Forest resources of countries in Central and Eastern Europe
Forest industry
Marketing and trade of wood and wood products
Forestry education
Forestry research
Public participation
Forest policy and legislation
Forest cover in CEE countries is diverse. Countries with a relatively high percentage of forest cover are Croatia (44%), Latvia (44%), Estonia (48%), Slovenia (54%) and Slovakia (41%). Countries with relatively low percentage of forest cover include Armenia (12%), Republic of Moldova (9%) and Ukraine (15%). According to the 'FAO Forest Resource Assessment, 1990' (FAO, 1995), the average forest cover for Europe is 27% (figures of Belarus, Ukraine and other former USSR not included in calculation).
Table 2: Forest resources of selected countries in transition
|
Country |
Forest area (ha) |
% of total land area |
Data source |
|
Albania |
1 041 000 |
36 |
Bemmann, Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Osteuropas. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift no. 23 vol. 6.11.1995, 50. Jahrgang. |
|
Armenia** |
353 100 |
12 |
Armenian State Forest Enterprise, 1996. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Belarus |
7 301 000 |
35 |
Bemmann, Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Osteuropas. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift no. 23 vol. 6.11.1995, 50. Jahrgang. |
|
Bulgaria |
3 871 000 |
35 |
Bemmann, Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Osteuropas. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift no. 23 vol. 6.11.1995, 50. Jahrgang. |
|
Croatia** |
2 458 000 |
44 |
FAO, 1995. Forest resources assessment 1990, global synthesis FAO Forestry Paper no. 124, FAO Rome, Italy. |
|
Czech Republic** |
2 642 064 |
33 |
Ministry of Agriculture, Czech Republic, 1995. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Estonia |
2 016 600* |
48 |
Leemet and Karoles, 1995. Estonian Forests and Forestry. Article in Baltic Forestry, 1995 vol. 1, no. 1. |
|
Georgia |
2 838 000 |
41 |
Bemmann, Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Osteuropas. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift no. 23 vol. 6.11.1995, 50. Jahrgang. |
|
Hungary** |
1 712 000 |
18 |
Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture, 1996. Hungarian Forestry. Brochure (36 pp.). |
|
Latvia** |
2 869 800 |
44 |
State Forest Service of Latvia, 1995. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Lithuania** |
1 823 100 |
30 |
Marghescu, 1995. Forestry Extension in the Republic of Lithuania, Status Report (7 pp.) Consultancy report, FAO Forestry Department, Rome, Italy. |
|
Moldova |
315 000 |
9 |
FAO, 1995. Forest resources assessment 1990, global synthesis. FAO Forestry Paper no. 124, FAO Rome, Italy. |
|
Poland** |
8 653 843 |
28 |
Polish Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, Department of Forestry, 1995. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Romania** |
6 380 000 |
27 |
Borlea 1996. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Slovakia** |
1 989 414 |
41 |
Hrvol, 1996. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Slovenia** |
1 094 000 |
54 |
Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, 1996. Completed FAO Forestry Department questionnaire. |
|
Ukraine |
9 239 000 |
15 |
FAO, 1995 Forest resources assessment 1990, global synthesis FAO Forestry Paper no. 124, FAO Rome, Italy. |
*forest land area
** covered in this study
Average standing volume varies between 79 m³/ha in Albania (including coppice and shrub forest) and 217 m³/ha in former Czechoslovakia (Bemmann, 1995).
Average annual increment figures vary between 1 m³/ha in Albania (this figure increases if only high forest areas are calculated) and 8 m³/ha in former Czechoslovakia (Bemmann, 1995).
The per caput forest area in CEE varies widely from country to country. It is 0.09 ha/caput in the Republic of Moldova and 1 ha/caput in Estonia/Russian Federation: 5 ha per caput (FAO, 1995).
Forests in the region are negatively affected by factors such as air pollution, pest outbreaks and radioactivity. The forest area most damaged is the 'Black Triangle' (border triangle of three countries - Germany, Czech Republic and Poland). In Hungary and Romania, the 'oak decline' is taking its toll. It is believed to be connected to coppice management and stress factors (long drought periods in combination with frost), reducing the vitality of oaks, making them susceptible to secondary diseases caused by fungi and insects. In eastern Poland and Lithuania, large forest tracks of spruce and pine are affected by infestation cycles of Lymantria monchana, Pityogenes chalcographus and other insects, requiring large-scale, pest-management operations.
