Forestry Extension

Institutional responsibility for forestry extension
Training of forestry extension personnel
Government support for forestry extension
Organization of private forest owners
Main constraints encountered in forestry extension
Forestry extension needs identified by the CEE
Forestry extension and other land ownership patterns

The management of private forests is influenced by three main sets of factors; the characteristics of the owner, the characteristics of the forest stand itself, and the external constraints and opportunities. The characteristics of the owner include his/her overall financial situation and the place of forestry within this situation, age, family status, residence, etc. The characteristics of the forest stand include its size, distribution, structure, productivity, composition, history, etc. In terms of external constraints and opportunities are the general economic situation, the wood and non-wood forest product markets, existence of incentives and subsidies, etc. Important in the last set of influences includes the professional environment, including access to, and the quality of, extension services, government and others. (Normandin, 1987) It is important the extension take these three sets of influences into consideration if it hopes to effect private forest management.

Extension, of course, exists in a variety of forms. Different situations have dictated different extension strategies. Axinn (1988), for example, discusses eight different approaches including:

· the general approach;
· the commodity specialized approach;
· the training and visit approach;
· the participatory extension approach;
· the project approach;
· the farming systems approach;
· the cost-sharing approach; and
· the educational institution approach.

Each of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a particular country, neither are they a complete description of the approaches that exist. In many cases extension systems have to be built up from the local situation, taking inspiration and learning lessons from the other approaches that have been developed but not applying them as a 'perfect model'.

The extension strategy should match the local situation (including characteristics of the owner and the external environment as well as appropriate to the forest stand itself) and the extension structure should be appropriate for the selected strategy (FAO, 1986). The extension strategy should not necessarily be driven by an existing structure or government department which may have developed a strategy for another tenure regime (state-owned forests), the organizational mix should reflect the most appropriate strategy. It is often useful to think first about extension as a 'bundle' of functions rather than as an institution (Anderson and Farrington, 1995). These functions might include training, information, technical advice, organization, marketing, credit and incentives, forest management planning, monitoring and evaluation as well as others. Thus it becomes clear that a number of different institutions might be (or should be) involved in extension to varying degrees and carry out slight different functions. It is difficult for a single institution to carry out all the functions required for promoting sustainable forest management. These different organizations, such as farmers' groups, forest owners' associations, non-governmental organizations, universities, foundations, private companies and so on; may complement the work of the government and provide essential services. They may need strengthening to fulfill some extension functions effectively and efficiently, but they may be critical players.

In situations where the state owns and directly manages the national forest estate, a type of 'command and control' extension strategy may be implemented and government institutions organized hierarchically or in a semi-military type of structure. However the same strategy and structure may not be appropriate if there are significant numbers of private forest owners with rights to decision-making on their lands. As the local situation changes, as it has been in many places in the CEE, it is necessary to develop or rethink extension strategies and structures.

Institutional responsibility for forestry extension

Presently the institutional responsibility for the enforcement and the monitoring of forestry laws and regulations in connection with forestry extension lies with the Ministries in charge of forestry in all countries surveyed (see Table 9).

Table 9: Institutional responsibility for enforcement and monitoring of forestry laws and regulations in connection with forestry extension in different CEE countries

Country	Institutional Responsibility
Croatia	Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Hrvatske sume (State enterprise)
Czech Republic	Ministry of Agriculture
Hungary	Ministry of Agriculture
Latvia	Ministry of Agriculture, State Forest Service
Lithuania	Ministry of Forestry
Poland	Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Forestry
Romania	Ministry of Water, Forests and Environment, Forestry Department and State Administration for the Management of Forests (Regia Autonoma Romsilva)
Slovakia	Ministry of Land Management-Forest Section, Regional Forest Offices and Forest Offices
Slovenia	Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, Slovenian Forest Service

At the field level, the institutional responsibility for forestry extension is mostly with the regional and local state forestry administration (see Table 10).

