Milijic, Grujicic, Stamenkovski_Conflict Management in PA_PF in NP Djerdap_27.09

8/13/2019 Milijic, Grujicic, Stamenkovski_Conflict Management in PA_PF in NP Djerdap_27.09

1/8

1

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN PROTECTED AREAS: PRIVATE

FORESTS IN NATIONAL PARK DJERDAP

Vojislav MILIJIC1, Ivana GRUJICIC

2, Nikola STAMENKOVSKI

3

Abstract: Protected areas cover approximately 6 % of Serbian state territory, on theother hand, more than 15 % of Serbia is covered with private forests, and 35 % of total

areas of protected forests are private.

National Park Djerdap is one of the largest protected areas in Serbia, and

approximately 17 % of its territory consists of private forests. Existing private

entrepreneurial initiatives related to forestry within and around national park, apart

from encouraging rural development of the region, may cause conflicts with nature

protection regime within national park.

The objective of this paper is to analyze role of forest owners in nature

protection framework and relations between private forest owners and administration of

NP Djerdap.

Key words: protected areas, private forests, regulations, relations, conflicts.

1. INTRODUCTIONIn Serbia, under different type of protection is 542,684 ha, which is 6.31% of

the State territory. Over 65% of protected areas are forests and forestland. On the other

hand, more than 15 % of Serbian state territory is covered with private forests, while 35

% of all forests in protected areas are private (Grujicic at al, 2008).

The National Park Djerdap4 is one of the five Serbian national parks and it is

located in Northeastern part of the country. Total area of national park is 63,608 ha, and

1Vojislav Miliji, PhD candidate, Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade University, Kneza Vieslava 1, Belgrade,

Serbia. Contact: tel. +381 62 553 089, e-mail: [email protected] Grujii, MSc candidate, Alpen-Adria Universitat Klagenfurt, Austria., Ministry of agriculture, forestry

and water management, Belgrade, Serbia. Contact: tel. +381 64 2630 793, e-mail: [email protected] Stamenkovski, BsC student, Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade University, Kneza Vieslava 1, Belgrade,

Serbia. Contact: tel. +381 61 147 1145, e-mail: [email protected]


2/8

2

44,851 ha, or 70 % is covered with forests (Medarevic et al, 2007). State forests cover83 % of National park forestland, while private forests cover around 17 %.

According to national categorization, all national parks in Serbia have a status

of protected area of extraordinary importance (1991/a, 1992, 1993), and within it a

protection regimes5have been established. Forests within the area of national parks are

managed by public enterprises of national parks (1993), which conduct professional and

technical tasks6in private forests within the national park area (1991/b).

By declaring an area as protected, it is inevitable to put private forest property

within it under certain protection regime. This introduces the fact that management of

private forests within protected areas must be adjusted with nature protection measures

(1991/a). However, forests, in mountain areas represent to inhabitants significant source

of additional, and for some, main incomes (Milijic et al, 2007; Bogdanov, 2007).

Therefore, nature protection measures, consisting of prohibited or limited usage of

forests can often put forest owners in a position of passive observers of their own

properties, and often lead to direct conflicts with nature protection measures (Grujicic etal, 2008).

Every attempt at conflict resolution needs to begin with a detailed description of

the conflicting interests that are at the basis of every conflict (Glueck, 2004). It is

necessary to reach the essence of a conflict in order to find suitable forms of conflict

solving mechanisms.

The objective of this paper is to present the results of a research conducted with

private forest owners from the National park of Djerdap and to analyze their role in

nature protection framework and their relations with National park administration. In the

paper, a special attention is given to owners attitudes toward existing and potential

conflicts with nature protection regime and their propensity to represent their own

interests.

4The Djerdap National Park stretches along the right bank of Danube, for about 100 km, covering a narrow

strip of forested hills, which is about 2-8 km wide, in altitude range from 50 to 800 meters. Djerdap most

characteristic features are exceptional wealth and diversity of flora, fauna, geomorphologic objects andcultural monuments from various historical periods. Biological diversity of this National park consists of

over 900 species of vascular flora, over 35 endemic and relict species, 55 forest types, 130 bird species, 50

mammal species, geomorphologic, hydrological, historical and cultural values (Medarevic et al, 2007).5Protection regimes consist of a group of measures and conditions, which determine the means, and level of

protection, use, management and improvement of the protected areas. Within 1stdegree of protection, the

usage of natural assets and all the activities, apart from scientific researches, are strictly prohibited. Within

2nddegree of protection usage of natural assets is strictly controlled, while the activities within can beperformed in a manner that cannot have consequences on assets primary values. In 3 rd degree of

protection, usage of natural assets can be selective, limited, and controlled.6Professional and technical tasks in private forests consist of: issuing licenses for logging to forest owners, tree

marking in private forests, issuing timber and fuel wood transport licenses for forest owners, organizingactivities on forest protection in private forests.


