Implementation emphasized nature values, which the compensation incentivized protecting. The criteria for eligible sites were defined in more detail, and administrators were trained in standardized interpretation of them. Compensation was based on lost timber income only (a good example of the 'opportunity cost'approach mentioned above) and nature values became simply eligibility criteria, not influencing the payments. In Finland, landowners have the right, and sometimes even responsibility, to produce timber and the compensation is for giving up a part of this (Primmer etal.,