(...)

Does it turn out that forest owners in Latvia are deliberately against measures to increase biodiversity? No, they simply know well what the consequences will be – forest owners identified a complete ban on forestry activities (55%) or a ban on final felling (48%) as the most ineffective method of nature conservation.

Taking a narrow view, as a representative of the timber industry, I should only be “on the same path” with those forest owners whose motivation includes a significant component of creating economic value in the form of timber as a raw material. But that is not the right way to look at it – it is important to me that all forest owners retain their individual drive to engage in forestry.

If the state does not trust any of them and plans nature conservation “from the top down” by restricting the rights of forest owners, then fair compensation must be received for it. At present, it is only 50-160 euros per year.

If a forest owner is certain that at some stage of forest development it will not practically be taken away from them, or at the very least that its value will be reimbursed, only then can we be reasonably certain that someone will risk being a “passive investor”, “forester” or “friend of nature”, most likely balancing coexistence with restrictions in one forest property with more intensive management in another, if such an opportunity exists.

At least it is encouraging that our forest owners are more educated today – 66% of the forest owners just surveyed have a higher education (in the case of the Americans in 2005, it was 48%).
https://www.lasi.lv/saimnieks-uznemejs/bizness/bukonts-par-meza-ipasnieku-lomu-kokrupnieciba-motivaciju-un-godigu-attieksmi-no-valsts.3569