3/8

3

2. METHODOLOGY

The research consisted of an interview survey, with questionnaires complied

mainly with structured and fixed responded questions (Neumann, 2006). Questionnaires

were compiled in order to measure variables inside economic, institutional, silvicultural

and sociological aspect, and to test main hypothesis related to conflict issues and

propensity of forest owners to represent their own interests.

Methodology used for sample design was the proportion method (Malhotra,

2007). Determination of sample size started from the assumption that 80 % of forest

owners living in the National park area use their forest properties in some way, regularly

or occasionally. Therefore, they may have been in the position of experiencing certain

conflict issues with nature protection regime (). Using the level of confidence (z) 1.036

and level of precision (D) 0.05, sample size (n) of 70 respondents was determined,

according to the formula (Malhotra, 2007): n = (1 ) z / D.

Survey was conducted using door-to-door method, as only possible solution foraccessing private forest owners in the area. Owners were randomly selected in seven

settlements within the National Park area, 10 in each settlement.

3. SURVEY RESULTS

Chart one, shows that around 94 % of interviewed forest owners performs

harvesting in their forest properties, from which 52 % do this every year. Only about 6

% of respondents have never performed harvesting in their forest properties.

Chart 1. Harvesting in forest properties

52,9%

41,4%

5,7%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0%

Not at all

Ocasionally

Every year

It is determined that more than 80 % of respondents do not know at all, or knowvery a little about existing regulations related to private forests, and around 82 %

responded equally about legislation related to National parks.


4/8

4

Correspondingly, about 45 % of respondents did not know the answer to thequestion related to restrictiveness of those regulations, while around a quarter of the

respondents consider the regulations as much or very much restrictive (Chart 2).

However, about 18 % consider the regulations as not restrictive at all.

Chart 2.Restrictiveness of regulations related to private forests

15,7%

10,0%

45,7%

10,0%

18,6%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0%

Not at all

Litle

Don't know

Much

Very much

More than 85 % of the respondents do not know or know just a little about

existing nature protection regulations, and correspondingly about 65 % of interviewed

forest owners do not know how restrictive those regulations are (Chart 3). Only about 13

% of the respondents consider nature protection regulations much or very much

restrictive.

Chart 3.Restrictiveness of regulations related to nature protection

5,7%

7,1%

65,8%

14,3%

7,1%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%

Not at all

Litle

Don't know

Much

Very much

For 40 % of the respondents most pressing regulation

7 (Chart 4) is obligatory

tree marking by a forest authority before felling, and for more than 20 % of the

respondents very pressing are obligatory permission for harvesting and obligation to pay

7Multiple answers were allowed.


5/8

5

levies for harvesting. On the other hand, for 40 % of the respondents nothing ofmentioned regulations is pressing.

Chart 4.Most pressing regulations for forest owners

25,7%

21,4%

40,0%

7,1%

7,1%

7,1%

40,0%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0%

Nothing

Other

Timber transport licence

Management plan

Tree marking by forest

authority before felling

Permission forharvesting

Prescription to pay leviesfor timber harvests

About 57 % of interviewed forest owners claim that they have never

encountered a conflict with National park administration because of the existing

regulations (Chart 5). However, 27 % of the respondents encountered a conflict because

of obligatory tree marking by a forest authority before felling, and only 4.3 % of

interviewed forest owners encountered a conflict because of problems related to

compensation for prohibited or limited usage of their forest properties.

Chart 5. Regulations that cause conflicts with National park administration

5,7%

7,1%

27,1%

1,4%

5,7%

4,3%

2,9%

57,1%

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0%

There are no conflicts

Other

Compensations

Timber transportlicence

Management plan

Tree marking by forestauthority before felling

Permission forharvesting

Prescription to paylevies for timberharvests

Only 5.7 % of the respondents received a compensation for limited orprohibited usage of their forest properties, 75 % of those received compensation in fuel

wood and timber, and 25 % received financial compensation.


6/8

6

About 20 % of the respondents consider that forest owners with propertiesoutside of National park have some advantages regarding forest management compared

to the owners inside, while 29 % claim that owners outside the National park area do not

have any advantages. However, 50 % gave I do not know respond to the question.

Chart 6.Missing of the forest owners interest organization

20,0%

27,1%

22,9%

8,6%

21,4%

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0%

Not at all

Litle

Don't know

Much

Very much

A propensity of forest owners to represent their own interests and to join forest

owners organizations is also tested during the survey. More than half of the respondents

are missing (very much, much or little) the forest owners association or some other kind

of organization, which can represent their interests (Chart 6), while 21 % consider that

they do not need such organization.

Chart 7.Readiness to engage in establishing interest association of forest owners

15,7%

20,0%

25,7%

12,9%

25,7%

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0%

Not at all

Litle

Don't know

Much

Very much

Similar to previous question, more than half of respondents are ready to engage

themselves in establishing interest association of forest owners in the region (Chart 7).


7/8

7

5. CONCLUSIONS

Significant percent of active forest owners and the fact that most of them is not

or is very little familiar with existing regulations related to private forests, national parks

and nature protection increases possibility for conflicts with nature protection regime.

