Europe

The main causes for the degradation of forests in Hungary
(with special emphasis on the privatisation of forest areas)
by Iván Gyulai

- Is there forest destruction going on today in Hungary?

- While the forested area is increasing, forests are degrading?

While in the world in general we can talk about the large scale loss of forests, the forested area in Hungary is continually increasing. The question, of course, is what period we use as a basis of comparison. Before human intervention, approximately 85% of Hungary was covered with forests. By the period between the two world wars, it had been reduced to 12%, and it has been increasing considerably until today. According to today's figures, the total area under forest management is 20.29%, while the actual forest cover is 18.88% of the land.

How is it possible that, in spite of the absolute increase in the proportion of forested area, we still talk about a reduction in forests? This contradiction highlights an important question of definitions: what is it that we call a forest? For those who officially deal with it, forest is a collection of trees. They equally call a zonal beech stand and a black locust monoculture plantation a forest, and they equate the question of forest degradation with a reduced potential of timber production.

Naturally, for an ecologist the measure of degradation is the naturalness, health status and biodiversity of the forest, and he would not call a monoculture of exotic species a forest.

If we want to equally take into account economic, social and ecological factors in our view of sustainable development, then the above considerations will all have to be observed, and the degradation of forests will have to be interpreted from the point of view of productivity, health status, biodiversity and naturalness.

If we compare the natural distribution of our forests according to climatic zones with their current distribution, then it becomes apparent that there is a significant presence of exotic (extrazonal) species in all main climatic zones. For example, almost 10% of the beech zone is occupied by Norway spruce. Black locust occupies 12% of the hornbeam-oak zone and 28% of the sessile oak zone, while conifers take up 14.4% and 13.8% of these climatic zones, respectively. If we look at the proportion of exotic and native species in our forests, then the share of native species barely reaches 55%. If we excluded from the definition of forests areas occupied by exotic species, or at least plantations thereof, then the remaining area that could be called semi-natural forest would take up 11 to 12% of the country's territory.

It follows that, despite the establishment of approx. 600 thousand hectares of forest since 1945, the proportion of natural forest has not increased. In fact, it has slightly decreased after the replacement of some natural forests with monocultures.

If we made our conditions even more strict, and took into account conditions favourable for higher biodiversity, the proportion of degraded forest would be even higher. Such conditions would include the age structure of the forest and the continuity of a forest community on a given area. In both respects we can find serious degrading factors, as even the semi-natural forests of native species are mostly even-aged, and the continuos presence of an association is broken by the final harvest at maturity, which often takes the form of a clearcut.

In summary, although in Hungary the destruction of forest in the classical sense, e.g. conversion of forest for agriculture, is not present, and there is an increased rate of afforestation, the proportion of natural forest continues to decline.

1. Antropogenic changes in ecological conditions

1.1. Effects of water regulations

As Hungary is situated in the Carpathian Basin, with 95% of all surface water originating abroad, the agricultural utilisation of low-lying areas demanded the regulation of waters. This lead to the regulation of the full length of the Tisza River, followed by other streams of the Great Plains. Due to these regulatory works, ecological conditions changed on a regional scale and the ground water table began to sink. This process has completely transformed the natural geography of the plains, and it lead to the degradation of ecotypic forests. Because of the changes in site conditions, there are many areas where natural forests cannot be naturally regenerated, even when there is a will to do so. The continuing decline in ground water levels causes severe health problems in the remaining old pedunculate oak stands and threatens the survival of the last tracts of oak communities on loess, sand and saline habitats.

1.2. Effects of air pollution and soil contamination

These two types of pollution have to be treated together because air pollution eventually leads to polluted soils as well. Besides the well-known direct effects of acidification, there have appeared those indirect effects which, through changes in soil properties (e.g. acidification and nitrogen enrichment) lead to a change in the herbaceous community. There are several known areas near industrial plants and cities (e.g. the eastern part of the Bükk Mountains), where the natural regeneration of the forest is made impossible by the increased vitality of the nitrofil vegetation. This does not only make the regeneration of oaks more difficult, but also impoverishes the biodiversity of the forest by reducing the number of plant and animal species.

