C h aracteri s tic s of the forest property; advantages and disadvantages of the restitution process in the rural commu

1. Characteristics of the forest property; advantages and disadvantages of the restitution process in the rural communities perspective Bianca Dumitrescu Instituteof Geography Romanian Academy

2. I.The evolution of forest property II. The process of forest restitution in the rural communities perspective - The Law - The “Obşte” - The relationship between owners and local authorities - The relationship between owners and foresters

3. THE EVOLUTION OFFOREST PROPERTY • The evolution of forest property from Ancient timesto 1918 • The Roman period: - forests were declaredager publicus (public goods); - the exploitation was made by Sylvic Colleges and by so–called procuratores saltamos; - very few forests were included as private property b) The period of principalities - “devălmăşie” (common) form of property - royal property • The feudal and modern period - the property of monasteriesand the laic property of great owners developed at the same time (through donations, abuses) - in 1863 the state became owner of forests→The Secularization Law - The Law no.19/1898 stipulated the administration by the state of all forestry areas which had belonged to collectivities that couldn’t afford technical administrative staff - the concept of sylvic regime – promulgation of Sylvic Code in 1881 - the Sylvic Code in 1910 – individual property appears → fragmentation of forests

4. The period between Wars - 1948 • One year after The First World War the democratic power of Great Romania recognized the right of property upon forests (property which had resulted from the historic evolution until 1918) • The Law of Agriculturefrom July 1921produced a structural changeregarding the forest property especially in Transilvania, Banat, Crişana and Maramureş (to restore peasants rights) ~ many clearings were made in order to create pastures • During the between-wars period, the forest fund was reduced in general with approximately 1.3 mil. ha • After The Second World War Romania lost 1.9 mil. ha. of forests; The 1943 Law regarding the completion of forestry domain focused also on forestation of degraded lands

5. Through the 1945 Land Reform, someindividuals were given small forest lots. • Becoming aware of the threat of the nationalization process the great forest owners sold totally or partially their forestry fund (they sold small forest lots to peasants) ~ an excesive fragmentation resulted; • In 1947 one could observe the following situation: • The domination of two main categories of forest properties: the small ones till 10 ha and the medium or great size properties • Due to the high degree of fragmentation of forests (a great number of properties having less than 5 ha) forests were administrated by The Autonomous House of State Forests

6. Communist period • The Nationalization process began in 1948 – all forests belonging to physic or juridic persons were nationalized – they became people’s goods Advantages: • The pace of reducing the forest fund was considerably slowed down; between 1948-1956 all forests entered in a planning program, they suffered a rehabilitation process in 3-4 stages; 2.8 mil. ha were reforested. • The growth of access to the forest fund through the roads building process. Disadvantages: • The violation of property rights; • Rural communities didn’t benefit from the construction of the great wood factories; • Brutal exploitation of the forests that belonged to the old owners; • The diminutionof biodiversity and stability.

7. Transition period • Law no. 18/1991 – restitution of one hectare of forest per person for old owners. • Ten thousands of hectares were felled, not taken cared of or not rehabilitated properly; • Forests and sylviculture entered in regression; • Law no. 169/1997 admitted the depositions of requests in order to reinforce the right of property upon forest areas; • Law no. 141/1999 regulated the sylvic regime and the forest fund administration; • Law no. 1/2000 reconstituted the right of property upon forests situated in the old sites (10 ha); • Law no. 66/2002 regarding the juridical statute of forestry lands (100 ha); • Law no. 247/2005 • Nowadays there are twice the number of owners than in 1930; • From the 6 mil. forests owned by the state, 50% are to be restituted.

8. The Process of forest restitution from the perspective of rural communities • A very good process It was the property of citizens / They have given to you what belonged to you The old people dreamed of becoming owners again It is a good thing that the forest is restituted, it is helpful for the household otherwise people don’t have enough resources to make their living. • A complicated, unstable process • It wasn’t fairly done - the entire area that should have been restituted was not given back For those with a great area it was a good thing, for ordinary owners…… - it wasn’t restituted on the old site - the true owners didn’t take their forest back - the forest was also given to people that weren’t owners

9. The law a) It wasn’t good The first law was bad. They gave forest properties to people who have never been forest owners. - some people received only 1ha ― from the 5ha+80 ha in obşte Although I owned such a great area I am forcedto buy wood - many papers A lot of maps, papers and a lot of trouble - the expenses on papers and other works - the fear of taxes b) The law is good but nobody applies it • Uncertainty of property • Great fragmentation • High cost of forest administration and wood transport

10. The Obşte 1. At Chiojdu – the Obşte has already been formed - generally, the inhabitants received forest properties - only a part of the property was restituted 2. At Dorna Candrenilor - the Obşte hasn’t been formed yet • There is no control on obşte I feel that it doesn’t really belong to me – the owner can’t exploit it In obşte the best situation is for those who cannot manage themselves. • Others were not even interested • The lots weren’t measured • Many people don’t know about obşte leadership • The meetings of the Management Council seldom happen and are never announced

11. Profits correspond to the area - a price is put on each field - there are mostly small profits • Each owner contributes with a sum of money for obşte functioning - for marking actions, for guarding, for rangers - the money is reinvested in planting • There are people who don’t know that obşte activity is supported financially

12. The relationship between owners and local authorities • The opinions are shared 1. some people declare that the Town Hall is taking care of their interests - The mayor can help us because he has relations 2. others declare that their relationship with the Town Hall isn’t very good - People don’t gather anymore for meetings or to discuss certain problems at the Town Hall; the Town Hall doesn’t know the community’s problems anymore

13. The relationship between owners and foresters a) Generally they don’t care b) They focus only on their own interests • The old people are still preoccupied / The young people are generally looking for advantages The young people were more merciful before but now they bring the disaster • The foresters are of two kinds, some are correct, others are corrupted • Forests aren’t monitored, uncontrolled exploitation • A too large area for one ranger • It is very difficult to guard the forest and that iswhy they are stealing • Foresters should be changed, otherwise they learn quickly all the places and the tricks Forests don’t cryand don’t say anything to anybody