anna lawrence

8/3/2019 Anna Lawrence

1/8

Forestry in transition: Imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romaniaand Poland

Anna Lawrence

Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Expertise

Forest governanceHistorical geographies

Institutional culture

Poland

Post-socialism

Romania

Sustainable forest management

Technical norms

Technocracy

Transition economies

The expertise of foresters has until recently been relatively uncontested in central and eastern European forest

management, but political, e conomic and social changes are now challenging that, and create opportunities for

understanding the relationship between expertise and context. Emphasisingboth the characteristics thatcentral

andeasternEuropean countries have in common,and ways inwhich theydiffer, thepaper outlines broad changes

in forestry policy and practice in the region. It then explores constructions of foresters' identity, role and

legitimacy, and the influence of context on their status as experts. The paper focuses on Romania and Poland,

drawing on extended interviews, field observation and documentary analysis. Because forestry is tied into

histories ofpowerand institutional cultureas well as science andpoliticalrationalisation,the evolution of forestry

knowledge offers insights for wider debates about expertise as a socially constructed alternative to lay

knowledge. Foresters acquire expertise, both as it is conferred upon them (by law and education), and through

their own authority (gained through experience, and the acting out of an emotional commitment to the forest).

Post-socialistforestry offersrich potential for extending our understanding of contingency and subjectivity within

the wider projects of empire and modernity.

Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Forestry is often described by social analysts as a process of

rationalisation and modernisation. According to Scott (1998), states

are driven by the need to control society (by making it legible), and

by an ideology that equates functional order and progress with real

order. As a feature of modernity, governments of allcolours have made

rational or scientific planning a central part of a larger hegemonic

project to rewritehistoryand to formulatenew groundrulesof how to

perceive reality (Brandtstadter, 2007, p. 131). Scott cites forestry as a

prime example of such a rationalising hegemony. Forest science

originated in central Europe (Oszlanyi et al., 2004), and through

training of imperial foresters in the forestry schools of Germany and

France, was propagated throughout their empires and by the British in

India, Africa, Australia and the far East (McManus, 1999; Vandergeest

and Peluso, 2006a,b, Westoby, 1989).

Nevertheless, recent critiques have countered this idea of empires

of forestry. Studies of professional cultures of forestry throughout

south-east Asia (Vandergeest and Peluso, 2006b) show that they are

dependent on networks of knowledge, practice and institutions

which are in turn dependent on local geography and ecology.

Post-socialist Europe is a particularly fertile field in which toexplore these trends in the evolution of professional forestry cultures.

In an area of rapid social, political and economic change since 1989,

social studies of transition in post-socialist Europe point out that

there is not one single process of transition. Each country negotiates

its own way (Brandtstadter, 2007; Burawoy and Verdery, 1999), and

each responds differently to environmental issues (Fischer et al.,

2007; Gorton et al., 2005).

Historically, countries in central and eastern Europe shared strong

cultural andeducationallinkswith western Europe. Many were part of

empires ruled by the countries initiating scientific forestry, under the

patronage particularly of Empress Maria Theresa (Austro-Hungarian

Empire) and Catherine the Great of Russia. A medieval feudal history

of forest protection for hunting was followed by an increasingly com-

mercial history of both timber trade and forest clearance for export

grain production (Brown,1885; Giurescu,1980 (1976); Szujecki, 2004;

Westoby, 1989). In each country early forest decrees and ordinances

encoded use rights and punishments for infringements, while later

laws asserted state control and required scientific forest manage-

ment based on the normal forest (Westoby, 1989).

Neverthelessdifferences withinforestryin the region arehighlighted

bytheinfluential Prussian forester, E.B.Fernow, whoemigrated to North

America and set up the Cornell Forestry School (Twight, 1990). In the

chapter on Austria in A brief history of forestry, he points to ecological

and political differences that affect the date of introduction of scientific

forestry, and the forest condition at that point. Forests in poorer and

remoter areas (e.g. Dalmatia) were devastated and more subject to

Forest Policy and Economics 11 (2009) 429436

Social and Economic Research Group, Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham,

Surrey, GU10 4LH, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1865 275880, +44 1420 526202; fax:

+44 1865 275850, +44 1420 520180.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].

1389-9341/$ see front matter. Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / f o r p o l
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.003http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13899341http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13899341http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.003mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/8

colonial extractivism, whereas those closerto seats of power were better

protectedearlier(forexample,theViennaWoods)(Fernow,1913). Areas

under other influenceshad to wait longer for scientific forestry: Bulgaria

for example had no forest policy until independence from the Ottoman

Empirein1878pavedthewayfortheforestlawof1883( Staddon, 2001).

So at the start of the communist period in central and eastern

Europe we see evidence for both Scott's hegemony and the diversity

and context-specificity highlighted by the historical geographies of

Vendergeest and Peluso (2006a,b). These contradictory infl

uencescontinued through the communist era, although with some variations.

A comprehensive analysis of forestry during the period is needed to

clarify some aspects of this. Despite eastwest exchange visits (e.g.

Kirby and Heap, 1984; Lund et al., 1982), much remained unknown of

forestry during this period (Westoby, 1989, p. 183).

The public image of forestry in post-socialist Europe is rather

negative, often assuming that the forests were destroyed along with

anything else environmental (Meidinger et al., 2006; Rametsteiner

and Kraxner, 2003). Nevertheless, many countries in post-socialist

Europe share a socialist legacy of strong technical forestry, long

rotations (based on a concept of technical maturity rather than

economic maturity), small clear cuts, and annual allowable cut

increasing in recent years but still below mean annual increment

(Dembner, 1994; Eikeland et al., 2004; Lazdinis et al., 2005). This was

often in a context of large forest reserves, where the public attached

little priority to environmental protection, (Brukas et al., 2001;

Eikeland et al., 2004; Meidinger et al., 2006).

This paper aims to explore the evolution of the forestry profession

in post-socialist Europe through the lens of expertise, a concept

which sits in the contested territory between scientific knowledge,

social construction, politics and values (Vogel and Lowham, 2007).