In Poland, the responsibility is assigned to the provincial governors, who, however, do not have the required professional capacities. The governors, therefore, have the possibility to entrust the field offices of the state forest administration with the task of forestry extension.

In Latvia, discussions are being held to establish a system for forestry extension, combining private forestry extension consultancy services and a forestry extension service as a specialized unit of the State Forest Service.

In Slovakia, the responsibility for forestry extension on the field level seems to be divided between three actors. The Forest Project Office (Forest Management Bureau) is responsible for the preparation and enforcement (monitoring) of forest management plans in both private and state forests. The Professional Forest Managers seem to be private forestry professionals, who advise private forest owners and the Forest Offices as part of the state forest administration are probably in charge for mainly law enforcement.

There has been no indication for plans to institutionally place forestry extension within existing agricultural extension services.

In France, there are several sources of extension for private owners. This is an arrangement where several different institutions, which may have different main functions, have various roles and degrees of involvement in forestry extension. It also demonstrates approaches that emphasis:

· decentralization and regionalization;
· economic aspects and profitability;
· the commitment, participation and level of control of private forest owners; and
· the importance of management plans and the process of their approval.

Extension is mainly provided by 17 Regional Centres of Forest Ownership (CRPF - Centres Regionaux de la Propriete Forestiere). The 17 CRPF are public organizations administered by elected representatives of private forest owners, under the guidance of the administration. They have been legally entrusted with the task of developing and guiding the forest management and production of private owners. They do this by assisting in the organization and cooperative action of private owners for both forest management and production, by providing extension services about silvicultural, marketing and management methods, by formulating regional guidelines and by assisting in the preparation of forest management plans complying with the regional guidelines. These plans are approved by the CRPF under the control of the decentralized services of the Ministry of Agriculture. The 17 CRPFs employ a total of 256 people including 72 engineers and 122 forest technicians. At the department level the private sector and private owners are represented by Departmental Professional Committees. The National Association of CRPF (ANCRPF) and the National Professional Committee of Private Forestry are national federations representing the private owners and private sector in the High National Forest Council in which the administration, the private industry and NGOs are also represented.

Extension is also provided by the Forest Development Institute (IDF). The IDF was set up in 1960 by private forest owners to undertake forest development programmes as well as conduct applied research and training/extension on forests, forest products, forestation of denuded lands, plantations and multiple use of trees in both rural and urban environment. It organizes training programmes and produces major publications containing technical information. It receives substantial financial aid from the National Association for Agricultural Development (ANDA), like all the national professional centers in the agricultural sector. In two of France's largest forested regions, two organizations undertake comparable assignments at the local level: the Center for Forest Productivity in Aquitaine (CPFA) and the Federation of Forestry Information and Education Center of Eastern France (FVFE).

The majority of the 90 departmental Chambers of Agriculture also employ forest technicians who carry out forest development programmes and help the forest cooperatives and forest owners by providing extension services and advice.

Finally there are numerous private forestry consultants who provide advice and assistance on a fee basis.

Table 10: Institutional responsibility for forestry extension at the field level in different CEE countries

Country	Institution
Armenia	n/a
Croatia	Forest Station
Czech Republic	Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Forest Administration representative
Hungary	State Regional Offices of Agriculture, Regional Forest Inspectorates of State Forest Service
Latvia	Stale Forest Service field personnel
Lithuania	State Forest Enterprise personnel and Lithuanian Private Forest Owners' Association.
Poland	Regional Directorates of State Forests or directors of State Forestry Districts are entrusted by provincial governors ('voivods')
Romania	State Administration for the Management of Forests (Regia Autonoma Romsilva)
Slovakia	Forest Project Office preparing management plans for both state and private forests (forest management planners of so called forest projects arc responsible also for plan implementation and enforcement) Professional Forest Managers (by law/Act no. 15/1994/ prescribed forestry professionals representing the private sector) Forest Offices as part of the state administration
Slovenia	Slovenian Forest Service