The negative changes in the environment can be measured through the changes in the health status of forests. This is why the forest health monitoring network was created, with 1127 permanent sample sites where the health of nearly 24 thousand sample trees is evaluated. Research indicates a positive trend in the health status of our forests, which is likely to be a result of the higher precipitation of the past two years. It should also be pointed out that environmental pollution has declined due to the economic crisis affecting the heavy industry following the change in the political system.

The species with the worst health status is sessile oak. 44% of the evaluated individuals show some degree of foliar damage, and the proportion of trees with no sign of damage and with a normal crown is very low (around 20%). Of the native species, beech and hornbeam can be considered to be the healthiest, with approximately 7% of the individuals damaged.

2. Degradation related to forest management

2.1. Forest regeneration

Only a minor portion of regeneration, 9% of the total, is done naturally, from seed. Artificial regeneration is 55%, while regeneration from sprouts takes up 36%. The reason for this is that profit-oriented forest management is interested in the simplification of processes and in the selection of techniques which can be quickly implemented and easily mechanised. The presence of machinery causes considerable damages to forest ecosystems, and leads to loss of biodiversity. An important social aspect of mechanisation is that it displaces the more nature-friendly manual methods, which could provide income to local people.

Degradation of biodiversity can further be caused by the large, contiguous areas affected by final harvests of gradual regeneration cuts, the stump removal by bulldozers on sandy soils or by regeneration from sprouts.

2.2. Species selection

A crucial question of reforestation and afforestation is the selection of species. If regeneration is not possible with the original species because of the site conditions or inadequate technologies, other species are selected. It is typical, for example, to plant Norway spruce to replace an unsuccessful beech regeneration, which almost totally replaces the diverse species composition of the beech community.

During afforestation, often the non-native, fast growing species are preferred. This tendency will not cease until the economic instruments of forest establishment begin to clearly favour native, broadleaf species.

Completed afforestations show that black locust is the most favoured species, and it reached, after a temporary reduction, 41% of the total. From the point of view of species selection, afforestations show a catastrophic picture, with only about 27% native species (14% oak, 6% other hardwood and 7% native poplar). Besides black locust, hybrid poplars also represent a high percentage, while conifers have a share of 8%.

Species distribution of completed afforestation

2.3. Tending of forests, forest structure

Tending of forests is done with the purpose of increasing yield, by skilfully selecting individuals to be removed for the benefit of the growth of the remaining ones. Naturally, there is no consideration for biodiversity during this procedure either. On the contrary, usually the individuals of minor species, causes of structural diversity, are taken out, as the economic perspective of forest management favours the main species. The lack of minor mixed-in species reduces biological diversity, as species connected to them will be missing from the system. However, it can also influence the health status of the forest as well, as co-existing species in a mixed stand can support each other's development.

Another important question related to forest structure has to do with the age distribution of forests. Managing for even-aged stands is the requirement of simple, economical technologies, due to which the vertical structure and the related biological diversity can be reduced significantly.

As the tending of forests is not limited to the dormant season, machines can cause significant damages to the soil, to the understory vegetation and to the remaining trees themselves.

2.4. Final harvest

This is one of the most important degrading factors both from the point of view of biological diversity and of productivity. Official statistics do not show straightforward data on the proportion of clearcuts and gradual regeneration cuts. There are estimates, derived from the ratio of natural and artificial regeneration, but they are obviously not accurate. However, it is certain that over 80% of final harvests are clearcuts.

If we add that gradual regeneration cuts are not the best method for the conservation of biological diversity, than it becomes clear that final harvests are the biggest shock during the life cycle of the forest, and it can lead to all kinds of degradation. Typical examples are the loss of soil in colline and mountainous areas, and the rearrangement of the ecological patterns (distributions of species and individuals, nutrient partitioning, competitions, habitat possibilities, vertical structure etc.) of associations.

2.5. Selection of propagation material

This topic touches on the genetic diversity of the woody species of the associations typical of a given habitat. It can be stated that, although the propagation material originates directly from the forest or from a seed orchard, genetic considerations are not taken into account at planting itself. Genotypes adapted to one environment are transferred to a completely different one, as seedlings produced must be sold.

While generative propagation can result in the mixing of distinct genetic stocks and in the use of poorly adapted material, vegetative propagation can lead to the impoverishment of genetic stocks within a species.