This approach has been applied very little to forestry. However studies

in ecology and diversity have demonstrated how context-specific the

concept of expertise is (Carolan, 2006; Eden et al., 2006). One study

highlights the fragility and fluidity of the boundaries around

expertise, and the significance of geographical context and connec-

tions in shaping itsconduct and content (Bell andSheail, 2005, p.497)

and concludes that the boundaries are imprecise between specialist

and lay knowledge and between scientific and public spaces (p. 509).This paper therefore explores the extent to which forestry can be

seen as a uniform body of expertise with precise boundaries, or is

diversified through historical and current contexts. Furthermore it

explores the extent to which the forestry profession can be seen as the

passive victim of circumstance, or contributes to shaping its own

evolution. The study is based on a comparison of the experiences and

evolving identities of foresters and forest policy-makers in Romania

and Poland: two countries with a strong history of both rural forest

dependency and scientific forestry, but with rather different experi-

ences during and after the communist era.

2. Methods

The approach is based on a case study methodology, which seeks tolocate the explanation for results in the context. The strength of case

study research, properly conducted, is that it allows the researcher to

develop hypotheses iteratively, both externally (i.e. through comparison

with another similar case, and through documentary analysis) and

internally (using qualitative methods such as the extended interview,

participant observation and reflexivity) (Maxwell, 2005; Yin, 2003). It

relies on multiple data sources, particularly the extended or ethno-

graphic interview. This seeks to understand the perspective of the inter-

viewee, inthe context of hisor herexperience, ratherthanto gatherhard,

objective facts; and more attention is paid to the range of respondents

than to a statistically representative sample (O'Reilly, 2004).

The Romanian case study is based on over 30 extended interviews

with foresters in offices and during visits to the forest, gained over

4 years during several research collaborations. The respondents were

deliberately selected to cover a range of geographical and institutional

contexts and experience from newly qualified to ministerial advisers,

and current and retired professors of silviculture. Thisfield experience

is complemented by access to documents written in Romanian for

Romanians, translated into English. The Polish case study draws on

nine extended interviews with foresters, biologists and policy

advisors, and on literature produced by the Polish State Forests, in

English and Polish.

This resulted in a large amount of textual and qualitativeinformation, which has been analysed by transcribing all interviews

and field notes, and categorising by theme to identify patterns and

differences (Kitchin and Tate, 2000, Yin, 2003). Each case study is

presented by describing the historical development of forestry

institutions (which include laws, ownership, and professional orga-

nisation) before weighing up the extent to which forestry is under-

stood as a body of expertise. In each case this is analysed as a tension

between historically conferred authority over the forests, the confu-

sions and disconnections created by transition since 1989, and new

models which foresters are negotiating for themselves in this more

diverse and unfamiliar territory. In the Discussion section the

experiences of the two countries are compared, to extend our under-

standing of historical geographies of forestry as hegemony or con-

tingency through the lens of expertise.

3. Romanian case study

3.1. Historical development of forestry

Forests are a very significant part of the landscape, culture and

economy in Romania, with more than 6000000 ha of forest land.

Among the recent EU member states, it is second only to Poland in

absolute forest area; but second lowest (after Hungary) proportion-

ally, as forestland constitutes only 27% of the total land area

(INDUFOR-OY and European Forest Institute, 2003).

The historic development of forest law in Romania is covered by

Constantin Giurescu, who waswriting during the Ceauescu era and the

only detailed source available to the non-Romanian speaker (Giurescu,

1980 (1976)). It is a complicated history to follow, because theborders ofRomania have changed frequently, with parts ruled at different times

from Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Giurescu describes the

evolution of (initially theoretical more than practical) forest laws, in

Moldavia and Wallachia (the eastern and southern regions of modern

Romania) and Hungarian-ruled Transylvania, over the period 17811793. The introduction of scientific forestry was justified in terms of

rationality and intergenerational fairness, but in reality was combined

with consolidation of state power. The new scientific management

introduced to Austrian-ruled Bucovina in 1786 allowed the state to take

over administration of all the Romanian Orthodox church forests, about

250000 ha. Similarly the forests of the imperial forest guards in

Transylvania's border regions had been awarded to the communes by

Empress Maria Theresa (of the Austro-Hungarian empire) and her son

Joseph II, and were managed by the communes until 1890, but theiralleged large-scale devastation became the pretext for state takeover

from that time.

As elsewherein Europe,we seea gradual move from laws enshrining

traditional use, to change of ownership rights, and removal of decision-

making authority to a state appointed body of foresters. Following thefirst Forest Codeof 1881, a state forest service wasestablished (Turnock,

1988). Subsequent codes(1910,1920) tightened the rational regime, but

still allowed flexibility according to ownership and geographical

location (Giurgiu, 2000). Forestry schools established since 1859 were

staffed with French specialists (Turnock, 1988). The idea of nationalisa-

tion of the forests was first proposed in 1919 by the Peasant Party, and

eventually took place under the new Romanian Constitution of 13 April

1948. Forestarea continuedto decrease (Turnock,1988)andthiswasthe

justification for the stronger control brought in under the 1976 National

430 A. Lawrence / Forest Policy and Economics 11 (2009) 429436


3/8

Programme for the Conservation and Development of the Forest Area,

when the principle of sustained yield was restated in its strongest form.

3.2. Post-1989 changes in forest institutions

Recent organisational change in Romanian forestry has brought

about a clear separation of functions between policy, monitoring and

commercial activities. All are under the supervision of the Minister for

Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The National Forest Administration(NFA), formed in 1996 is entirely state-owned and financially

autonomous, with an essentially commercial mandate. It is respon-

sible for forest administration in state-owned forests, and for

functions such as marking trees in private forests to allow owners to

acquire harvesting permits. However since 2002 forest administrative

services can also be supplied by private forest districts (PFDs) which

are in effect competing with each other and with the NFA for forest

owners' business.

Forest ownership has also been profoundly affected by the political

changes. Restitution1 has followed three stages, based on laws passed

in 1991, 2000 and 2005, which have progressively authorised the

return of large areas to a wider range of former owners. State

ownership of forests is moving from 100% (in 1989) towards 30%. The

private forest estate is highly fragmented, with an average holding of

0.9 ha (INDUFOR-OY and European Forest Institute, 2003).