For a number of reasons, it is difficult to estimate the contribution of the forestry sector to the national economy of these, or any countries. Information is lacking or difficult to analyze and compare in many areas. However, it is estimated that forest products contributed 7% to the gross domestic product (GDP) of former Czechoslovakia (probably among the highest in Europe), 5% to Romania, 4% to Poland and 2% to Hungary. In comparison, forest products contribute 1% to the GDP of France and 7% to Finland. These figures are probably conservative since they consider only roundwood product values (SOFO, 1995). In many of the countries, environmental, hunting, recreational and other values are also important.
State-owned, forest-industry enterprises in the centrally-planned, economic environment were often linked to state-owned forest enterprises in a vertically integrated organization. Forest enterprises sold wood for set prices or internally transferred raw material free of charge to forest-industry enterprises. In most countries of the region, forest-industry enterprises have now been privatized to some extent. In order to modernize their technology and compete under the new market conditions, enterprises needed capital. This led to the development of joint ventures with foreign investors. Some outdated enterprises closed down completely. Countries where vertically organized, combined forest/forest industry enterprises continued to operate under state ownership, the economic operation of resource management was, at least through bookkeeping, separated from the forest industry unit. The survival of state-owned forest industry will be ensured only through profits due to adequate management, marketing and continuous investment in competitive technology. Some forest-industry plants continue to work with their present, outdated technology, since relatively low labor costs provide a profit margin. Reluctance to invest in new technology is attributed to unfavorable loan conditions, posing too high a risk. Especially in the beginning of the transition period, forest and forestry industry enterprises were flooded by Western experts and companies seeking to sell their services and technology. 'In many countries, the privatization of forest industry is occurring in isolation from forestry. Increasing the capacity of the forest industries will increase the demand for raw material and, in the face of economic recession, governments (still the major forest owners) may be tempted to draw excessively on forest resources to obtain badly needed capital for investment' (Marghescu, 1994).
With the collapse of the economic union of centrally planned countries of CEE (COMECON), previous export possibilities for semi-finished and finished wood products to the former Soviet Union were, to a large extent, terminated. Also largely terminated were exports of logs from the former Soviet Union to these countries. The few exports to Western Europe, which had been administered by the state foreign trade organizations, only served the purpose of hard currency supply. The exported semi-finished and finished products mainly belonged to the low-price and low-quality range. In 1989, imports of wood products from Eastern Europe to countries such as the Federal Republic of Germany accounted for only 9% of total imports and Germany only exported 2% of its total exports to COMECON countries. The exports to the East were disrupted and CEE countries had to orient themselves in a western direction to develop new export markets. In 1991 and 1992, a large number of suppliers from the East were trying to step into the Western market with timber and cut wood. However, their expectations were sometimes unrealistic in terms of quality, measurements and supply conditions (Schweinle, 1992). Marketing and market intelligence operations are often activities carried out by the different companies in complete isolation from each other. In many countries of the region there is no central, marketing-information organization to inform companies on international market developments. CEE countries have adjusted standards according to Western partners' in terms of reliable and correct product grading. However, improvements could still be made in this field. There are even reports on organized crime influences in the forest-industry sector in some countries (Neumann and Matysiak, 1996).
Technical and higher forestry education in the CEE countries has traditionally been of a high standard in the biological sciences. The transition process, however, demanded fundamental curriculum changes. The main changes are taking place in the subject areas of forestry economics and forest policy, since these were previously influenced by socialist ideologies. The need for a new subject area (forestry extension) is apparent in connection with the evolving private forest sector. Another radical change took place in the area of compulsory language education. Previously, Russian was compulsory. Today students are able to select between different languages, including English, German and French. The libraries of most forestry education institutions, however, still contain much outdated literature. New textbooks and Western periodicals are scarce due to financial restrictions. Supplementary communication channels (electronic distance learning and Internet) could ease the problem. The adjustment of teaching staff to the new situation will take time - in some cases a full generation. Some institutions are closely cooperating with partner institutions in the West. The exchange of teaching staff, especially in the area of forestry economics and forest policy, is a priority. In 1994, the Technical University of Dresden, Germany (former East Germany) founded a chair for Forestry and Wood Industries of Eastern Europe to support European integration throughout the transition process in Eastern Europe (Bemmann, 1995).
