The Estonian Private Forest Union has submitted its proposals to the Ministry of Climate regarding the planned changes to the Forest Act and the Nature Conservation Act, urging that more consideration be given to the interests of private forest owners.

"The most pressing issue remains the unlimited increase in nature conservation restrictions without creating fairness in compensation for these restrictions," the union stated.

According to Ants Erik, the chairman of the Estonian Private Forest Union's board, the need to set an upper limit on the area of protected land has long been discussed, but the union cannot support the Ministry of Climate's plan to place up to 30 percent of Estonia's land under state protection. "This percentage was agreed upon behind closed doors at the ministry, without public debate, and includes several exceptions, which means it does not reflect the actual extent of protected areas," he said.

"The figure does not take into account compensation and mitigation areas or, for example, restrictions imposed by local governments. For a forest owner, it makes no difference who imposes the restrictions; the burden still falls on them," Erik explained.

For example, due to the construction of the Rail Baltica route, many capercaillie breeding grounds will be destroyed, and compensation areas will be created elsewhere where forest management will be restricted. However, such areas are not counted in the protection figures.

"With all the nature conservation restrictions combined, we have already met the 30 percent goal. Most European countries have not even reached 20 percent. We are unable to compensate for existing restrictions, so planning new ones is unacceptable," said Erik.

Nevertheless, the Ministry of Climate is planning additional restrictions on another 80,000 hectares. In addition, it intends to significantly tighten the management conditions of protected forests that currently have lenient restrictions, primarily affecting Natura 2000 areas.

The Private Forest Union also reminded that when Natura areas were established, the government assured landowners that traditional activities would continue, and turning these areas into de facto unmanaged forests with stricter restriction zones is a breach of those promises.

"Moreover, compensation for restrictions does not necessarily need to be monetary. The state has land and forests that it could offer to landowners whose activities are banned due to conservation measures. However, politicians have been firmly opposed to land swaps, even though, prior to the last elections, all governing parties considered this a reasonable idea in their bids for landowners' votes," the union stated.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!