These changes in organisation and assets represent a long, arduous

process of paperwork and adversarial relations with aspiring forest

owners. Foresters have had to adjust to frequent new laws, confusion

about how to deal with conflicting pieces of legislation, loss of land

base and purpose, change in status and public respect (Lawrence and

Szabo, 2005). With the latest round of restitution, the state will lose

half of its current forest estates and the remainder will be

predominantly protection forest, managed at a net cost to the agency.

Redundancies are inevitable and re-employment in a private forest

district requires new abilities and connections.

Throughout these upheavalshowever there has beenone constant:

the silvicultural regime. The phrase refers to the system of technical,

economic and legal regulations issued by the Central Public Authority

(Dumitriu et al., 2003). It consists of technical norms applied to aboutfifty forest types categorised by function. The general management

plan is renewed every 10 years. The annual allowable cut is based on

the classic rational approach which aims to maximize the forest in-

crement, taking into account rotation length, average species com-

position, forest structure according to site indices, and the existing

distributionof ageclasses. It is described as a conservative policy with

an environmental dimension (Dumitriu et al., 2003), reflecting those

longer rotationlengths typical of thesocialist system(Meidinger et al.,

2006).

Annual quotas for harvesting are approved centrally by Parliament,

and are based on the national mean annual increment. Applications by

individual forest districts are made to harvest within the annual

allowable cut indicatedin the management plan, but the approved cut

may be much lower, based on a central decision based on the nationalpicture, not the local one. This can be experienced by the operational

forester as a serious constraint to his or her autonomy and expertise,

as discussed below.

3.3. What makes the Romanian forester an expert?

The Romanian forester is accorded the status of expert by law,

education and culture. All designated forest land must be managed by

a qualified forester. Romanian foresters demonstrate a strong sense of

identity and belonging, reinforced by a rigorous classical forestry

education characterised by much theory but little practice, ecology or

social content. During visits to the forest, it is always striking how

Romanianforesters keep up a professional discourse. Patiently dealing

with social researchers' questions on foresters' beliefs, organisation,

politics and education, they revert more comfortably to discussions

about how to deal with over-aged stands, and improving the genetic

purity of their seed source.

This shared education and culture means that

We are all the same, we are all from the same family. [former NFACounty Director, now academic, interviewed March 2007].

However new tensions between state and private foresters are

emerging. This is symbolised for example by the question of uniforms.

Some private forest districts opt to keep a uniform, but others do not.

In the eyes of some, a lack of uniform conflicts with the identity of a

forester:

they are foresters, why wouldn't they wear uniforms? [private

district chief, interviewed in August 2005].

Expertise then is embedded in the law, inprofessional insignia and

tools, as well as understanding of and shared respect for the

silvicultural code. All of these can be acquired or transferred. Thereis however another striking dimension of forestry expertise: the

personal commitment and dedication to the forest, often based on an

emotional connection with the forest. For example, Giurescu (p. 93)

explains that It was love for forests and interest in them that induced

the setting up of dendrological parks and botanical gardens.

3.4. What undermines the expertise of the Romanian forester?

Despite their technical expertise, foresters areno longer held in the

high esteem of the past. In the public eye, they are responsible for

much of the illegal logging that characterised the 1990s. They are the

adversary in restitution lawsuits: too many people have experiences

of taking theNFA to court to trust them with their forest management.

Most foresters arestillstateforesters,and thestate, in thepublic mind,

is associated with communism. For many of the older generation, the

communist era was a simpler time when the state took decisions on

behalf of citizens, and employment and pensions were reliable.

Nevertheless many have memories of violence by foresters, or simply

the shock of waking up that morning in April 1948 to find that their

forests had been possessed by the state (Lawrence and Guran, 2006).

The balance of media reports refers to foresters in negative terms.

NGOs describe the NFA in terms such as very chaotic and corrupted

(Banaduc et al., 2002). Foresters acknowledge that some Romanian

foresters have been involved in illegal logging, but they always claim

this occurs somewhere else: if you are in Suceava, it occurs in Borsa; if

you are in Borsa, it occurs in Vrncioaia. This type of discussion begins

to reveal cracks in the image that we are one family. The idea of

Romania overlays profound cultural differences within the country

and the following remark is one of many similar:

There is no illegal logging here we are more civilised, more

western than in Moldova. [district forester in Oradea, bordering

Hungary, interviewed March 2007].

On the other hand, foresters (especially state foresters) have

themselves experienced shocks, insecurity and threats to their

identity (Lawrence and Szabo, 2005). A senior official in the NFA

introduced himself to me as I'm a foresterbut I work in an office and

added that he was not a happy man. Foresters feel they have been

maligned by politicians keen to gain maximum advantage from

restitution. One commented how he had seen abuse shouted at a

uniformed forester on a train, a shocking incident that in his view

would not have occurred 10 years earlier.

1 Aformofre-privatisation of foreststhat wereformerlynationalisedunder communist

rule; the processusually aims to return forests to former private or community owners, or

their descendants and heirs.

431A. Lawrence / Forest Policy and Economics 11 (2009) 429436
http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/8

A further threat to the status and integrity of forestry lies in the

politicisation of forest administration,a consequence of both restitution

and the move to multi-party politics. A significant area of forests has

been restituted to town councils, and in these cases the district forest

office is subject to the caprices of the mayor. A frequent type of remark

from mid-career or senior foresters is, it's not science it's politics; or

forestry is not doing forestry any more.

Finally,the silvicultural regimeitself, despite being the touchstone of

forestry culture in Romania, is a limitation to the expertise of foresters:We are over-regulated; this comes from an inability to enforce ex-

isting regulation. People think we need more laws but that makes it

more difficult for them to be implemented. [former NFA forester,

now international consultant, interviewed September 2006].

In the next section I explore how this silvicultural regime acts as a

framework for both limitation and negotiation of expertise.

