and environmental benefits are clear and understandable when managing the forest. Of course, there will be people who say that everything should be in good or excellent condition, but...

Regarding proposals for further actions. One block of proposals: Natura 2000 areas must be expanded, talking about specific numbers (specific areas) for each habitat type. For example, the area of old or natural boreal forests to be included in the Natura 2000 network should be increased by 26,448 ha. If we sum up such types of proposals for all forest habitats, we get 57 thousand ha, which should be included in protected areas in the future.

Are there proposals in the report for clearly understandable compensatory measures, namely, if we take something out/away, must something mandatory be put in its place? Unfortunately, there are no clear indications of this, nor is it clear what happens once areas are included in protected areas. Why is a proposal being drafted again without compensatory measures? We will definitely insist on a principle that must (!!!!) be included in the final report: the creation of new protected areas is possible only in the case of compensatory mechanisms – finally, a fair, clear, and real compensation system is needed.

The second block of proposals in the report is surprising in a very bad way, namely, until the completion and improvement of the Natura 2000 network, economic activity should be stopped in all other habitats (so, in a total of 331 thousand ha) (as stated in the report: do not plan and do not carry out economic activity). The proposal is truly shocking: removing large areas from economic circulation for an unknown time... The authors of the report undoubtedly do not realise and do not understand what this means for the country and the national economy. If we look at the data of the State Forest Service**** on the forest stands that have reached felling age in Latvia, this action would mean reducing the flow of timber into the national economy by up to 50%, which is a significant tax contribution to the state. Secondly – if this draft report is approved by the end of this year and the requirement remains: to stop management in absolutely all habitats regardless of their quality, we will be forced to conclude that forest owners cannot really trust what is said by state institution officials. If we look back in history: in various publications, in various interviews, both DAP** and VARAM representatives have emphasised and repeated that habitats found during the mapping process would not create any new restrictions for forest and land owners. At the 2020 forestry sector conference, a DAP representative said: be calm until 2023, nothing will change, a habitat of European importance in itself does not mean a restriction on economic activity... Currently, we see a completely different picture even at the project level, and furthermore, I will remind you of what was said earlier – the term "protected habitat of European importance" appears. By acting in this way, distrust in both state institutions and those working in them, as well as in what they say, is reinforced for the forest owner. The mentioned proposal included in the report is categorically not to be supported! To say for an area that has no protected status: let us do nothing for an unknown amount of time... What are people supposed to do?

A very important question: there is a reference in the report to a socio-economic assessment of the mapping, but there is no such thing in the report, which indicates that the socio-economic impact has not been assessed and has not been thought about at all. Without a comprehensive assessment, such a report and proposals must not be pushed for approval in the Cabinet of Ministers! Everyone must understand what this means and what the consequences could be!

In the informative report, it can be read "between the lines" that "the areas intended to be included in Natura 2000 territories might not be enough". In various ways, we see indications in the text of the report regarding the European Biodiversity Strategy and the target of 30% protected and 10% strictly protected areas. It is not acceptable to include vague indications in one report that can later be used for different purposes, using this report as a reference. Speaking about the European Biodiversity Strategy and its discussion: this is not a quick job of a few months, there must be a broad discussion on how and where we are heading. Is the goal 30% and 10%? We have learned that this requirement (30 and 10) will have to be looked at and assessed at the level of the biogeographical region, namely, it will not be just about Latvia, but also about neighbouring countries and Scandinavia. There must be a broader and definitely (!) inter-state level discussion. It is not correct to hastily write such indications and references into a report; that is the content of a completely different report.

Will Latvia "save" the world, Europe and its neighbours again? What will this mean for the residents of Latvia? The 30:10 goal, if such exists, must be separated from the habitat mapping report, that is clear!

Not so long ago, both VARAM and DAP officials criticised the call by industry colleague Andris Ramoliņš on Kurzeme Radio to forest owners on the issue of habitat mapping to be cautious. So, harsh though it may be, the call has proven to be accurate, true, and far-sighted...

I will not analyse the content and the way it was presented, but of course, the suggestion to think, to look and to be careful, as it turns out now, was correct!

VARAM. Environment and Regional Development. The employees of one ministry are dealing with opposing things: in the regions, the forest and agricultural sectors are the main employers and earners for both local and state budgets; how far-sighted is it to restrict them, and restrict them further?

If we talk about VARAM, within the ministry, environmental protection and regional development are not aligned; that is already a wider problem. Regarding the report, when discussing it, both the Ministry of Economics, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture must definitely participate – it must be a joint effort. The European Green Deal also means more intensive work on policy planning documents, which requires coordinated action by the ministries. By the way, at the European Union level, the discussion has reappeared: whose competence forest policy should be, which has always been the responsibility of the member states, taking into account the stark differences between the member states. Now they are trying to direct this at the EU level, which would not be acceptable because the history of forest management, climatic and soil conditions, and various forestry risks in the member states are very different.

In the long term, the invoked word "compensations". If you purposefully create problems for Latvia's profitable sectors, who will earn the money for compensation?

Industries that bring money into the state treasury are planned to be restricted at a time when the country has very large debts. I assume that we do not yet fully grasp the impact of Covid-19. A miracle could happen and the debts could be written off, but... We have borrowed, development is needed, we must invest in healthcare, the transport system must be sorted out. If at this time and in this situation a plan is being prepared in some ministry to silence those residents of the country who are earning... it is at least surprising.

If we talk about the forest owner: Latvians have fought more than once to be their own masters and owners. It seems that now someone deliberately wants to make us tenants, so that we pay duties at our own expense to something or someone... Nature conservation must be something that arouses interest – currently, they take from us and dictate: "You shall not have, we will take away from you, but you should be happy!" An owner cannot feel like a tenant! There must be an agreement with the owner, with clearly defined terms: what each party gains.

Will society accept such an agreement? For five years now, people have been "schooled" in various ways: the life of a forest owner is simple – go, chop it down, sell it and buy what you want.

Yes, that is how they try to present it! "Chop down and process the forest to buy a BMW, while the forest worker receives the minimum wage." In the time of technological revolution, there is a waving effect, some leaders are replaced by others, leaders are bustling in the information circle (bubble) of friends and acquaintances, where they are (often unjustifiably) considered experts. The understanding of traditional sectors of the national economy is very weak, even compared to the period 10 years ago.

I will add, however, if in a face-to-face conversation with an "apparent opponent of the industry" you compare a forest property with an apartment, for example: "Think about it: you have an apartment that you have purchased or inherited. How would you feel if a stranger came and said: this is your home, but you can stay here overnight once a week or stay for one day a month, because it is necessary, because these are our common interests." In such a situation, the interlocutor starts to think.

* Informative report "On the results of identifying the distribution and quality of protected habitats of European Union importance and further action for ensuring the favourable conservation status of protected habitats and balancing the development interests of national economic sectors"
** The purpose of the protected habitat mapping project is to obtain information. Although the term used "especially protected" may cause concern to many, in practice, such a habitat is legally protected only if a micro-reserve has been established for it or a specific zoning has been determined in a specially protected nature territory. In other cases, the identification of a habitat does not create any restrictions on economic activity from the point of view of state legislation. (Informative publication for forest owners "Čiekurs", 2016, issue 4)
*** The survey of EU-importance habitats takes place according to a unified methodology – the methodology for identifying the distribution and quality of EU-importance habitats and organising work, approved by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development and coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture
**** https://www.vmd.gov.lv/valsts-meza-dienests/statiskas-lapas/publikacijas-un-statistika/meza-statistikas-cd?nid=1809#jump