How should riverbanks be managed? An interview with Mārcis Saklaurs

We want to understand how riverbanks should be managed. An interview with Mārcis Saklaurs, a forest owner in Salacgrīva.

Looking at the subjects of your research and interests on the banks of Vidzeme’s rivers, something you said stuck deep in my mind: “If riverbanks are managed sensibly, rivers will become cleaner, the Baltic Sea will be cleaner too, and salmon will travel up the Salaca from the sea to Lake Burtnieks.” The idea is simple and easy to understand, but putting it into practice means running into many different obstacles. Why? What causes them?

The question matches exactly the idea I want to put into practice. I should add that at the moment the salmon’s way up the Salaca from the sea to Lake Burtnieks is blocked by the old Staicele paper mill dam. If we work seriously on solving this problem, we will manage it; others have not done it in 30–40 years, but I am convinced that we will definitely succeed.

Speaking about rivers and riverbanks in Latvia, first of all, we have accumulated a certain amount of knowledge in this field. The topic of my research at the Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava” is riparian forests. As I mentioned, a concrete and sufficient amount of knowledge and data is needed so that discussions can use figures, not emotions, and so that we can explain and justify what is happening on riverbanks and in rivers and why, and what should be changed. In short, we need evidence. Once we have it, we can tackle the next thing that hinders the management of riverbanks – legislation (laws), which in our country is very, very regulatory (overly restrictive and detailed). I want to stress and remind you that in the 1990s, when the laws were written, it was determined that the main function of riparian forests is water protection. The third thing is that, until now, there has practically been no talk of forest resources, nature conservation, landscapes or other values found on riverbanks. We are now correcting this and, together with other forest scientists, ichthyologists and hydrobiologists, we are assessing riparian forests. I should add that when talking about these areas, we often hear pseudo-green values being invoked by equally pseudo-green people, namely that riverbanks are “meant” for nature conservation. At the same time, foresters say that riverbanks can safely be managed.

There are also a number of values that have not been looked at at all and are not talked about. I would say that for some time now we have been working on a very extensive task: we want to understand how riverbanks should be managed. If you asked someone today, “How do you recommend managing a riverbank?”, we would not get a precise answer. We know that our Estonian neighbours have, since the last century, left a few trees on riverbanks and clear-felled the rest. In my opinion, that is not the right approach. In Latvia we grow larger forests, but our problem is that in many places these forests are already overmature. When we model stand dynamics, looking at both age and species, we see that grey alder is currently collapsing rapidly and should be removed from the banks quickly; we have already achieved this in legislation. But soon birch, aspen and spruce will “join” the grey alder, so we need to think seriously about how and what to do so that these species can also be managed on riverbanks, so that the trees do not fall into the river and add unnecessary nutrients to the rivers and, further on, to the Baltic Sea, increasing the existing problems.

The less organic matter from trees ends up in rivers, the less of it will end up in the Baltic Sea. Isn’t there a contradiction here in environmental terms – the state of the Baltic Sea has worried many people for quite a long time, yet nothing is done to stop nutrients from reaching the sea (agriculture is usually blamed, while other factors are forgotten)?

Exactly! Hydrobiologists say: “Where the Salaca leaves Lake Burtnieks, the water quality in the river is poor; where it flows into the sea, 95 kilometres further on, the water quality is already good.” What does that mean? The river itself is a natural treatment plant. If we can influence what happens on the riverbanks through forestry practices, water quality can be improved even more. The better the quality of the water flowing into the Baltic Sea, the better it will be for the sea.

Is there any justification for the idea that riverbanks cannot be managed, or can only be managed in a very limited way?

Some things are allowed on riverbanks – you can thin the stand, remove damaged trees and clear-fell grey alder. But if we put these forestry operations into a spreadsheet, tending riverbanks makes a loss, and that usually does not work. The forest owner needs to be shown (allowed) that it is also possible to fell those two birches or those two already collapsing spruces, which could perhaps be turned into sawlogs or veneer logs. In this way, the forest owner will make the work profitable, and this will motivate them to keep clearing the riverbanks in the future. Until forest owners are motivated in this way, they will choose to do nothing.