3.5. Negotiating new expertise

Forest regulation in Romania is experienced as part of the com-

munist way of thinking. This is a very common expression in Romania

and can be applied to a wide range of behaviour, with the implication

that it is problematic. Hence one silvicultural professor who comparedthe current technical norms to the old communist culture indicated

something that, in his view, needed to change. He fundamentally

approved of the existence of norms, but believed that they are not

correctly formulated, nor applied in an intelligently flexible way. The

rigidity undermines the initiative and individual authority of the for-

ester. Another commented:

There is a very big suspicion of foresters. This is also linked to self

esteem. In Bulgaria, if you are assessing the need for new felling

the forester goes to the forest and assesses it based on his ex-

perience of the state of the forest and regeneration. Here you have

to prove everything with figures. [former NFA forester, now in-

terviewed September 2006].

However a new attitude to the former hegemony of forest scienceis emerging. The rightness of the technical norms is being challenged

in numerous ways by foresters who can be described as negotiating

their way through the new Romania. In other words, they are no

longer obedient members of a hierarchy, uncritically implementing

the silvicultural regime. The norms can be manipulated. At one

uncomfortable end of the spectrum, there are cases scattered across

Romania where forest was felled shortly before it was restituted; the

state district forest had simply shifted its priorities from one mature

stand to another, and thenew owners acquired land without forest. As

one forester commented It's legal but it's not moral. Even where

foresters want to be both, thenew structures of ownership make strict

adherence to the silvicultural regime difficult. The average parcel size

of privately owned forest is 0.9 ha (INDUFOR-OY and European Forest

Institute, 2003), and even some of the larger parcels, such as churchforests, may be only 30 ha and cannot be managed in rotation. New

politics present a different challenge: much of the forest has been

restituted to municipal governments, where private foresters are

employed by mayors motivated either by quick personal profit or

benefits to the electorate within the four-year electoral cycle.

Forestry has become a competitive profession. Within the criteria

for setting up a PFD, which include a minimum forest area and the

organisation of the forest owners, the new forest owners can choose

who will manage their forests, and who will therefore receive

payment. Whilst on the one hand this contributes to the politicisation

mentioned above, and significant numbers of foresters who are

dependent on maintaining the favour of the local mayor (a situation

which nurtures benefit capture), others are succeeding in the new

climate because they develop innovative ways of dealing with the

context. They might (and often do) complain that this is not forestry;

in thecontext of globalchanges in forestryothers might argue that it is

indeed the reality of 21st century forestry.

An example illustrates this. A highly-motivated chief of a private

district is managing several thousand hectares of municipal forest in a

town hosting oneof thelargest Roma (gypsy) populations in Romania.

He had established the new PFD only eight months previously, after a

chaotic period in which, it was reported, 28000 m3 of timber had been

illegally cut from the forest. Almost everyone blamed the Romapopulation, although a few pointed out that during the interregnum

between state and private ownership, there were opportunities for

foresters to get involved as well. The Roma in this case have no tra-

ditional systems of social organisation, having migrated to this area

since the 1960s for work, and consisting of diverse castes and lineages.

Consequently the current situation is disastrous, both ecologically and

socially, with widespread and chaotic cutting evident on all the slopes

around the town, tensions between the ethnic groups high, reports of

violence against foresters, and marginalisation of the Roma popula-

tion from decision-making.

The PFD chief has taken two approaches, one within the bounds of

traditional forestry, one broaching new territory. He made clear his

objections to the role:

If you want to solve the problem you need to look at the roots their poverty, values, situation in society. It's a social problem that

needs to be solved by the city council I am here to make a profit

and pay the surplus to the city hall [private district chief,

interviewed March 2007].

Nevertheless, he has used his expertise to work with the norms,

and developed new social negotiation skills.

First,he hasused thetechnical norms to address theproblem.Within

six months of starting he had commissioned and submitted a new

inventory to the Ministry, to revise the management plan taking into

account the loss of 28000 m3; and moved the harvesting priorities to

compartments close to the town, without increasing the annual

allowable cut. Harvesting has thereby become highly visible, incurring

criticism and worries from the community members, but his strategyaims to retain standing volume in more remote compartments.

Second, he has developed an approach to conflict resolution,

meeting in their homes with the unofficial heads of the gypsy

community; contracting them to work for the harvesting companies;

and giving them subsidised firewood. Whilst long-term results remain

to be seen, this direct approach to overcoming earlier polarisation has

at least two immediate effects: illegal harvesting has declined from

850 m3/month (2004) to 230 m3 / month (late 2006); and Roma

labourers interviewed in the forest indicated a new sense of owner-

ship, in criticising others for cutting illegally.

4. Poland case study

4.1. Historical development of forestry

The forests of Poland are the single largest forest estate of the new

EU member states. Forests cover 8.6 million ha, almost 28% of Poland,

dominated by coniferous stands of mainly Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)

(Marghescu, 1997). It has not always been that way: the continuous

decline of forest cover to 1919 resulted in a low point of 19% forest

cover, from which Poland has recovered through a strong state forest

department, and extensive plantation often with coniferous species

not native to that location.

There are many parallels with the development of scientific forestry

in Romania. The first forest laws enshrined custom and tenure rights in

the mid 14th century, followed in later centuries by continuous orga-

nizational improvement, forest workforce, economic rules (Szu-

jecki, 2004, p. 24). Timberexportsin themid 16thcentury werefollowed



5/8

by a rise in grain exports which as in Romania encouraged further

deforestation. Forest cover fell from 43% in the 18th century to 19% in

1919, leading to the establishment of the Polish State Forests (PSF) in

1924, followed by a further decree in 1927 covering private forests.

However Poland's forest history during and since communism

differs in some respects from that of Romania. In particular, while

large and medium-sized private forest estates (thoseover 25 ha)were

nationalized after World War II, smaller areas remained in private

ownership (Marghescu, 1997).

4.2. Post-1989 changes in forest institutions

ThePSF manages 80%of Poland's forests (Siry andNewman,2001).

In contrast to Romania, no forest restitution has taken place in Poland.