Training of private and/or communal forest owners is an essential task to ensure proper, sustainable forest management in private and communal forests. With the exception of Croatia, Poland and Slovenia, where private forest ownership existed during the period of central planning, there is a new or renewed group of private forest owners. Many owners have had no exposure to forestry before and often they are city dwellers far away from their properties. In the time of economic hardship new private forest owners may draw upon their forests in an unsustainable manner to gain needed income for securing sometimes even the bare survival of their families. In Western Europe, private forestry has a long-standing tradition, associated with a system for the education of private forest owners. In Western Europe, as elsewhere, private forests can be multi-functional and include a range of social objectives from recreation to fuelwood and provide capital for certain investments. Depending on the objectives of the owners, training priorities and the content of training in CEE countries would be somewhat different than Western Europe. Training programmes and methodologies will need modification and adaptation by local experts to local conditions, objectives and practices.

Training of private forest owners has to deal in the first place with information dissemination. The owners have to be made aware of restrictions (laws, regulations, etc.) and opportunities in relation to their properties and they should be informed about government policies and government incentives in relation to private forestry. Simple knowledge of forest management and marketing is another important area. Forestry work, especially cutting timber by chainsaws can be dangerous. Private forest owners, who wish to carry out forest work in their forests themselves must be taught working techniques and safety rules. With the exception of Slovenia and the Czech Republic, the countries surveyed have not yet dealt with the training private forest owners as a continous task, since beside the need of regular refresher courses, always new trainees appear through generation changes and eventually through the selling of properties.

Table 11: Institutional responsibility for the training of private and/or communal forest owners in different CEE countries

Country	Institutional responsibility
Croatia	no training
Czech Republic	Ministry of Agriculture (Training Center in Konop)
Hungary	Hungarian Forest Research Institute, The Sopron University, forestry experts on the list of the Ministry of Agriculture
Latvia	State Forest Service field personnel
Lithuania	No responsibility assigned and so far no training conducted. Lithuanian Forest Owners' Association provided some information material.
Poland	The responsibility lies with the provincial governors (voivods), State Forestry Districts could be entrusted, but so far no systematic training is being conducted.
Romania	No responsibility assigned and no training conducted.
Slovakia	Private training centers for professional workers (with ministerial attestation for chainsaw and cable operators)
Slovenia	Slovenian Forest Service in cooperation with Forestry High School

Training of forestry extension personnel

The CEE countries participating in the forestry extension survey were requested to judge the level of training of extension personnel. The officials could choose between three qualitative categories - inadequate, adequate or more than adequate.

Table 12: Judgment of forestry extension personnel training level by different CEE countries

Country	Inadequate	Adequate	More than adequate
Armenia		no information provided
Croatia	X
Czech Republic		X
Hungary	X
Latvia		X
Lithuania	X*
Poland	X
Romania		X
Slovakia			X
Slovenia	X

*Opinion based on country paper by Marghescu, 1995

Forestry extension personnel in Slovenia, who are considered to have an inadequate level of training, has probably one of the best training standards in the Region. It is felt that the judgment made by Latvia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania is describing the training standards of forestry extension personnel in general forestry subjects. Forestry extension, however, requires more than just a traditional forestry education. For more than four decades, foresters were a small professional circle, dealing almost exclusively with centrally planned and directed forestry affairs. With the developing private forest sector, a large number of new actors are joining the forestry scene, which are in need of professional assistance. To render this professional assistance, foresters need to develop their communication skills and require at least an introduction to tools of extension developed by social sciences. Foresters as unique expert authorities and police-like officers enforcing laws and regulations may be inappropriate when faced with private forest owners and a more decentralized and democratic situation. The spirit and concept of participation have to enter the minds of foresters assigned with extension duties. The training of personnel presently assigned to forestry extension duties is one task, which probably could be tackled with a series of training courses. The second task is the incorporation of forestry extension as a subject into the curricula of forestry faculties and technical forestry schools. Administrations in charge of forestry extension have to provide career development possibilities for forestry extension personnel, so working in forestry extension becomes attractive. Frequently, forestry extension is mistaken with the term and field of public relations.

