TFL Vsebine / Revija Javna uprava

Manjšem poseku lesa od želenega (nerealizaciji načrtovanega poseka) v slovenskih zasebnih gozdovih botrujejo številni razlogi. Pravna ureditev bi sicer tudi lahko bila (delni) vzrok za tako stanje, vendar iz povprečja rezultatov ankete zasebnih lastnikov gozdov ne izhaja, da bi imela pravna ureditev odločilen vpliv, hkrati pa je kritičen odnos do normativne ureditve in/ali do njenega izvajanja prisoten zlasti pri nekaterih večjih lastnikih zasebnih gozdov. Vsekakor je pri premisleku o uvajanju sprememb zakonodaje s ciljem večjega poseka lesa prvi in bistveni korak analiza ter oblikovanje politike različnih pristopov za različne skupine (kategorije) zasebnih lastnikov gozdov. Najprej je treba preučiti obstoj (ne)motivacije za posek lesa glede na različna dejanska stanja oziroma razmere zasebnih lastnikov gozdov in šele na tej podlagi je mogoče oblikovati različne (normativne in praktične) pristope pri obravnavi različnih kategorij lastnikov gozdov. Ob tem pa je treba upoštevati dejstvo, da imajo številni zasebni lastniki gozdov v lasti razmeroma majhne površine gozda, kar pomembno usmerja njihovo (ne)gospodarjenje z gozdom.

There are several factors contributing to the lower-than-desired timber harvest (non-realisation of the planned cutting) in Slovenian private forests. The legal regulation might partially contribute to such a situation. However, average findings from a survey of private forest owners do not indicate that le- gal regulations are a decisive factor. Nevertheless, there is a critical attitude towards both the normative regulation and its implementation, particularly among some larger private forest owners. When considering legislative changes aimed at increasing timber harvesting, the first and fundamental step is to analyse and develop a policy that considers different approaches for various groups (categories) of private forest owners. This necessitates an examination of the presence of (dis)incentives for timber harvesting in relation to the diverse actual conditions or circumstances of private forest owners. Only on this basis can one formulate different (normative and practical) approaches for addressing the needs of various forest owners categories. Concurrently, it is necessary to acknowledge that many private forest owners own relatively small forest areas, which significantly influences their (mis)management of these forests.

Possible Changes to the Legal Regulation of Privately Owned Forests