An important question is the management of available propagation materials. An investigation of the 1997 inventory of propagation material shows a surplus of 28 and 38 million seedlings of pedunculate and sessile oak, respectively, while there was a deficit of 4 million seedlings of vegetatively propagated black locust. This, of course, reflects the species preferences in planting, in which black locust is one of the most favoured species. All in all, there is a considerable oversupply of seedlings, and the utilisation rate of nurseries is very low, 24% on average.

As the seedling supply of nurseries is influenced by demand, it mostly contains the propagation material of the main species. The assortment of species necessary for higher diversity is not available, and a whole range of species is missing from the supply.

3. Other antropogenic factors of degradation

3.1. Game management, damages caused by game

The "planned" game management of the past 40 years has resulted in the multiplication of the size, and the degradation of the quality of the game population. The wild boar population quintupled, red dear quadrupled, roe dear increased thirteen-fold, the population of the exotic mouflon and fallow deer increased by a factor of six and 18, respectively. These numbers indicate that in many parts of the country, the game population exceeded the ecological carrying capacity of the forest. The increased game population has become the main obstacle of the natural, or at times even artificial regeneration of the forest. In most places, game-control fences have become a standard feature of forest management, and the cost of it has to be born by forest management if the forest is to be regenerated.

3.2. Damages due to fragmentation

Public roads, electric power lines and gas pipelines often cross forested areas, causing some degree of isolation effects. Forest management itself brings about the construction of forest roads, which is required for the accessibility of forests. In the past 40 years alone, almost four thousand km of unpaved, and nearly two thousand km of paved road has been built in our forests.

Isolation effects caused by roads reduce the population stability of certain forest communities. Roads can change hydrological conditions and act as undesirable avenues for the spreading of weeds, etc. In recent times, the increased rate of theft has shown that better accessibility can also make life easier for thieves.

3.3. Damages due to illegal logging and theft

Following the transformation of the political system, the amount of wood illegally removed from the forests has increased significantly, in connection with the accumulating social problems and with an increased desire for self-enrichment. A distinction has to be made between damages due to these two causes. Theft of wood by individuals in need is a real problem, and it is classified in the category of poverty-driven misdemeanours. Authorities tend to be more tolerant of these acts, and these cases are difficult to prosecute as there are many cases with relatively little damage in each. Poverty-driven theft is characterised by the largely unprofessional, opportunist removal of trees, with the primary purpose of securing firewood.

The other group of cases is where forests are robbed in a planned and organised fashion with the purpose of making a profit. This normally targets valuable timber and it damages the nicest, most mature trees of the forest. Authorities are incapacitated in this case as well, as these are well thought out operations, backed up with legal permits for the removal of a certain amount of timber. Buyers of this timber always have the documents showing the origin of their actual stockpile.

Organised theft is rather market-oriented. Foreign market demand for walnut, cherry and alder lead to a significant reduction of the stands of these species. Wild cherry, previously considered as a useless minor species, has become one of the most sought after timber, and its disappearance from forest ecosystems is coupled with a painful loss of biodiversity.

It is impossible to tell whether the timber disappearing from the forest is a result of theft or unauthorised logging. Different stands are affected differently, depending on their accessibility on one hand, and the social condition of the neighbouring population on the other. In some areas, for example the forests around the city of Ózd, all the timber worth removing has become the victim of theft.

4. Political factors

4.1. Regulations, incentives

The source of the fund supporting forest regeneration and maintenance is the levy paid after the timber harvested in a given year, fines and budgetary support. In 1997, these sources totalled HUF 3.45 billion. It should be mentioned that only 5% of the income came from fines, although a lot more could be penalised.

Forest regeneration is financed from this fund on a normative basis. It is a recurring problem that the normative support does not cover the total cost, and it is a main principle of the financing system that support may not reach 100%. For state-owned forests in 1997, this support covered 61% of the expenses.

The greatest shortcoming of the current economic regulation is that it does not respond to the factors causing the degradation of forests. The normative support does not allow the equalisation of economic differences due to the differing natural conditions. The forest maintenance levy is not differentiated by site conditions and methods of forest utilisation. Moreover, the system does not provide an incentive for the restoration of ecotypic forest types.