Government support for forestry extension

The survey requested the participating countries to specify the form of government support given to private forest owners.

Table 13: Form of government support to private forest owners in different CEE countries

Country	Personnel	Incentives	Information	Training	Marketing	Others
Croatia	X		X
Czech Republic	X	X	X	X		X*
Hungary		X	X	X
Latvia	no government support reported
Lithuania	X					X*
Poland	X	X		X		X
Romania	X	X	X			X*
Slovakia		X	X
Slovenia	X	X	X	X

*Preparation of management plans

Latvia was not, at least until the completion of the questionnaire, supporting private forest owners at all. However, in 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture supported the Forest Owners' Association through providing training facilities, office space and paying for the salary of the Association's president. In Lithuania, state forest enterprise personnel carries out extension work, mainly limited to law monitoring and enforcement. The preparation of management plans is partly supported, since necessary field surveys are financed by the state and only the actual plan preparation has to be paid by the private forest owner. In Romania, local management plans are state funded. Afforestation is partly financed by the state budget or a special fund for the afforestation of degraded or low-productive land. The state forestry administration provides free services in the prevention and fighting of forest pests. In the case of natural disasters, the state forestry administration will provide technical assistance and seedlings free of charge for reforestation. In Poland, the state forest administration delegated by the provincial governors provides extension services, mainly supervision. Forest management plans for private forests are prepared with state funding. Other support includes tax exemptions for forests less than 40 years old, occasional marketing for the sale of timber, and seedlings provided free of charge for afforestation (not yet for reforestation). In Slovenia, the Slovenian Forest Service is providing the extension personnel with government funding. Besides the personnel, the government is paying subsidies for forest regeneration, forest tending, measures against fires, pests and game, for the maintenance of wildlife habitats, maintenance of forest roads and investments such as forest road construction, forestation, etc. There was no more specific information available on forms of government support for private forest owners in Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Organization of private forest owners

Today, a private forest sector is appearing at an unprecedented speed. The number of new forest owners is growing daily, confronting governments with the challange to ensure sustainable forest management in all forests, both private and state-owned. In countries with a long tradition of private forestry, a government supported forestry extension system provides assistance in the form of technical, professional advice, information, incentives, etc.

Table 14: Private forestry associations in different CEE countries

Country	Private forestry associations
Armenia
Croatia	No organization or association.
Czech Republic	Union of Community Forest Owners, Union of Individual Forest Owners, Private forest owners are not forming groups to facilitate forest management.
Hungary	Forest Tenure association, Forestry Cooperative, Private forestry company.
Latvia	Forest Owners' Association
Lithuania	Lithuanian Private Forest Owners' Association, Union of Land Owners of Lithuania, Union of Farmers.
Poland	No formal associations. Only 5% of private forest owners are forming groups to facilitate forest management.
Romania	Approximately 15% of owners tend to collaborate with each other
Slovakia	Slovak Private Forest Owners' Association, Slovak Forest Land Owners' Association, Municipal Forest Owners' Association. About 80-85% of private forest owners form groups to facilitate forest management.
Slovenia	There is one association with very limited number of members. It represents the interests of expropriated former owners. 4% of forest owners are organized in so called Machine Circles, but a lot of informal, not registered cooperation exists among neighbors.

Forest owners' associations are in the interest of governments as platforms for efficient forestry extension. Forestry associations are beneficial to forest owners themselves. Expensive equipment for forest work could be bought by the associations to be shared among members, reducing the fix-cost burden of individual owners. Higher sale prices could be achieved for wood products through joint marketing and through bulk orders, the expenditures for seedlings needed for reforestation and afforestation could be lowered. Through joint development of infrastructure for forestry (e.g. road construction), the structural disadvantages of small forest properties could be further reduced.

