Forest Restitution and Resource Management in the Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria
Forests cover 70 percent of the central Rhodopelandscape.
This research project investigates the ownership, use, and management of forest resources in postsocialist Bulgaria following the forest reprivatization that was authorized by the country's National Assembly in November 1997. Forests occupy about one-third of Bulgaria's territory, and they are an important source of subsistence goods for rural residents -- for example, firewood, construction material, mushrooms, and medicinal plants -- as well as a source of wage employment or cash through their commercial exploitation (e.g., for timber and industrial fiber). Before nationalization of the country's forests in 1947, about 16 percent were owned by private individuals, although the percentage varied by region. Other non-state forests were owned by legal persons, such as churches or schools, or by municipalities. The restitution basically returns forests to these pre-nationalization owners, their rightful heirs, or their successors, preferably in the same location as the earlier holdings (a. k. a. according to old real boundaries).
Rather than focusing on a single site, the project takes a comparative and multi-sited approach in examining the forest restitution and its aftermath within a region that has significant amounts of both high quality and private forests. In so doing, it will describe and compare the systems of forest control and use that emerge in several communities in the region and for the different chunks of forest associated with these communities. In addition to this resource-centered approach, an examine the aftermath of the restitution from an actor-oriented perspective is planned, that is, its meaning for and the role therein of individuals with different identities in terms of such characteristics as age, gender, religion, place of residence, and magnitude of forest ownership. The project focuses on the central part of the Rhodope Mountains -- an expansive but moderate elevation range located along Bulgaria's southern boarder with Greece -- due to their populated nature, the importance of forest resources to the regional economy, the relatively high share of private forest ownership there (indeed, the highest rate of private forest ownership in the country), and the high quality of the forests. Because of the unique history of forest ownership in this region, an additional case study in the Balkan Mountains may provide a further comparative perspective. Theoretically this project seeks to contribute to discussions that relate property regimes to resource management practices and to discussions of the role of social capital and an individual's identity in economic development and resource management.
Some research questions to be explored through the project include the following:
What resource management structures and practices emerge as the forests are restored? (This could include formal legal structures such as forestry cooperatives, as well as more informal community rules about resource access and use.) How do forest owners negotiate the formal legal regulations concerning forest exploitation? How is post-restitution forest management influenced by the larger context for resource exploitation, including access to labor or tools for timber exploitation, the availability of markets, and transportation for the product? What are the contributions of timber exploitation and other uses of the forests to household and regional economies following restitution? How and to what extent does the forest restitution affect local resident's access to non-timber forest resources, firewood, or grazing resources on these lands? What conflicts emerge between the commercial, timber-exploitation focus of the post-restitution forest legislation and subsequent planning for forest management, on the one hand, and the "traditional" or rather pre-restitution patterns of forest use, on the other? How and to what extent do post-restitution forest management and property relations vary on the basis of religious identity, age, gender, place of residence, or holding size
Forest Restitution and Resource Management in the Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria
Preliminary ResultsBy the deadlines for filing forest restitution claims in 1999, private individuals filed more than 250,000 documented claims for about 300,000 hectares of Bulgarian forests and other lands within the forest fund. This works out to an average of slightly more than one hectare of forest per claim, although average claim size varies by region -- it is two to four times the national average in the Rhodope, for example -- and some private holdings are significantly larger than this average. Because these forests will in most cases be divided among one to three generations of heirs, some holdings will be quite fragmented, however. Beyond this, many forest observers suggest that management of holdings of less than 50 to 100 hectares according to the requirements of Bulgaria's new forest management law is not economically effective (i.e., it will cost more than it generates).
According to Bulgaria's forest restitution law, the ownership documents should have been distributed to successful claimants by June 30, 2000, although in many places this deadline was not met. In the case of the central Rhodope, for example, most of the documents were distributed by early 2001. As of January 2002 the restitution was largely complete, at least on paper; 574,434 hectares of forest had been restored nationwide with decisions on 290,773 claims, of which 320,988 hectares were returned to individuals (this reflects the overwhelming majority of the claims), 226,567 hectares to municipalities, and the remainder to legal persons such religious organizations, schools, and cooperatives. Many forests owners in my central Rhodope field sites received their forests in a form (as co-property or joint-property in named forest massifs -- something like shares in a piece of real estate) that essentially requires that they be managed jointly, although the form that management takes can vary. This management will take place on a geographic basis, with the minimum unit being the named chunk of forests of which certain people are jointly co-owners.
Formal organization for forest management is only possible after these forest ownership documents have been received, although community leaders and some larger forest owners had been discussing how forests might be managed following the restitution for a year or two before the documents were distributed (see MPI Working Paper 13, 2000). These higher-level anticipatory discussions typically focused on some form of joint management, with consideration of issues such as the voting systems and startup capital requirements for the various organizational forms allowed under Bulgarian law. The people involved in these discussions also express concern that the future coops or other management organizations not sell raw timber, but rather processed lumber at a minimum and preferably finished products such as furniture. This is seen as providing higher dividends to the forest owners as well as much needed employment opportunities. Meanwhile, as of spring 2001, many other claimants seemed to have not given much thought to what they would do with their forests, although there is widespread general support in popular discourse for forestry cooperatives.
One reason for this support is clearly an economic or practical one: the claimants, some of them living outside the region, elderly, or both, do not see how they can manage the forests themselves.
Donations from pre-socialist forestry cooperatives helped to support valued community projects, such as construction of the cultural center (chitalishte) in the central Rhodope town of Chepelare in 1939-40.
(To some extent this is also related to the nature of the resource -- many other scholars of resource management and property regimes elsewhere in the world have described joint management of forests.) But their comments also suggest that historical memory plays an important role in the nostalgia for pre-socialist forestry cooperatives. What forest claimants -- or the parents or grandparents -- had owned most recently (in the 1920s to 1940s) were shares in pre-socialist private forestry cooperatives for which, perhaps most importantly, they received regular income. These coops were local social and economic institutions embedded in the rural communities. They are remembered as providing income for families or individuals and supporting valued community projects such as school construction and community electrification. For some, perhaps, there is also a sense that the pre-socialist coops were run in a transparent, lawful manner (e.g., 'American-style' timber auctions and careful accounting for cut trees) and that exploitation was controlled and rational for the long-term productivity and protection of the resource. Thus, the forestry cooperatives may be seen as particularly attractive when compared to perceptions of various unwelcome aspects of the postsocialist context -- particularly increasing economic inequality, widespread lawlessness, lack of attention to the long-term resource sustainability, and lack of transparency in doing business.
For all these reasons, it comes as no surprise that during the summer and fall of 2001, many of the new forest owners in the central Rhodope were busy creating forestry cooperatives and other organizations for the joint management of forests. Research in 2002 will further explore the development of these cooperatives as well as the management of those large chunks of forest that are being managed by individual extended families.