Financial support for afforestation is not regulated to sufficiently promote native species, neither does it take into account ecological aspects. This is why the further expansion of plantations of exotic species is still possible.

4.2. Forest governance

Forest planning in Hungary is carried out in an exemplary manner and forest management is based on management plans. The problem is that these management plans are centred on timber production, and do not take into account the full value of the forest, its ecological properties, or the interests of sustainable management of biological diversity. It is regrettable that forest planning on the regional level does not reflect the peculiarities of the ecological network, and it is not striving for the development or improvement of the appropriate spatial structure.

The professional oversight of forest management is carried out by forest inspectors, who work for the National Forest Service. The inspectoral districts were formed to match the former tenure structure of the forest, which required the supervision of much fewer owners. The increased workload did not bring about the strengthening of the forest inspectorates, and, despite the high professional standards, the full functioning of the system cannot be secured.

4.3. Afforestation

It is paradoxical to say that afforestation could have anything to do with the degradation of forests. However, the practices of the past few years open up the question. It is important to bring up this problem in time, partly because support for afforestation is getting more and more emphasis. One reason for this is the need for the alleviation of rural unemployment, while another is indirectly related to the EU accession process. Half a million ha of arable land is expected to be reclassified from agricultural land use categories to others. The afforestation of these areas is an obvious choice, as this coincides with long-term national targets.

Why are there any suspicions regarding this? Beyond the aforementioned fact that plantation forests of non-indigenous species get planted, and that grasslands with high biodiversity get afforested, there is a danger that forest establishment can prevent the natural revegetation of areas via natural succession.

It is a fact that agricultural production has ceased over extensive areas in Hungary, due to the increasingly difficult market conditions. This has resulted in the abandonment of primarily the colline areas with unfavourable site conditions. This process started at the end of the nineteen fifties and, in many cases, nature had almost fifty years to re-colonise these sites. This took place with differing success and speed from a biodiversity point of view, depending on the availability of source populations in the surroundings. Signs of natural succession are readily apparent, as is the rich biodiversity due to the process of "recharging" with species. New afforestations threaten such conditions. Instead of utilising the potential in genetic succession by helping it, they start with a blank sheet.

The usual method means the removal of the "thicket" by heavy machinery, during which the already existing representatives of a slowly developing natural forest community are exterminated. If the planned stand type is, for example, sessile oak, and a few individuals of it are already present due to succession, those will first be removed, then the site-prepared, terraced hillside is planted with seedlings of equal age.

As long as the adequate professional knowledge for the control of the genetic succession of such areas is missing, such interventions will be accompanied by significant degradation, as a successionally developing natural forest is given up for a plantation.

4.4. The privatisation of forests

Since the main purpose of this study is the analysis of the role of privatisation as reflected in the fate of forest, in the following we shall investigate how privatisation has affected the different factors of degradation.

4.4.1. A brief history of privatisation

The new legislation following the transformation of the political system found it important to provide compensation to those who suffered disadvantages in the previous period. Compensation was to those whose property was confiscated or nationalised, and those who were disadvantaged in some other way, e.g. former POWs or those prosecuted for political reasons. Those compensated did not receive the real value of their losses, but were instead given a so-called compensation voucher based on a symbolic value. This voucher could be used later on to acquire property, e.g. to purchase a piece of real estate, shares or other valuables.

Land was also subject to compensation. Agricultural land and forest could get into private hands in two ways: Either it was purchased with compensation vouchers at an auction, or the common property of collective farms was distributed among members in proportion with their share of ownership.

The list of the tracts of land to form the basis for compensation was compiled by committees formed for this purpose. The principle of designating the land base was that the poorest land should first be used for compensation. Naturally, there was a much greater demand for land than what could be satisfied from the designated tracts.

Also in the case of forests, poor quality stands were designated first. The majority of these had been established by collective farms, and they were a part of the approx. 600 thousand hectares afforested in the socialist times. Later, as these areas turned out to be insufficient to meet the demand, requests were made for forests under the management of state-owned forest management companies. While in the first case mostly plantation forests of low biodiversity were designated, forests in the second case were valuable both in terms of timber and from the perspective of nature conservation.