When it comes to riverbanks, their owners are afraid of inspections. Laws must be observed, but every metre of riverbank is different, and it is impossible to write rules for all the banks of all Latvian rivers. Inspectors would need very high qualifications and a thorough understanding of the situation. Through my research, I have concluded that it is not possible to write classic amendments to legislation, because they would be just another patch that nobody wants. We need a completely new solution that makes it possible to give owners a decision support tool (for example, a digital one) that would help them choose what to do and how to do it as correctly as possible.

If we look at the statistics, some forest owners have very poor forestry knowledge, and their understanding of what happens on riverbanks is not great either. I would add that staff of the State Forest Service also have a very poor understanding of riverbanks – classic forestry knowledge does not mean a great understanding of everything. Unfortunately, that is how we manage – as slaves to the letter of the law, without thinking about tomorrow. What do I mean by this? We have to take into account everything that exists and is happening – whether it is nature conservation, management or the removal of barriers – and only then decide and act. For example, in a certain place there is a black stork, so nothing can be done there; nearby we want to protect dragonflies, which need an opening in the forest (the riverbanks must not be overgrown); and for the salmon living in the river, any obstacle is a problem. Which of these species should be the priority? Which should we favour? Situations like these on riverbanks can be considered quite complicated and complex, and I can clearly see that the algorithm models mentioned earlier could be used to help owners manage their land.

You live near Vecsalaca Manor, next to which is the former manor park. You mentioned that, in your opinion, riverbanks should look like old manor parks – oak, spruce, elm, pine, then maple, perhaps a walnut tree and so on. How did you arrive at such a vivid conclusion?

In my life and professional career I have met many forest owners who would very much like someone to explain to them simply and clearly what a riverbank should look like, what the forest should look like, and what they should aim for when managing it. In my opinion, the parks of former manors are a good example to show.

Vecsalaca Manor park has been tended for quite some time; some of the old trees have fallen and are being removed, and a new generation, so to speak, has come into the park. Apart from a few shortcomings that I see, various tree species grow there, the trees are of different ages, the park has openings and there are places where the growth is denser. Riverbanks should be managed like a game of chess – not clear-cuts but micro-openings, so that gaps the length of two trees form and the sun can shine in. The sun is important for one very essential reason: in Latvia we have only two shade-tolerant species (spruce and lime), but riverbanks offer excellent conditions for all the trees that grow wild in Latvia, as there are fertile forest site types – Oxalidosa, Aegopodiosa and Dryopteriosa. If I want to grow larch or oak, I cannot introduce them there because the trees lack light. The squares on the chessboard must be large enough for these species to thrive.

You mentioned that several major works related to the natural flow of rivers lie ahead, one of them the Staicele dam. How easy is it to remove?

There is a plan for removing the Staicele dam, and we have also reached an agreement with the owners, but the whole process is extremely complicated – and I am not talking about the technical demolition of the dam.

When I worked at the Ministry of the Environment at the beginning of my career, many people came to us to talk about similar issues, including simplifying and shortening processes and procedures. There were and still are promises, but no real action has followed. Plans to remove dams, weirs or barriers are mostly opposed by the owners’ wishes (usually measured in money), there is the environmental impact assessment, and there is also the question of industrial cultural heritage. We come back to what we discussed earlier – what should take priority in this case: nature over culture or culture over nature?

Is a weir or a dam industrial cultural heritage?

Not the weir itself, but, for example, the buildings next to it can be. In short, the issue is very complicated and usually requires a pile of paperwork. We must also remember the owner’s wishes.

Are there owners who still want to keep weirs or barriers in the river?

Those related to electricity generation – small hydropower plant dams – undoubtedly! There are also, for example, former mill ponds near populated areas – over the years the pond has become a favourite recreation spot for local people, where they can swim, fish, go boating and hold various events. And imagine – you are used to all that, and suddenly someone comes and says: “Instead of the pond there will soon be a small stream, which will have water in spring but may dry up in summer.” Many people do not find this understandable or acceptable, and there will be serious public objections.

In the approval process for removing a dam, the environmental impact assessment takes two years. What happens in those two years?