The government justified this on the grounds that social and

environmental welfare functions of the forests would be endangered,

and that the public's free access to forest land had to be secured

(INDUFOR-OY and European Forest Institute, 2003). This was later

supported by a public referendum where 80% voted for state forests to

remain in state ownership.

The new Forest Act of 1991 brought in significant changes, making

each forest district financially independent, and allowing for smaller

districts, privatisation of operations and reduced employment. Unlike

Romania, the districts have been given some flexibility in setting

annual allowable cut. Academic analysis of these changes barely

exists. One paper published in 2001, but submitted in 1999 and

therefore based on data collected even earlier, is critical of the reforms

on the basis that timber production efficiency is below the economic

optimum, and that insufficient data exists to evaluate management

decisions (Siry and Newman, 2001). However this is to miss the

significance of the Act's new emphasis on sustainability, placing

ecology on a par with production:

The main purpose was timber, timber, timber. Now it is sustain-

able management to keep forests going, to increase and protect

it and to produce timber. And genetic purity is also a focus

before that was not important, neither species nor [seed] source.

[Provincial forest director, interviewed November 2005].

4.3. What makes the Polish forester an expert?

The Polish forestry department has a hierarchical, army-like image

similar tothatof the RomanianNFA, but has held onto its power much

more than hasits Romaniancounterpart. Respondentsin Poland made

unsolicited remarks about the power of foresters, who have recently

been voted the most trusted public servants (T. Juszczak, pers.

comm.). A remark typical of several respondents is:

We understand a forest as a common property, above private

ownership. Foresters understand themselves as custodians of the

national heritage, forests have to last. State ownership is good

because the state can wait. It's like the best capitalists we canwait for accumulation of wealth. [Provincial forest director, inter-

viewed November 2005].

In many ways the position of foresters in society is secure. Pay has

improved, and new reward systems bring premiums linked to forest

income.

Foresters can end up earning three to four times the average salary;

that really makes you something. [Provincial director, interviewed

November 2005].

Consequently there is perhaps less need to insist on their technical

expertise; discourse is less about the sacred silvicultural regime and

more about the value of the forests to the nation.

4.4. What undermines the expertise of the Polish forester?

However there are threats to the forester's status as expert in

Poland. One is the polarised and highly public conflict with the

biologists who seek national park status for Bialowieza ( Blascavunas,

in preparation; Franklin, 2002; Wesolowski, 2005), in which foresters

have often been portrayed as representing the interests of local

communities (Franklin, 2002). A young forester expressed the various

tensions in his career choice:Of course they [local people] trust the foresters, they are native.

The scientists are foreigners [i.e. not from Bialowieza]. But [as a

forester] I had to join the National Parks service; it was either that

or exploiting the forest that I love. [Guide, Bialowieza Strictly

Protected Area, interviewed November 2005].

This is a widely studied debate which rests on wider issues of

environmental politics and social construction of nature. More

specific to forestry, and less studied, is the centrality of technical

expertise. Foresters perceive this as threatened, not by the public as

in Romania, but in the intervention of foreign foresters, and

environmental NGOs, that has accompanied the forest certification

process. Poland was ahead of the game in achieving certification for

all state forests, but it was a process that incurred some injuredprofessional pride of foresters and resistance to the appearance of

non-forestry professionals in forest decision-making (Paschalis-

Jakubowicz 2006, p. 256).

These comments reflect genuine pride in their forests, and con-

fidence in the rightness of their knowledge. But there are new chal-

lenges to the rightness of their knowledge. In this context, a defensive

note creeps in:

the volume of harvested timber is independent of certification,

just as it is immune (to a considerable degree) to the rise or

decline of market demand for wood, because these volumes are

dictated by the state and the needs of the forests themselves.

(Paschalis-Jakubowicz, 2006, p. 255).

The desire to protect careers and status can be read into the public

relations approach of the State Forest Administration. A booklet

published just before the time of the referendum is entitled In Good

Hands and explains the merits of state ownership and management

(Trzaskowski, 1999). A glossy large-format book of beautiful photos of

the Polish forests produced in celebration of 80 years of the State

Forests begins with a preface from the Director General of State

Forests:

the forest unleashes different emotions in every person.

Speaking about emotions probably none of us is indifferent to its

beauty, greatness and majesty. Both the scientist, who can name

every plant and animal, the child, or the tourist are seduced by the

charm of the forest. Forgenerations themission of Polishforesters

has been to preserve and enlarge this national wealth. The model ofPolish forestry exceptional in Europe as a self-financing non-

profit organisationis a good response to thesesocialneeds. [Darzbr,

Director General of Forests, in Szujecki, p. 5; added emphasis].

There is nothing comparable to such confident PR overtures in

Romania where only the protected areas are promoted through glossy

books. The appearance of emotions in official statements about

forestry is a radical departure from the scientific intentions of

Empress Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great, and complicates

intriguingly the idea of forestry as objective science.

The concern to maintain control of the forests is nevertheless quite

clear. The book goes on to advocate that we recognize the great

importance of the forest inspectors and forestry services who strive

for the welfare of the woods as well as for the benefit of us all. The



6/8

forestry professor writing about certification asserts the unique right-

ness of forestry:

theimportance of theproblem [i.e. sustainable management of forests]

can only be seen from the perspective of forestry, and not from a single

sector of the timber industry, since it represents the long-term actual

interests and aspirations of the citizens of our country. This is because

forestry acknowledges and understands the diverse and irreplaceable

role forests play in our lives. (Paschalis-Jakubowicz, 2006, p. 256).

These (politically motivated) emotional and moral claims bring a

new angle to the fragility and fluidity of the boundaries around

expertise highlighted by Bell and Sheail (2005).

5. Discussion

Echoing Bell and Sheail (2005) and Rajan (2006) in their work on

ecology and conservation, this study indicates the richness of

historical geographies of forestry for those wanting to understand

the relationsbetween humans and nature, mediated by power, culture

and the desire for human meaning. In both Romania and Poland we

cansee both thecommon origins and continuitiesof scientific forestry

highlighted by McManus (1999) and the local diversifications

indicated by Vandergeest and Peluso (2006a). Culture, power, and

institutional change have drawn a range of reactions from foresters.