The demand for land forced the legislation to allow, by changing a law passed in 1992, the privatisation of areas under nature protection, including protected forests. At the time of the change of the political system, there was 700 thousand hectares of protected area in Hungary, with 70% and 30% in state and collective ownership, respectively.

A portion of this was effectively privatised, which was opposed by some organisations and private citizens, who appealed to the Constitutional Court. The Court decided that the state had no right to lower the level of protection of legally protected areas, and therefore it nullified those acts which made the privatisation of protected areas possible, and ordered the restoration of the original level of protection, i.e. the nationalisation of already privatised protected areas. In connection with this decision, during 1996 and 1997 the state repurchased, for a total of HUF 1.6 billion, 68 thousand hectares of land, of which 70% is grassland and 14% is forest. An additional 260 thousand hectares should be repurchased by 2001, but the financial basis of this is not available, and the programme is expected to suffer a delay of about three years.

This privatisation mishap has, of course, had consequences. One is that the new owners tried to quickly exercise their ownership rights and there were, if only in limited numbers, damages made to protected values. Although there is no accurate figure available on the amount of privatisation vouchers used by the new owners to acquire their property, based on the average cost of land acquisition, we can estimate that they have realised a profit of about twenty times the purchase price. The state could have saved the millions spent so far and to be spent in the future, and could have used them for a more meaningful cause, e.g. habitat protection.

4.4.2 The ownership structure after privatisation and the effects of the owner on the forest

The table shows that 60% of the forest has remained in state ownership, and roughly 40% is expected to become private property. The new owners of about half of the private forest have been entered into the land registry. The rest will legally acquire their property over the course of settling the property rights of the lands of former collective farms. Those waiting to form a joint ownership and areas of unclear ownership together represent the category of dysfunctional management units. This means that on 19.7% of the country's forest land the ownership and management structure is in disarray.

Distribution of forested area by ownership category

4.4.2.1. The effects of unclear ownership on forests

The effects of unclear ownership has to be separately evaluated from the point of view of the management of the timber resource and that of the biodiversity of ecosystems. There are, of course, common points, which are unfavourable for both. One of these is the degradation caused by theft. Forests left "without owner" are public domain, as nobody is there to protect and take care of them. (It should be mentioned that the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development can, in such cases, appoint a manager on the expense of the true owner, but it rarely happens in practice.) As it has been said before, from these forests both the firewood and quality timber is removed, with the latter also affecting biodiversity. In some cases small patches of forests have been completely robbed. In other cases, especially for forests in need of tending, the lack of silvicultural interventions causes significant degradation from the point of view of timber production. This situation cannot be considered negative from the point of view of biodiversity, as the forest is thus saved from the damages caused by the removing of accompanying species, the disturbance of the forest, etc.

In old forests, if they are not located in a theft-prone area, the lack of forestry operations, e.g. clearcut, can be beneficial even from the production point of view, as the normally to low age of final harvest is thus postponed towards the time of biological maturity.

Unfortunately, there is no sufficient data on the species composition and structure of the 20% unmanaged forest.

4.4.2.2. The owner as a determining factor of the state of the forest

General characteristics of the new owners:

• little or no capital
• inadequate knowledge of forest management
• motivated by short-term benefits, although forestry requires long-term thinking
• low ecological awareness

Although the system of forest inspection is very well organised in Hungary, and the owners are not free to do whatever they want with their forest, even within the framework of the management plans they are defining factors in the fate of the forest. This is especially true when the property was acquired with the purpose of speculation, and not with the goal of forest management.

Speculation was made possible by an erroneous practice of transfer of property rights. Land and forest ownership could be acquired at auctions, in lieu of compensation vouchers. The value of agricultural and forest land is given in units of "golden crown", which is a measure of the productivity of the land. Privatisation mostly affected lands of low golden crown value, and the starting price per golden crown was also set very low. In addition, in most auctions there was no real bidding due to the previous agreements of those present. As a result, land or forest could be acquired at a ridiculously low cost. Due to the agreements, those present at the auctions, usually masses, received title to a piece of the jointly acquired land in proportion with the amount of their vouchers, which resulted in very small property sizes. The average size of the acquired forest was 1.3 ha per owner (0.75 ha for individual owners and 1.65 ha for joint owners).

