Organizations of nature protection criticizes project of Latvia rural area development program for 2007 – 2013

The Latvian nature protection experts expresses dissatisfaction for one more time with the next planning period’s project of Rural Development program. On February 7, this opinion was expressed during the meeting with deputies of European Agricultural Directorate General. The organizations of nature protection have moved forward the suggestions for developing of Latvia rural area. It is a pity but the biggest part of these suggestions has not considered until now.

Organizations of nature protection criticizes project of Latvia rural area development program for 2007 – 2013

The nature protection experts from Latvia Nature Fund, Latvia Ornithology society and Latvia Entomology association expresses dissatisfaction for one more time with the next planning period’s project of Rural Development program (RDP), the last version of which was prepared at 11.01.2007. On February 7, this opinion was expressed during the meeting with deputies of European Agricultural Directorate General - Mrs. Kristīne Bora and Mrs. Mathild Aberg.

The organizations of nature protection have moved forward the suggestions for developing of Latvia rural area. It is a pity but the biggest part of these suggestions has not considered until now. Admittedly some requirements are not only with the contradictions with the conservation of priority of nature multiplicity but touches settled groups of farmers, the strategies of future’s management will be changed very sharp.

During the working group’s meeting which occurred in Ministry of Agriculture  at 13th February, these problems was pointed for one more time and there was discussions held about suggestions of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The deputies of Ministry of Agriculture (MA) promised to evaluate the possibilities of implementation of several suggestions. The deputies of MA forest politic’s department were not at the meeting and that was the reason why the detailed discussions about the payments of forest environment did not happen. 

The experts object to the dehumidification of wet areas and appeal MA not to initiate the action, because the implementation of it is in the contradictions of nature protection and preservation of biological diversity principles in Latvia. Similarly the actions of Erosion’s restriction are asked not to start and the experts object to the spending of the capital, which is provided to the nature protection, for the first afforestation of vacant lands in agriculture. The contribution of this activity is very small in the nature protection and the biological diversity in comparison with the capital of implementation. Until now, it is accomplished that the support to the afforestation and building of melioration systems will be not assigned to the Natura 2000 sites.

Suggestions for the improvement of the program

The experts have nominated several suggestions which could be notable and might be included in RDP. The suggestions concern the farmers who work in the Natura 2000 sites and biologically valuable grasslands.  It is not allowed to decrease the payment to managers of biologically valuable grasslands.

During the calculation of payments’ volume we need to take heed the competitive capacity of biologically valuable grassland payments to the other payments, to stimulate farmers to choose directly this – directed to the protection of nature biodiversity method of management.

In avoidance of so called "sofa farmer" problem which is widely meditated in mass media, the differential system of  biologically valuable grassland payments must be developed, in accordance with the difficulty level of management conditions. The volume of payments will depend on the type of grassland, on management conditions, on harvest season, scheduled, that the harvesting in the end of summer is promoted than harvesting in the middle of summer. MA has promised to evaluate this possibility. However, while it is not done, the currently payment in amount of 138 Euro per managed hectare can not be reduced.

Both nature and farmers can procure from the supporting which can be shunted to the restoration of biologically valuable grasslands in the overgrown areas. It is a pity but such payments are not scheduled in this RDP.

Important is the question about activity in for agriculture less favorable regions. The experts of nature protection appeal to support the opinion mentioned during the meetings, about the density of livestock terms to these grasslands which are in the Natura 2000 places and which are included in the areas of biologically valuable grasslands. During the meeting at 13th of February MA validated the possibility not to assign the requirement about livestock’s being and granting the Less favorable regions payments to these areas which are declared as the biologically valuable grasslands. The Rural Supporting service is instructed to evaluate to what degree these changes are inconvenience of the administration of payments.

NGOs have made a proposal about the elaboration of activities which schedules the maintenance of landscape’s components and including of nature objects in the rural blocks. These elements are essential component parts of nature diversity and it is not allowed the elimination of them from the supporting payment totality. The support of this suggestion can solve the many farmers’ voiced problem about the different evaluating of meadows’ areas frequently taking out separate trees or the groups of them, clusters of junipers etc. In the time of mentioned meeting the deputies of MA promised that The Rural Supporting service will evaluate how it is practically realize and how it is possible to administrate and to control.

The RDP project includes the activities which refer to the forest environment, NGOs support the necessity of these activities. Though consider that the payments to the owners of forests in Natura 2000 sites are not allowed the conferment of compensation without dividing of different categories and without taking in accordance the limits of management which has relevant dissimilarities in territories with different statuses of protection. That is a reason why the differential volumes of compensation must be established.

NGOs pointed the insufficiency of society’s information in the process of rural development program’s implementation. MA has informed that the strategy of communication with the popularization of nature protection activities is developing along with RDP during this planning period.

***

To remind, that Latvia is responsible to provide the favorable status of protection for specially protected species and habitats in the territory of the state. The developed project of RDP activities in such edition do not provide the balanced development of rural areas and the conservation of biodiversity as well as do not generate satisfactory economical basis to the sustainable development in not  to over cropping way.

Andris Klepers