The complexity of the process, and therefore the time needed to carry it out, is determined by law. Unfortunately, it cannot be done in less than two years, because, for example, if we are talking about potential wind turbines, the movements of birds and bats around them have to be observed for at least a year – in all seasons. In the case of a dam, whether you are demolishing or building, you study fish, water flow and so on. For those who want to manage their land, the environmental impact assessment is a very bitter and unpleasant “dessert” that applies to all sectors – nothing happens quickly. In my opinion, this greatly hinders the Latvian economy.

Of course, I accept that there are cases where a two-year assessment period is reasonable and right, but if you want to demolish an old, useless dam and return nature to its natural state (a play on words, but it cannot be put more precisely), and you still have to assess it for a whole 730 days…

I remember there was also an environmental impact assessment for “Rail Baltica”; people objected and protested against many things, but, as we know, construction continues, albeit slowly. From the point of view of the economy and national interests, I can see that this process could be simplified and shortened, but ministers change, governments change, we are listened to, and yet everything stays the same.

This government talks a lot about reducing bureaucracy. Can environmental impact be assessed scientifically, or is it just a bureaucratic process? The process can certainly be simplified! It is both scientific (although carried out by experts rather than scientists) and bureaucratic.

As for reducing bureaucracy – talking about it is one thing, and acting on it in practice is another. Here, we do the former.

Returning to the question of riverbanks and those who live there, you mentioned dragonflies, salmon, storks and others and asked which should be given priority. Realistically speaking, don’t such discussions end up in a dead end?

No! Realistically speaking, a Latvian’s lifespan is a little over 100 years, and my priority has always been the Latvian (the human being). The interests of society must take priority over other interests – biologically, this species (humans) dominates, and we have to listen to what it says.

Looking at old (pre-war) maps, when we were a relatively prosperous, though agrarian, country, Latvia had a great many farmsteads, and the riverbanks were very well managed with the 27% forest cover Latvia had at the time – cows were grazed, nutrients were turned into milk, cheese and so on, creating the country’s prosperity while preserving huge biodiversity. Fifty years of occupation destroyed all that; people abandoned certain areas, and the land became overgrown, mostly with grey alder. I see that many are unable to manage riverbanks that are habitats – species-rich meadows now overgrowing with alder; under the alders grow a few herbaceous species that collapse with the first frosts, after which nutrients flow freely into the river. Without human activity on the riverbank, we cannot change anything significantly, not even in our dreams. “We can forget about them – let whatever happens happen” – I have also heard this view, which I cannot agree with at all. We can leave (abandon) some of the area, a couple of per cent, like that and do nothing. For example, this is the situation on the banks of the Vitrupe, which lies in a Natura 2000 site where nothing can be done. I do not recommend anyone to go boating there – it is dangerous; I have experienced it myself. At the same time, there are rivers where people manage the banks and which are safe for boating, fishing or something else.

I hear a twofold call – to manage the riverbanks and to return to former properties.

That is already happening! Another matter is that we as a society are getting smaller. In Vidzeme I see people returning to their rural properties. There are not as many of them as there should be, but I am genuinely happy about every house on the riverbank where someone lives and which is kept tidy. The biggest contribution to tidying up riverbanks can be made by forest owners or investment companies that have bought such properties. We have to work with them, explain and cooperate, because that is where the biggest investment and return are possible. Good examples have to be shown widely and regularly, which we will also do on the banks of the Svētupe and Korģe. I am pleased with the good cooperation with “Södra”, “SCA”, “Ingka”, “Latvijas valsts meži” (hereinafter LVM), “Meža birojs” and private forest owners, who allow us to work in their forests and put this practice into action. The companies are very interested in and responsive to riparian forest management. I am very glad that our SCA colleagues brought management representatives from Sweden to a riverside forest, showing it as a good example.

I should add that before LVM gave up FSC certification, the company could not fell grey alder on the banks of salmon rivers, because although the law allowed it, the FSC standard did not (the standard does not allow clear-cuts on the banks of salmon rivers). I am pleased with the decision of LVM’s management, which is good for both the economy and the environment. The first steps in our cooperation have been successful.

www.zemeunvalsts.lv
Photos by Liene Medne and zemeunvalsts.lv, taken on the banks of the Salaca, Svētupe and Korģe.