These traits have not been examined before in post-socialist forestry.

While this is a fertile field for much more research, in the remaining

space I draw attention to three aspects in particular that result from

this fragile blend of culture, politics and claims of scientific expertise.

5.1. Historical commonalities, current contexts

Romanian and Polish foresters have much in common. The profes-

sional culture and pride is evident in attachment to uniform, the size of

the public forest estate, and the history of social prestige. Foresters in

both countries demonstrated a highly modernist belief in the objectivity

of scientific knowledge: unchanging technical norms, the claim that

forestry is based on the needs of the forest. These traits reinforce theidea of thecommon origins of forestryculture in theeconomicambitions

of eighteenth century European rulers, underpinned by a paradigm shift

to quantification and rationalisation (Lowood, 2002; Scott,1998).

In both countries, respondents described the Forest Department as a

state within a state and the second army. In their hierarchical

command and control approach foresters provoke memories of

communist styles of centralised administration; but at the same time

they see their roots as pre-communist, with more historical authority

(Blascavunas, in preparation). In Poland, respondents emphasised that

foresters were often not members of the communist party. By contrast,

in Romania the opportunity to form PFDs provides a different channel

for dissociating oneself from recent history. The forester in Romania has

had to negotiate a more politically reactive and volatile context, a strong

public and political inclination to private economic power, and politicalmanipulation of public and bureaucratic priorities and trust, with new

skills and understanding of this context. By contrast in Polish forestry

there is much less demand for new social, political and business skills

than in Romanian forestry, leaving perhaps more energy available for

reinforcing their self-confidence and public status. Nevertheless inter-

national processes and a more ecological and pluralistic basis for forest

policy have been experienced as challenges to their expertise.

These differences between Romania and Poland have long

historical roots, which space does not allow us to explore here. A

few pointers are important however. Poland had a better experience

of communism than did Romania; in that the power of the Roman

Catholic church, and strong national identity, allowed more belief in

alternatives than under the tyranny of Ceauescu's government in

Romania (Davies, 2001). A vote against restitution would be unima-

ginable in Romania, where the speed and completeness of state forest

appropriation in 1948, combined with memories of injustice (Lawr-

ence and Guran, 2006), add to the potent symbolic value of forest

ownership. Furthermore, a very high proportion of the Polish

population moved or was moved from its birthplace during or after

World War 2. Poland gained territory to the west, from where ethnic

Germans emigrated; and lost territory to Ukraine and Belarus to the

east, from where ethnicPoleswere resettled, often on the other side of

the country. Many rural Poles now lack ancestral connections with theland that they farm, whereas rural Romanians can cite generations of

ancestors farming and accessing the same forest. Furthermore Poland

under thesocialist regime was more industrialised, andsince1989 has

been less poor and less rural-based, than Romania. Many aretherefore

content for the forest to be managed by the state, as long as they have

access to the culturally important recreational collection of fruit and

mushrooms.

5.2. Forestry as expertise

Because forestry is tied in to histories of power and institutional

culture as well as science and political rationalisation, the evolution of

forestry knowledge offers insights for wider debates about expertise as

a socially constructed alternative to lay knowledge. Here we cansee that

forestersacquireexpertise,both as it is conferredupon them (bylaw and

education), and through their own authority (gained through experi-

ence, and the acting out of an emotional commitment to the forest).

The influence of emotions over science, and the context-specific

negotiation of forest management, makes it difficult to defend the

dichotomy between science and lay knowledge. This polarisation has of

course been critiqued on numerous occasions, but usually because it

implies that lay knowledgeis leftout of environmental decision-making,

to the detriment of the decisions taken (Harrison et al., 1998; Johnston

and Soulsby, 2006). An alternative critique is that the degree to which

knowledge becomes expertise, depends on scale and context (Bell and

Sheail, 2005; Lowe and Murdoch, 2003). The emphasis of Collins and

Evans' (2002) paper on the relations between expertise and experience

provides insights here, particularly in the Romanian case. The relevance

of (and insistence on) individual experience of the forest as being moreimportant than the technical norms, supports the theories of this latter

group. Furthermore, foresters in Romania demonstrate that their ability

to hold their position and legitimacy, lies not only in his or her tech-

nical knowledge and membership of a professional culture, but also in

his / her knowledge of (and ability to work with) thesocial and political

context.

So foresters acquire expertise through technical knowledge,

knowledge of the context, and experience. A second point emerges

from this studyof foresters' realities. Forestry has often been, formally,

the agency of the state. But forestry has acquired its own cultural

identity, an extremely strong identity in both the countries studied

here, and more widely (Rajan, 2006; Vandergeest and Peluso, 2006b).

Rajan points to the separation of science and the state bureaucracy,

and this is evident in post-socialist forestries too. Whilst theseparation is explicit in Romania, wherepartof the forestry profession

has been privatised, in both countries this binding culture is

emphasised by the continuity of forestry, the links back to the origins

of scientific forestry, and the common thread running through the

profession amongst different countries. In the contexts of sudden

political, economic and social change, a neoliberal democracy is not

necessarily the best friend of the forests. In a country where long and

weary experience of centralised decision-making causes people to

perceive forest regulation as a communist law, there is something to

be said for the authority carried by forestry.

Forestry in Romania and Poland has survived both the political

changes of 1945 and those of 1989, changes described by ethnogra-

phers of transition as two modernising revolutions, each using the

concept of rationality to support opposite ideologies (Brandtstadter,



7/8

2007). Forestry, itself a rationalising project, fitted the agendas of

both; but we must consider the possibility that the cultural strengths

of forestry, and an underlying connection to nature, have contributed

legitimacy and continuity as well.