Forestry research institutions in most CEE countries are presently engaged in crisis management. Prior to the economic and political changes, forestry research institutions were an integral part of central planning and research subjects had to conform to certain political and economic objectives. Research was almost exclusively financed from state budget resources. With transition process and increasingly scarce state resources, research institution personnel have often been diminished. Radically trimmed institutions often found themselves unable to keep up important, long- and medium-term projects initiated prior to cutbacks. In addition, research topics were scientific and technical in nature, without anticipating the socio-economic needs of the merging class of private owners in forestry and farming. The practical links between research, education and extension were not well developed.
Management of the institutions has had considerable difficulties adapting to a new economic environment. Research has to be marketed and sold, short-term economic impact must be considered, national and international competition for scarce resources must be faced and consumers of research results who are willing to share costs are needed. In the more practical environment, applied research seems to be gaining importance compared to basic research. The low salary of researchers leads partly to the dispersion of research personnel to better paid jobs and to the search for supplemental occupations. Such a state of affairs leads to a further reduction of effective time devoted to research (Krott, 1996). The democratization in CEE countries has opened up new dimensions for international forestry-research cooperation and for the exchange of data and information.
Political liberalization and democratization in CEE and, almost simultaneously, UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio in 1992, led to the development and growth of national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), with environmental concerns. WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature) and IUCN (The World Conservation Union) established a network of country offices in the CEE. Government administrations, including the state authorities for forestry, must now consider the viewpoints of NGOs, representing opinions with certain public support, in decision-making processes. The relatively restricted community of forestry professionals in the past was self enclosed and only occasionally received political directives from outside. Professional problems were solved inside the circle, which now has to open up to wider public discussions. Overall, the public is demanding more information and a greater role in decision making in forestry. The forestry sector is continuously increasing public relations to gain support in the struggle for state budgetary support. Evolving and sometimes substantial private forest ownership further contributes to the opening of the once exclusive forestry sector. As much as NGOs, the private forestry sector, especially where owners are well organized, is fulfilling a watchdog function, scrutinizing the steps of forestry administrations and of state forest management organizations. Local organizations are being formed or revived that have great interest in the forestry debate.
The changes taking place in the CEE countries have required a renewal and revision of the policy and legislation frameworks in all sectors - an enormous task. For forestry legislation and policies, UNCED (1992) and subsequent follow-up action led to the upsurge of environmental protection, effecting the forestry sector.
Almost all CEE countries have formulated new forest laws in the past five years such as the Czech Republic (Principles of the State Forest Policy, 1994), Slovakia (State Forest Policy, 1995) and Slovenia (Forestry Development Programme of Slovenia, 1996) (see Table 7). Poland and Latvia, were planning to complete forest policies in 1996.
New forestry legislation is dealing with the management regulations for both state and private forest ownership. Sustainability is understood not only as the sustained production of wood, but comprises the sustainability of the entire forest ecosystem with its multiple functions (environmental, social and economic) and processes. Silvicultural and forest management practices are increasingly guided towards close-to-nature forestry in Slovenia in particular. Environmental and nature protection is receiving more attention, which leads, at least in the medium term, to restrictions of economically-oriented forest management.
Table 3: Forestry legislation in CEE countries and year of enactment
|
Country |
Forest legislation |
Year |
|
Armenia |
Forest Code |
1994 |
|
Croatia |
Law on Forests, National Forest Policy |
1990, 1991 |
|
Czech Republic |
Forest Act |
1995 |
|
Estonia |
Forest Act |
1993 |
|
Hungary |
Law on Forests and the Protection of Forests |
1996 |
|
Latvia |
Law on Forest Management and Utilization |
1992 (revised 1994) |
|
Lithuania |
Forest Act |
1994 |
|
Poland |
The Act Concerning Forest |
1992 |
|
Romania |
Silvic Code (Forest Code) |
1996 |
|
Slovakia |
Act on Forests |
(to be revised) |
|
Slovenia |
Forest Act |
1993 |
Policy debates and the re-opening of questions about forest legislation and policy are not unique to the CEE. Western European countries are also in the process of adapting their forest policies in the light of international agreements following UNCED, and there is a move towards harmonization of national policies in Europe. One important issue in forest policies of most CEE countries is afforestation. Afforestation is regarded as a viable solution to utilize low-productivity of agricultural land and wasteland more effectively. Some countries are considering or have started to implement large-scale forestation programmes to combat rising rural unemployment. While CEE countries must move ahead with the sound formulation and implementation of their own forest policies and legislation, this will eventually have to, at least partially, reflect agreements and negotiations at the regional and international levels.