A formal requirement to form management associations as a precondition for restitution is a technique to encourage the formation of such groups. However, this could result in lawsuits, since restituted owners might claim injust restrictions in the free use of their private property. Democratic governments could develop incentive packages, which are attractive enough for forest owners to voluntarily form associations.

Existing forest owners' associations in the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania are characteristically umbrella organizations, underlined by low membership. Their objective is to represent the interests of private forest owners at the national and political levels. Formal associations or groups on the local level, with the objective of facilitating practical forest management, are rare. In Slovenia, however, informal cooperation among neighboring forest owners is common. The Slovak Private Forest Owners' Association has 670 collective and 1 700 individual members, who represent 78% of the total forest area restituted. The Forest Owners' Association in Latvia is attempting to develop a private forestry extension service by training and registering forestry extension consultants in the absence of a forestry extension service in the state forest administration.

In comparison, there are several different types of organizations in France. In one case, private forest owners (and operators) freely associate in formal or informal groups to increase the effectiveness and efficiencies of management for the common economic good of its members and have undertaken such activities as grouped wood sales and replanting. This is the largest kind. In another case, where a private company is formed, the individual owner forfeits his ownership rights. One of the main motivations for small holders for this type of organization is for the consolidation of family holdings for tax purposes. Another form of cooperative requires that management decisions made by a majority of members must be adopted by all members. Few of these exist.

Tables 15 and 16 present examples of different types of associations or organizations that exist in Auvergne, France, where forest ownership size averages 2.3 ha. Groups exist for both forest management and for the consolidation of forest property. Brief descriptions of the respective advantages and disadvantages are presented (Despres, 1989). It is clear that a range of organizational options exist for forest owners in different situations and periods. As seen previously, in France one of extension functions is to promote groups where needed.

Table 15: Types of organizations for forest management in Auvergne, France (after Despres, 1989)

Method of organization	Advantages	Disadvantages
Rural self help	· brings together human and material resources	· limited to active farmers and rural land owners (cannot include non-farmers)
Non-profit association	· flexible form, easy and quick to create · brings human resources together · allows for small-scale group (common) work (financial resources grouped) · form used especially for common development (animation)	· not adapted to large investments, especially credits and loans, due to its informality
Syndicate/professional group	· permits common management for all forestry interventions; silviculture, exploitation and harvesting, and marketing · simple annual membership (dues)	· popular model in the recent past but increasingly abandoned in favour of cooperatives which are better adapted for commercial operations
Service cooperative	· allows for all forestry operations · commitment of owners through subscription to the cooperative's capital	· more difficult to manage than the syndicate group model
Work cooperative	· allows for the procurement of material and equipment as a group and the direct cost-basis use by members · can use salaried employees and be joined with service cooperatives	· large investment necessary to effect cuts and skidding, as well as reforestation activities · balanced financial situation often difficult to achieve
Economic interest group	· group enterprise model	· little or not at all used in private forestry

Table 16: Types of organizations for forest property in Auvergne, France (after Despres, 1989)

Method of organization	Advantages	Disadvantages
Forest GROUP
· Family	· avoid dividing family property and keep joint ownership during inheritance · the statutes of civil society or ownership is common and every member has shares · the total management is done in common	· difficult to establish · establishment has costs (notaries, registration, etc.)
· Small owners	· allows for the consolidation of areas dispersed between many owners of plots to be reforested · joint management of forest units of an economically interesting size	· important psychological constraints to convincing owners to give up a physical plot in favor of a part of a company which is not materialized in the field · extension is difficult and failure rate is high · often lack of commitment of owners in the interest of the group · practically impossible to use for forested plots with valuable stands
Free syndicate association	· regroups forest parcels with the objective of a	· not adapted for forest management common forest investment project (reforestation, forest road, etc.) · flexible, based on voluntary adhesion and common responsibility
Authorized syndicate association	· allows financing (loans) without collateral · well adapted to very large investments, notably for forest roads in isolated mountain areas	· the progression from a free to an authorized association is necessary to obtain a loan from the National Forestry Fund, which gives the organization a public character and requires certain types of accounting, etc. · rigid and poorly adapted to forest management
Informal	· flexible agreements agreements/exchanges between two owners	· administrative charges to be covered · used in very specific, short term forestry situations, but not on a large scale
Joint ownership	· allows for common forest investments notably the buying of forest land	· not very common
Syndicate association for forest management	· combines forest plots with the objective of joint stand management · the plots remain private property	· as of 1989 the actual regulatory texts have not been published and hence these types of associations cannot be officially created
Forest land management	· the general principles of regrouping agricultural land are applied to forest plots · allows for the consolidation of dispersed plots for each owner	· administrative procedures are heavy and onerous for the local communities · exchange of plots are difficult because of the value of the stand in addition to that of funds