5.3. Negotiating post-socialism

We see that in both Romania and Poland, foresters are adapting, and

in ways specifi

c to context. Such a conclusion might not be astonishing,but there is a wider significance. As mentioned in the Introduction, a

range of socialdisciplines havecriticised the prevalence of deterministic

models of transition, which suppose that the path from communism to

capitalism is a straight and uniformly desirable one. Instead, institu-

tional economics draws on the concept of path dependency to point out

thattransition is contingent on historical precedents (North, 1990); and

anthropologists have used the language of negotiation to draw

attention to the active engagement of actors with their future, in

contexts distinguished by both underlying cultural differences, and

arbitrary or accidental influences(Burawoyand Verdery,1999). Forestry

is one microcosm of such changes and highlights the need to recognise

the relationship between institutional change and historical, social and

biogeographical context. Each country in transition from communism

offers one or more such contexts.

There is more diversity to explore in these divergent forestries.

New differences in forest management among former Soviet republics

after thebreak-upof theUSSR have been noted(Carlsson and Lazdinis,

2004). Even among states with similar recent histories, such as the

Baltic States, a more detailed look reveals national peculiarities in

policy instruments (Lazdinis et al., 2005). In fact overviews of forest

policy demonstrate many detailed differences in central and eastern

Europe (INDUFOR-OY and European Forest Institute, 2003; Meidinger

et al., 2006) which would merit exploration of the cultural histories

and current transformations occurring in these diverse contexts.

6. Conclusions

This paper takes a grounded approach to understanding the rela-

tions between forestry science, expertise, culture and practice. Thepicture that emerges is one that combines both a socially constructed

and context-specific notion of expertise, with personal negotiation or

reinvention of the role. Over centuries, foresters have built power

structures and established confidence in their knowledge. That power

and knowledge is now being challenged both from outside and from

within the forestry profession. The result is a divergence between the

professional knowledge of different foresters, and individual negotia-

tion of new knowledge where the political or social context demands

it. While expertise can still be claimed, it is a diverse and more per-

sonal expertise in the Romanian context.

Post-socialist forestry is a field rich with potential to cast light on

historical geographies of knowledge, and the cultural construction of

expertise. The role of the forester as expert is particularly sharply

defined in central and eastern Europe, and the high cultural profile(even nationalist significance) of the forests has pushed this role into

the political limelight. In the adherence to the central quantitative

notions of forestry, the experience of both Romania and Poland

indicates that the profession has both a transnational and historical

authority, reinforced by strong internal cultures. But we see

differences emerging both between and (in the Romanian case)

within countries, which will provide future material to address the

question is there only one forest science?

While all of this supports Bell and Sheail's idea of the fragility andfluidityof theboundaries around expertise, whatwe see atthispointin

history is still based on authority conferred by law and education, a

turning outwards to defend expertise; accompanied by (in the more

individualised Romanian cases) the need to negotiate expertisebasedon

personality, relationships and outcomes. Many actors in post-socialist

forest management aredeeply concerned about the fate of the forests in

a consumer-driven economy, so this authority serves as interim

protection as political frameworks shaped by half a century of

centralised decision-making, meet deep hostility to regulation, and

the influence of international agendas. Its interim nature however

makes it all themore vital to explore that hidden, inner side of expertise,

based on commitment, personal connection with the forest, and

innovation and to bring these changes to the fore in exploring the

future of forest governance under such uncertainty of political change.

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted while the author held a fellowship at the

Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford. The foresters of

Romania and Poland met my curiosity with enthusiasm and

hospitality, and I thank them for sharing their insights and friendship.

I am grateful to Alina Szabo for assistance in Romania, and to Pernille

Schiellerup, David Turnock and an anonymous reviewer for helpful

comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Banaduc, A., Banaduc, D., Feiler, J., Lelmen, A., Malbasic, I., Mititean, R., Petruta, M., 2002.

Comments on the Romanian Forestry Development Program. (Loan no. RO-P067367,World Bank), p. 15.Bell, M., Sheail, J., 2005. Experts, publics and the environment in the UK: twentieth-

century translations. Journal of Historical Geography 31, 496512.Blascavunas, E., in preparation. Ecological Gaps: The Peasant and Communist Past in

Polish National Parks.Brandtstadter, S., 2007. Transitional spaces: Postsocialism as a culturalprocess:introduction.

Critique of Anthropology 27, 131145.Brown, J.C., 1885. Forests and forestry in Poland, Lithuania, the Ukraine, and the Baltic

provinces of Russia, with notices of the export of timber from Memel, Dantzig, andRiga. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

Brukas, V., Jellesmark Thorsen, B., Helles, F., Tarp, P., 2001. Discount rate and harvestpolicy: implications for Baltic forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 2, 143 156.

Burawoy, M., Verdery, K. (Eds.), 1999. UncertainTransition: Ethnographies of Change inthe Postsocialist World. Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford.

Carlsson, L., Lazdinis, M., 2004. Institutional frameworks for sustainability? A comparativeanalysis of the forest sectors of Russia and the Baltic States. Ambio 33, 366370.

Carolan, M., 2006. Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-makingprocess. Society & Natural Resources 19, 661668.

Collins, H., Evans, R., 2002. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise andexperience. Social Studies of Science 32, 235296.

Davies, N., 2001. Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland's Present, 2nd edition. OxfordPaperbacks, Oxford.

Dembner, S.A., 1994. Forestry in Countries with Economies in Transition. Unasylva 179.Dumitriu,G., Pirnuta, G.,Biris, O.,GheorgheFlorian,B., 2003. Thesounduse of wood and

other resources in Romania. Seminar on Strategies for the Sound Use of Wood,Poiana Brasov, Romania, 2003, p. 11.

Eden, S., Donaldson, A., Walker, G., 2006. Green groups and grey areas: scientificboundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge.Environment and Planning A 38, 10611076.

Eikeland, S., Eythorsson, E., Ivanova, L., 2004. From management to mediation: localforestry management and the forestry crisis in post-socialist Russia. EnvironmentalManagement 33, 285293.

Fernow, B.E., 1913. A Brief History of Forestry in Europe, the United States and OtherCountries Toronto. University Press, Canada.

Fischer, A.,Petersen, L.,Feldkotter,C., Huppert,W.,2007. Sustainablegovernanceof naturalresources and institutional change an analytical framework. Public Administrationand Development 27, 123137.