The small average property size made it necessary to force new owners, by law, to form joint management structures. The establishment of these is proceeding very slowly, as new owners bargained for a forest of their own, but they are now receiving a part of an undivided joint ownership. In these joint ownerships, voting rights are proportional to the golden crown value of one's land. For example, if one of the owners would like to represent protection interests as opposed to economic ones, that person would have very little chance to be successful in a one hundred-member body.

Beneficiaries of compensation came from a very broad circle and forests could be acquired by people whose compensation was not due to their lost forest property. As a result people who had no connection to or idea about forests became forest owners in large numbers. Even worse, local residency was not a requirement for the acquisition of property. A person from the western part of the country could show up at an auction in the east and acquire property. It is clear that such people were interested in the acquisition of land, as opposed to the management of forest, as one cannot properly manage one's forest from a distance of hundreds of kilometres.

Land speculations have caused the greatest problems for today. Only those personally eligible for compensation could take part in the auctions, but vouchers could be acquired by anybody, as they were freely transferable. (There were periods when vouchers were traded at 25-30% of their face value. If somebody bought, for vouchers of HUF 1000, a beech forest worth two golden crowns per hectares, it may have actually cost him only HUF 250-300. There are many known cases where the new owner sold the forest after three years at a profit of 100 to 150 times the purchase price. Prior to selling it, he may have extracted the most valuable timber from it.) As a result, speculators at the auctions could only act in the name of those originally eligible for compensation, and the property right was transferred to the speculator or a foreign person in the form of semi-legal contracts ("pocket contracts"). This practice has confused the ownership structure to such a degree that the clarification of the situation and the registration of the true owners in the land registry will take a long time.

4.4.2.3. The difference between management on small versus large areas

It is clear that privatisation has fragmented forest areas. Regardless of whether the owner is the state or a private person, there are important differences in the behaviour of those managing large versus small areas. For those managing thousands of hectares, forfeiture of the yield of certain areas important for biodiversity or nature conservation does not constitute a prohibitively expensive limitation. Experience shows that conservationists can form good personal contacts with the managers of large management units, through which they can effectively represent interests different from those of timber production. This is much more difficult in the case of micro-holdings. It would be necessary to form a connection with very many owners and managers, and to convince them to set aside their short-term interests. Obviously, they will be reluctant to sacrifice, in the interest of nature conservation, the benefit coming from their small holding.

4.4.3.The effect of privatisation on the causes of forest degradation

4.4.3.1. Forest regeneration

As it has already been mentioned, only a minor portion of regeneration is carried out naturally from seed, and a further factor of degradation is the regeneration from sprouts. Sprouting is the simplest, but worst method of regeneration, both from the production and biodiversity the points of view. 36% of all regeneration is carried out by sprouting. Breaking this figure down for the different ownership categories we find that this method is used on 27% of the regeneration area by the state sector, and on 46% by the other sectors.

This indicates that the private sector favours the least demanding and least capital-intensive methods. The reason for it is the lack of capital in the private sector, and the fact that private forests are inferior to begin with, and have a species composition more suitable for sprouting. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, instead of reconstructing forests so that they become more natural, the already poor forests are further degraded.

4.4.3.2. Species selection and afforestation

From the distribution of afforestation by ownership category, we see that a major percentage of afforestation is carried out by the private sector. There are two main reasons for this. Here is the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector and the fact that the necessary procedures can be carried out for much cheaper in the private sector, as overhead expenses, including taxes and social security, can normally, albeit illegally, be avoided. The other reason is, that the state does not have territories after the privatisation, and the illegal way cannot be done in the state sector (on the costs structure of which the normative support is based) Anyway, the private owner finds it profitable to establish forests. This thinking may benefit the quantity but not the quality of the forest. This is indicated by the table showing the high percentage of black locust in completed afforestations. The more demanding native broad-leaved species require more care and, under this regulatory system, they are marginalised. The already unfavourable species composition of the forests is therefore further worsened. Black locust took up 18 and 20% of the total forested area in 1988 and 1994, respectively. 41% of completed afforestations and reforestations are in black locust. If we add the high proportion of hybrid poplar, we can see that the degradation of our forests is accelerating. If we add that most of the afforestation is carried out by the private sector, we can blame the resulting degradation on privatisation.

