ARBIR .UNIVERSITATEA ,,Ştefan cel Mare SUCEAVA

FACULTATEA DE SILVICULTURĂ

B C. F”

Figure 1. Research area-forest land administrated by the Podu Iloaiei Forest District and surrounding rural communities (Source: GoogleEarth)

THE ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF “MIHAIL KOGĂLNICEANU” UNIVERSITY

Universality Multidisciplinarity Knowledge

INTRODUCTION According to a 2002 national census 47.3% of Romania's inhabitants were located in rural areas. In the N-E Region rural population represents 56.3% of the total population, the highest percentage of all 8 regions. The monthly average household income per person, in rural areas is approximately 95 € and approximately 135 € in urban areas. The household income in rural areas is generated mainly by agricultural activities. The property restitution laws adopted after 1990, ensured the return (in stages and in some cases restitution is under way) of forest land to the rightful owners, which lost their property rights after the 1948 nationalization. It's estimated that 65% of the total national forest area will be privately owned at the end of the restitution process. The idea for the paper has a double origin, the first being a set of principles, formulated in the text of the Romanian Forest Code (Law no. 46 from 2008) art.5,”The following principles represent the base for sustainable forest management:”, letter ”g”, increasing the role of forestry in rural development”, and second, the acknowledgement of changes in the forestry sector due to new ownership, free-market conditions, privatization, that could represent opportunities for solving some of the rural problems. If we widen our focus to a European perspective, we find that rural development represents one of the two guiding principles (or pillars) of ”CAP” (” The Common Agricultural Policy”) in the EU, which states that economic performance can only exist if it goes ”hand in hand with the sustainable use of natural resources and levels of waste, maintaining biodiversity, preserving ecosystems and avoiding desertification.” As a EU member state, since 2007, Romania shares the same targets, with even greater interest than the other member states, because of its high percentage of population located in rural areas. The EU rural development strategy (2007-2013) was built and funded around 4 axes.

Two of the four axes apply directly to forestry, axis 1 promoting knowledge transfer, innovation and quality production in the forestry sector, and axis 2 aiming, among other, the protection of forestry systems. The diversification of economic activities, promoted under axis 3, can indirectly include forestry, by encouraging solutions based on harnessing the productive potential of the forest, and finally supporting with resources, bottom-up approaches to rural development, based on local leader experience.

METHODS

To be able to generate growth or sustainable development for rural areas from sustainable forest management you must

have a clear picture on the present situation, the peoples need or opening towards improvement (and their dedication), the

production capacity of the forest (the income that can be generated in certain conditions, the source being traditional wood or

non-wood products or protection functions) new policies and available funding. The first stage of the research concentrated

on the study of the available bibliography concerning the topic of forestry and rural development. Also the documentation

phase included the participation to international conferences dealing with the topic and a four month period as visiting

researcher abroad. All these experiences enabled the selection of methodological path to deal with the research. A mixed

method approach was chosen consisting of qualitative-quantitative and experimental plot data analysis. Additional statistical

regional indicators and data from the forest district concerning forestry production has been used. In the second stage : -placement of experimental plots in the forests situated in the research area (as shown in the pictures above) with the aim to

reflect biodiversity value, production potential, carbon storage, subsistence forestry management. After restitution some

small size forest areas remain unmanaged after the big size wood was stolen. -for the qualitative analysis expert interviews were conducted, with representatives from the business community, state

agencies, and for the quantitative phase questionnaires were addressed to foresters, private owners, funding agencies,

entrepreneurs form the forest sector

Figure 6.b “ ”-privately owned

Age class areas in production unit Frumuşica

Acknowledgements

The paper presents a series of topics from a research project centered on the problem of forestry and rural development, in a an area surrounding and containing the forests administrated by the Podu Iloaiei Forest District.

This study was supported by the POS – DRU/88/1.5/S/52946 Project, part of the European Social Fund through the Sectoral Operational Programme – Human Resources and Development 2007-2013, Doct-US – Doctoral Burses at ”Stefan cel Mare” University, Suceava .