Franklin, S., 2002. Bialowieza Forest, Poland: representation, myth, and the politics ofdispossession. Environment and Planning A 34, 14591485.

Giurescu, C.C. 1980 (1976). Istoria pdurii romneti din cele mai vechi timpuri pnaastzi [A history of the Romanian forest], 2nd edn, trans. Eugenia Farca. Bucharest:Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia.

Giurgiu, V., 2000. Evolutia structurii padurilor Romaniei dupa natura proprietatii framantari actuale si invataminte pentru viitor. [The evolution of the Romanianforest structure by property type: current challenges and lessons for the future].Revista Padurilor 115, 112.

Gorton,M., Lowe, P., Zellei, A.,2005. Pre-accessionEuropeanisation: Thestrategicrealignmentof the environmental policy systems of Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia towardsagricultural pollution in preparation for EU membership. Sociologia Ruralis 45, 202+.

Harrison, C.M., Burgess, J., Clark, J., 1998. Discounted knowledges: farmers' and residents'understandings of nature conservation goals and practices. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 54, 305320.

INDUFOR-OY, andEuropeanForestInstitute,2003. Forestryin AccessionCountries. INDUFOROY.

Johnston, E.,Soulsby,C., 2006.The roleof sciencein environmental policy:an examination

of the local context. Land Use Policy 23, 161169.



8/8

Kirby, K.J., Heap, J.R., 1984. Forestry and nature conservation in Romania. QuarterlyJournal of Forestry 78, 145155.

Kitchin,R., Tate,N., 2000.Conductingresearchin human geography theory, methodologyand practice. Person Education Ltd, Harlow, UK.

Lawrence, A., Guran, L., 2006. Workshop on Social Effects of Forest Restitution inRomania and Other Transition Countries Summary and Recommendations.

Lawrence, A.,Szabo, A., 2005.Ethicsand culturein theforestryprofession:emergentchangesin Romania (Special Issue: European Forests and Beyond an Ethical Discourse). SilvaCarelica 49, 303314.

Lazdinis, M., Carver, A., Tonisson, K., Silamikele, I., 2005. Innovative use of forest policyinstruments in countries with economies in transition: experience of the Baltic

States. Forest Policy and Economics 7, 527537.Lowe, P., Murdoch, J., 2003. Mediating the national andthe local in the environmentalpolicy process: a case study of the CPRE. Environment and Planning C-Governmentand Policy 21, 761778.

Lowood, H., 2002. Scientific forestry management in Germany. In: Oster, M. (Ed.), Sciencein Europe,1500 to 1800: A Secondary Source Reader. Macmillan, Houndmills, UK,pp. 254261.

Lund, H.G., Allison, R.P., Honing, F.W., 1982. Cooperation with Poland on research inremote sensing. Journal of Forestry 80, 369370.

Marghescu, T., 1997. Poland. In: FAO (Ed.), Issues and Opportunities in the Evolution ofPrivate Forestry and Forestry Extension in Several Countries with Economies inTransition in Central and Eastern Europe. FAO, Rome.

Maxwell, J.A., 2005. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd edition.Sage, London.

McManus, P.,1999.Histories of forestry:ideas, networks and silences. Environment andHistory 5, 185208.

Meidinger, E., Brukas, V., Bouttoud, G., Tysiachniouk, M., Ahas, R., Actins, A., Hain, H.,Paschalis-Jakubowicz, P., Kore, M., Mardiste, P., 2006. Forest certification in EasternEurope and Russia. Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in Developing

and Transitioning Countries. Yale school of Forestry and Environmental studies.North,D.C., 1990. Institutions, institutional changeand economicperformance.Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.O'Reilly, K., 2004. Ethnographic Methods. Routledge, London.Oszlanyi, J.,Grodzinska, K.,Badea,O., Shparyk,Y.,2004. Natureconservationin Centraland

Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on theCarpathianMountains.EnvironmentalPollution 130, 127134.

Paschalis-Jakubowicz, P., 2006. Forest certification in Poland. In: Cashore, B. (Ed.), Con-fronting Sustainability:Forest Certification in Developing and TransitioningCountries.Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Rajan, S.R., 2006. Modernizing Nature: Forestry and Imperial Eco-development 18001950. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rametsteiner, E., Kraxner, F., 2003. Europeans and their forests: what do Europeansthink about forests and sustainable forest management? A Review of Representa-tive Public Opinion Surveys in Europe. available at http://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdf.

Scott, J.C., 1998.Seeing Likea State.The Yale ISPSSeries.YaleUniversityPress, NewHaven,USA.

Siry, J.P., Newman, D.H., 2001. A stochastic production frontier analysis of Polish StateForests. Forest Science 47, 526533.Staddon, C., 2001. Local forest-dependence in postcommunist Bulgaria: a case study.

GeoJournal 55, 517528.Szujecki, A., 2004. Las Wsplne Dziedzictwo 19242004 [Forest our common

heritage 19242004] Trans. Katarzyna Tomkiewicz. MULTICO, Warsaw.Trzaskowski, S., 1999. The Forest in Good Hands. General Directorate of the State Forests.Turnock, D., 1988. Woodland conservation: the emergence of rational land use policies

in Romania. GeoJournal 17, 413433.Twight,B.W.,1990.Bernhard Fernowand PrussianForestry in America. Journalof Forestry

88, 2125.Vandergeest, P., Peluso, N.L., 2006a. Empires of forestry: professional forestry and state

power in Southeast Asia, Part 1. Environment and History 12, 31 64.Vandergeest, P., Peluso, N.L., 2006b. Empires of forestry: professional forestry and state

power in Southeast Asia, part 2. Environment and History 12, 359 393.Vogel, J., Lowham, E., 2007. Building consensus for constructive action: a study of

perspectives on natural resource management. Journal of Forestry 105, 2026.Wesolowski, T., 2005. Virtual conservation: how the European Union is turning a blind

eye to its vanishing primeval forests. Conservation Biology 19, 13491358.

Westoby, J., 1989. Introduction to World Forestry. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edition. Sage, London.

http://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdfhttp://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdfhttp://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdfhttp://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdfhttp://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdf

anna lawrence

Documents