Success Is Bigger Than Money

Success isn’t only about money. In fact, when it comes to nature and land, money is rarely the most important part. What matters more is cooperation, trust, and the courage to try something new.

The science is clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly pointed out that well-managed forests are part of the solution. Growing trees bind carbon. Forest management, done responsibly, is not the enemy of climate policy as it can be one of its tools.

In Estonia, we have an opportunity to test a simple idea: what if landowners who actively support species protection were given certainty in return, certainty that no additional regulatory restrictions would suddenly follow?

Not a threat. Not a punishment. A deal.

Most Landowners Are Not the Problem

Many landowners think in generations. They want to pass their land on to their children in at least as good condition as they received it. This long view is not very different from Indigenous cultures that plan seven generations ahead.

Conservation, from this perspective, is practical stewardship.

But conservation works best at the landscape level. It requires balancing ecological, economic, and social factors. It cannot be reduced to a single restriction on a single parcel of land.

When Good Intentions Create Bad Incentives

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

If a landowner believes that the discovery of a protected species on their property will automatically lead to stricter rules, reduced flexibility, and years of bureaucracy, fear shapes behavior.

In some countries this has led to what is called the “scorched earth strategy”: managing land in a way that prevents protected species from settling there in the first place. In extreme cases, people resort to what is grimly described as SSS: shoot, shovel, and shut up.

No one wants that. But systems built on distrust often produce exactly these outcomes.

Authorities cannot monitor every hectare every year. Long-term conservation depends on cooperation, not surveillance.

The Safe Harbor Idea

In the United States, policymakers faced this exact dilemma and introduced the Safe Harbor program.

The logic is simple.

If a landowner voluntarily restores or improves habitat for endangered species, their regulatory obligations are fixed at an agreed baseline. Helping wildlife will not trigger additional future restrictions. The landowner gains certainty. The species gains habitat.

Even skeptical American landowners joined the program once they understood the rules. The key was clarity and trust.

Why couldn’t Europe test something similar?

A Pilot Instead of Another Endless Debate

Launching a pilot project in Wildlife Estates community would not require rewriting the entire legal system overnight. It would allow us to test whether this approach works in our legal and cultural context.

And time matters.

If we spend the next five years redesigning processes, debating amendments, commissioning impact assessments, and arguing over details, we will not increase biodiversity in the meantime. We will not move faster toward EU biodiversity targets or climate commitments.

But land-use decisions will still be made during those five years. Forests will still be managed. Habitats will still change.

The question is whether we shape those decisions through cooperation – or through conflict.

More Than One Way to Protect Nature

This is not an argument against existing conservation tools. Protected land purchases, compensation schemes, biotope agreements, and restoration subsidies all have their place.

But for some landowners, autonomy matters more than financial compensation. The state cannot fully pay for someone’s sense of freedom or for generations of traditional land use.

Adding voluntary agreements does not weaken conservation or restoration efforts. It strengthens it by widening participation.

Trust as Policy

In the end, this is less about legal technicalities and more about mindset.

We expect landowners to grow food, manage forests, and contribute to the economy. If they also choose to actively support biodiversity, the system should encourage that, not make them nervous about unintended consequences.

Safe Harbor is not a miracle cure. But it is a signal: we trust you enough to make you a partner.

And sometimes, that is exactly what makes success possible.