Results and discussions

Quantitative data analysis revealed the following:-Approximately 25% of the households get the firewood from the local wood commerce, the price depending on

the distance from the forest. (6-8 km- 260; 270 Ron, more than 8 km, 320;330 Ron/ cubic meter) The rest of 15% choose to buy the wood from neighbouring urban areas paying a even higher price. The prices are high in relation to levels of income in the area.

- Local markets for firewood and construction wood have developed, sometimes provided with stock from illegal forest operations, or other counties.

The forests in the area have high grade wood for industrial purposes as shown in Figure 3 (a),(b), like aestethic veneer grade oak and ash wood. The auctions gather a limited number of participants. A better marketing strategy, invitation of foreign buyers could increase incomes through higher selling prices. No part of the profit goes back to the community. Policy makers and forest management, should offer special atention to these high quality stands and invest more in the regeneration and management process, with a fair share for the locals in the matter.

Another source of income for the forestry district is represented by non-wood forest products. Figures indicate an annual income from Crataegus monogyna (Jacq.) fruits of around 3600 euro, Rosa canina fruits (L.)- around 17 400 euro, Prunus spinosa (L) fruits-roughly 6900 euro and Tyllia platiphyllos (Scop.) dry flowers-around 6900 euro. Live rabbit exports bring an additional 2400 euro per year. These amounts depend on the local rural work force available for the gathering process (Figure 2 a ;b). The final selling prices per kilogram are in some situations 3-5 times bigger than what was payed initially, so the benefit for the rural people is limited. Prices payed for manual afforestation labor are also really low, for a daily norm of 125 planted saplings a worker gets around 8 euro. In these conditions locals choose to find work elsewhere.

In a recent report of the World Bank, Iași and Vaslui Counties are indicated as places where bio- honey can be produced in the cleanest of conditions, clean meaning lack of pesticide treatments and soil or air contamination. Owners of bee gardens from surrounding counties come to harness the huge potential (for honey production). (due to the presence of certain species like Robinia pseudoacacia L.-used for afforestation of degraded land- or Tilia sp. a native species for the forests of PIFD- which represent al least 10% of any stand)

Figure 6a and 6b show the normalization process in two producton units, the first (6a) state owned public property and the second one (6b) privately owned. It's very easy to observ that the differences (excess or deficit forest area) between normal and actual structure are more dramatic in the case of the privately owned forest. This situation translates into great difficulties in managing the private forests from an economical point of view. In order to be econimically viable owners need annual yields of wood, previously determined by forest planning. Figure 6b shows that in the case of the private forests from ”Frumuşica” production unit consistent annual yields are impossible to

th thachieve, due to the large excess from the 4 and 5 age class, and large deficits in the other age classes, compared to the normal structure. The main reason for the present structure is the harvesting of a large volume in a short period by the owners, at a certain time in the past, without taking into consideration the need for continuity. Small size forest properties pose the greatest administration problems. Many times these areas are not administrated and guarded, becoming the object of theft.

Future afforestation initiatives should also take into consideration the reluctant attitude of the locals concerning the handing over of their lands. Feed back from local authorities indicate a need for instruction programmes, aiming to present opportunities ofered by the forestry sector for rural development.

The research is concentrated on the forest area administrated by the Podu Iloaiei Forest District, part of the Iaşi County Forest Administration, consisting of approximately 16 000 ha of forest land, with mixed ownership,both private and public property and the surrounding rural areas. Forest cover percentage for the whole county is 17,7%, relatively low compared to the national average of 26,8. Due to the nature of forest influence on surrounding areas, strict delimitations can not be made when reffering to location.

IAŞI23-26 Mai 2012

The contribution of the forestry sector to rural economy, present and perspectives in Iaşi County

County border

Research area

Figure 6-state owned

.a Age class areas in production unit No.3 ”Ghiorghiţoaia”

Figure 3. Aestetic veneer grade a-Ash (Fraxinus excelsior L. ); b-oak (Q. robur L.)harvested from Podu Iloaiei Forest District, presented for auction.

a. b.

a. b.

Figure 2. Seasonal workers from rural areas, a-gathering acorns for the forest districtb-collecting firewood. 2011 (original)

Figure 4. Bee keepers depend on the forest for honey production. Bee garden near the forest. 2011(original) Figure 5. Natural oak forests- a source of

biodiversity and carbon storage. 2011 (original)