In the former Federal Republic of Germany forest cooperatives are fairly active. They exist partly because of a political will to keep a diverse mix of forest ownership patterns and to promote cooperation among owners. These voluntary cooperatives can play an important economic role for small owners and have lead to significant gains in economic benefit for small owners. Some associations receive government support and undertake fairly extensive training programmes for forest owners.

In Bavaria, the average forest size for private owners is about 2.7 ha in three lots. For corporate forests, the average size is 64 ha. Government extension services concentrate on the small forest owner since the corporate owners usually have their own staff. There are about 173 forest associations in Bavaria with approximately 114 000 members covering 23% of the forest owners and 66% of the non-state forest land. These associations receive financial support (40% of administrative and investment costs) because of political desire to overcome the disadvantages of fragmented ownership. Recently, there has been a move towards more selective support to forest associations and therefore demonstration on the part of the associations of commitment and effectiveness.

Main constraints encountered in forestry extension

Among the priority problems in connection with forestry extension, several countries referred to difficulties in convincing private forest owners to form associations (Slovenia, Czech Republic and Poland). Another problem identified is closely connected to the previous one and is related to communication barriers between forestry extensionists and private owners. Poland refers to a lack of interests from the side of private forest owners in receiving advice from the state forest administration, although this is free of charge. Slovenia states that foresters are not respected enough and some owners think that 'there are too many of them'. On the other side, foresters are accused for not having changed their relations towards the forest owners and for 'not being keen to play the role of true advisers'. Latvia and Poland are trying to find solutions to promote forestry extension itself, to increase the number of popular publications and to intensify the promotion of basic rules for forest management in the mass media for forest owners. Romania is concerned about raising awareness and responsiveness among government authorities concerning acute problems of forestry and lists among others the insufficient information about forestry extension and a lack of experience with forestry extension as basic issues. Slovakia, Lithuania and Latvia are referring to difficulties in establishing the institutional framework and financing mechanisms for forestry extension in their countries. Poland and the Czech Republic complain about missing mechanisms to provide private forest owners with marketing information and direct marketing assistance for wood products. Croatia reports that the small size of holdings and low production as well as lack of clear legal status are constraints to forestry extension. Almost all countries, reported that the newly born private forest owners have limited knowledge about forestry matters.

The problem of a certain awareness and reaction of authorities to forestry sector constraints (Romania) may also be experienced in other countries. Throughout the transition process, the state forest sectors of most countries were undergoing harsh changes. One important task seems to follow the other: reorganization, policy formation, formulation of draft laws (forestry, nature conservation, hunting), lengthy discussions and negotiations, inter-sectorial power struggles, formulation of regulations, administering restitution, daily administration of the forestry structures and institutions, dealing with economic hardship of officers, etc. With all these priorities and tasks, private forestry risks becoming a lower priority area - 'the orphan of forestry'. Hardly any career development possibilities are opening up in forestry extension and the motivation of government officers to work in forestry extension is often low. Some forest owners are not so interested in having forestry extension either, since they might benefit from an unclear situation.