This imposes the need for seeking of a model, which will adjust private forest

management and declared protection measures. The model should ensure that both

economic interest of the owner for using its private good and the interest of the State for

nature protection are satisfied. This bring the significant responsibility to forest owners,

and to the State, which by declaring an area as protected must provide such management

over the protected area that will not restrict legal owner rights, or to provide an adequate

compensation for prohibited or limited usage.

The fact that only a small share of owners encounter the conflicts with National

park administration over the compensation issues, can lead to conclusion that the

administration has found an adequate mechanism for compensation procurement or foravoiding potential conflicts. However, there is a possibility that forest owners still do not

recognize that they have a right for compensation procurement.

On the other hand, forest owners within National park are more pressed with

general regulations related to private forests, than with specific regulations related to

nature protection. In addition, the largest portion of conflicts with National park

administration emerges because of private forest regulations, in most cases because of

the obligatory tree marking before felling by a forest authority and in significant portion

because of obligation to pay levies for harvesting.

This can indicate that the restriction of usage of private good, which is present

by existing private forest regulations, represents a general problem, which is prevailing

the borders of protected areas. This claim can be supported with the fact that significant

number of forest owners within National park considers that forest owners with

properties outside the protected area do not have any advantages compared to themregarding management of their forests, even though, there are no protection measures

declared.

Interest organizing of private forest owners in Serbia is in initial phase, and

organizing of forest owners in the protected areas can lead to definition of forest

management planning policy and improvement of relations between forest owners, state

administration and administrators of protected areas. In long run, mutual activities of

State administration and forest owners associations can lead to the state in which

owners can ensure their legal ownership rights, and manage their properties in

sustainable manner.

A significant share of forest owners from the area of the National park, since

most of them consider that they have a need for representing their interests, recognizes

advantages of interest organizing of forest owners. In addition, large share of them is

prepared to be actively engaged in formation and work of interest forest ownersassociation. However, still there are no initiatives for establishing such organization in

the area of National park Djerdap.


8/8

8

REFERENCES

1. Bogdanov, N. (2007): Small Rural Households in Serbia and Non-agricultureEconomy. UNDP, Beograd, 220 p.

2. Glueck, P.(2004): Einfhrung in grundlagen der politik. Studienunterlagen zurLehrveranstaltung. Institut fr Soziokonomik der Forst-und Holzwirtschaft,

BOKU, Wien. 158 p.

3. Grujicic, I., Jovic, D., Nonic, D., Stanisic, M. (2008): Political, Legislative andEconomical Aspects of Protected Areas in Serbia. IUFRO Division 6: Social,

Economic, Information and Policy Sciences, Research Group 6.13.00: Forest Law

and Environmental Legislation International Symposium, Sarajevo.

4. Grujicic, I., Milijic, V., Nonic, D (2008): Management of Conflicts in ProtectedAreas: Example of Nature Monument the Canyon of Lazar River in Eastern

Serbia. International Conference: Participating in Nature: Communities and

protected areas, University of Oxford Environmental Change Institute,

Romanian Forest Service, Bistrita

5. (1991/a):Law on Environmental Protection.Official Gazette of Republic of Serbia,No. 66/91, 83/92, 53/95, Belgrade.

6. (2004):Law on Environmental Protection.Official Gazette of Republic of Serbia,No. 135/2004, Belgrade.

7. (1991/b)Law on Forests. Official Gazette of Republic of Serbia, No. 46/91, 83/92,53/93, 54/93, 67/93, 48/94, 54/96, Belgrade.

8. (1993):Law on national parks. Official Gazette of Republic of Serbia, No. 39/93,Belgrade.

9. Malhotra, N. (2007): Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation.Upper SaddleRiver, Pearson Prentice Hall. 374 p.

10. Medarevi, M., Jovanovi, B., Bankovi, S. i Karadi, D. (2001): Forests ofDjerdap, Ecolibri, Belgrade, 168 p.

11. Milijic, V., Nonic, D., Radosavljevic, A., Grujicic I. (2008):Associating PrivateForest Owners as a Contribution to Rural Development of Serbia . Proceedings of

the International Conference Integral protection of forests, Scientific

technological platform, Forestry Institute of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade,

p.69-74.

12. Neuman, W.L.(2006): Social research methods: qualitative and quantitativeapproaches - 6th ed. Pearson, University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, Boston-New

York-San Francisco. 594 p.

13. Nonic, D.(2004): Organization of forestry in the transition process: relation ofpublic forest administration and private forest owners. Doctoral dissertation,

Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade. 232 p.

14. (1992) Rule book on natural protected areas categorization. Official Gazette ofRepublic of Serbia, No. 30/1992, Belgrade.

Milijic, Grujicic, Stamenkovski_Conflict Management in PA_PF in NP Djerdap_27.09

Documents

Transcript of Milijic, Grujicic, Stamenkovski_Conflict Management in PA_PF in NP Djerdap_27.09