Individual countries have solved certain problems, at least partly, although they are sometimes still considering approaches and strategies for certain crucial decisions. However, a holistic and participatory approach in planning, designing and implementing a comprehensive and multi-partner forestry extension system seems often to be lacking. Forestry extension systems, designed exclusively by government officials in somewhat theoretical terms, may give priority to implementing the ideas and policy of government administrations to 'supervise' and regulated the private forest sector. Its acceptance by the owners and managers and their adhesion and support might not be readily obtained. In developing an effective forestry extension system the needs and objectives of private forest owners should be clear and the active participation and consultation of forest owners (or their elected representatives) is required in all stages of the planning and implementation. Forest owners must feel that the forestry extension system is 'theirs'.

The problems identified by individual countries are, in many cases, similar. Failures (providing valuable information) and successes in the development of system elements could serve as lessons learned for other countries. Regional cooperation of CEE countries in the development of their forestry extension systems would appear to be beneficial.

Forestry extension needs identified by the CEE

The lack of the private forestry sector for more than 40 years, and sometimes the almost total isolation from the developments taking place in other parts of the world, has lead to a shortage of information in the CEE countries about theoretical and practical progress in the field of forestry extension. Through the political changes, the information barrier is being eliminated.

The countries participating in the survey almost unanimously noted the need for the creation of a regional forum which would serve as an information clearinghouse and network, promote training and exchanges and catalyze studies through workshops, consultations and other techniques. This underlines the demand for information, the need to exchange information and perhaps the readiness for regional cooperation. The main objective of such a forum might be to provide the countries with assistance in the fields of forestry extension personnel training (6 countries showed interest: Armenia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia) and institution building, forestry extension system development (six countries would consider this a need: Armenia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia). It is likely that in addition to the countries who participated in the survey, other CEE countries in similar conditions would be interested to join a regional forum on forestry extension.

Table 17: Expressed needs for forestry extension for different CEE countries

Country	Formation of policy	Formulation of laws	Formulation of guidelines	Institution building, forestry extension system development	Training of forestry extension personnel	Creation of Regional Forum (workshops, consultation)
Armenia	X	X	X	X	X	X
Croatia	X	X	X	X	X	X
Czech Republic						X
Hungary			X	X
Latvia				X	X	X
Lithuania				X	X	X
Poland			X		X	X
Romania	X	X	X			X
Slovakia				X		X
Slovenia					X	X

Forestry extension and other land ownership patterns

This paper has focused on the increasing number of private owners of forest land in the area. However, the changes underway affect also other areas of land tenure which may also create needs for forestry extension. Although the increase in private forestry may be the impetus for increased emphasis on extension and outreach, the transition is liable to effect other areas of the forest departments traditional and newer roles. Two areas deserve mention.

The present study shows that large areas of forest lands remain and will remain in government or public ownership, implying a continuation of existing management structures, approaches and techniques for these areas. However, political and economic changes may require new or adapted forms of management of public lands. The public in general and local non-governmental groups may demand an increasingly large share in decisions about how this public forest land is managed. Government foresters working in this setting may come in increasing contact with users of forest reserves and with groups wishing to influence government forest policy and implementation. Changes in the political systems and increased decentralization will effect the remaining forest estate where new levels of public participation and involvement may be required. This will also require extension skills - especially in communication and negotiation - for many foresters involved in state forest management.

In addition state forest administrations and managers should be made aware of their important function as an example or point of reference for private forest owners. A double standard in forest management should be avoided, especially, if state forest managers are at the same time working as extensionists with private owners.

The ownership patterns of agricultural lands are also changing, moving towards more private ownership. This shift sometimes exceeds the trends in public/private ownership in forest land and is creating new opportunities and needs for forestry extension. The case study from Armenia clearly shows that even when forest land is not 'privatized', changes in the agricultural sector may imply a new role for forestry extension especially in the areas of agroforestry and the conversion of marginal degraded or abandoned agricultural lands into forests. In this area extension options which include agricultural extension services should be explored.