Species composition of completed afforestations (%)

Distribution of afforestation by ownership category

A government decree of 1991 called for the afforestation of 17 thousand hectares annually until the year 2000. Of the planned 150 thousand hectares, only 39 thousand had been realised by 1997 because of the lack of funding from the state budget. It is worth looking at how the funds for 1997 were allocated for the various uses. Of the HUF 1.3 billion available, only 66 million was used for the conversion of forest structure, compared with 1.1 billion for afforestation. In the situation presented above, when our forests are degraded to such an extent, these figure should perhaps be the other way around, and available funds should be used for the formation of natural forests instead of increasing the number of plantations of exotic species.

4.4.3.3 Tending of the forest and forest structure

Privatisation has made continuous forest management impossible on 20% of the forest area. Not carrying out the necessary silvicultural interventions in these areas will probably cause a significant loss of yield and timber quality, although the same factor may contribute to the increase of biological diversity and the natural development of forest ecosystems.

4.4.3.4. Final harvests

Just as there are no data on the distribution of different harvesting techniques for the total forest sector, there are no data for the different ownership categories either. Therefore the private sector cannot be evaluated on the basis of this factor.

What is shown in the available statistics is that in the private sector forest utilisation dominates over regeneration. This is reflected in a HUF 270 million surplus in the forest maintenance levy payments over the amount requested for regeneration. In the case of state-owned forest companies, the trend is opposite, i.e. they use more for regeneration than they pay after harvesting.

4.4.3.5. Game management, damages caused by game

For the lack of capital in the private sector, and because of the thrifty use of financial support, private owners do not spend on the building of expensive fences against game damage. Fencing would not be efficient anyway, due to the small size and scattered nature of private holdings.

Some of the new private owners acquired their forests for game management, or rather hunting purposes. On these areas forest management is subordinated to the interests of game management, which can lead to the degradation of the forest.

4.4.3.6. Illegal logging, theft

Besides the current silvicultural practices leading to degradation, this is the most important problem. It is difficult to tell apart the effects of privatisation and poverty on the increased number of illegal harvests and thefts, but it is certain that privatisation contributed considerably.

Although fines for logging without license have increased (HUF 97.7 million), they do not reflect the real situation and the magnitude of damages.

Some cases bring into question the correctness of some of the figures in the management plans. A common occurrence is that forest owners apply for permission to harvest their forests at a time different from that prescribed in the management plan. This is because they want to salvage their timber not yet stolen. In one of these cases the management plan calculated with 1200 cubic metres of standing stock, but only 150 cubic metres could be harvested.

4.5. Forest governance and privatisation

Due to privatisation, the number of forest owners has risen to 305 thousand, whose forests are managed by 53266 management entities. This has resulted in the exponential growth in the workload of forest inspectors. It is remarkable that the increased workload was accompanied by a 10-20% reduction of the staff at the regional offices of the State Forest Service, which have to carry out the increased planning and regulatory work.

4.6. Summary

The 1997 report of the Forest Department of the Ministry of Agriculture on forest management states:

"While the beginning of effective forest management in private forests, with respect to harvesting, regeneration and especially afforestation, is welcome, the loss of value and abandonment, due to the transfer of ownership and a lack of capital, of young stands in need of capital and labour, and the increase of bare and unregenerated area has become a serious and acute problem in the management of private forests."

Forest management is a long-term and continuous business. Today, only a couple of years after privatisation, it would be premature to judge the long-term effects of private forest management on the fate of forests. It is obvious that privatisation, motivated by political, and not by professional considerations, has caused temporary disturbances in forest management. Hopefully, these problems will be overcome and forests will survive after the initial shocks. More important than the temporary problems is the tendency, augmented by privatisation, that the driving force behind forest management is the gaining of profit, and not the protection of forest habitats. A system increasing the proportion of plantation of exotic species, while degrading our natural forests, can only deviate from the direction of ecologically based, sustainable development. Privatisation has contributed to this process.

Sources:

Personal communication:

József Steiner, National Forest Service, Miskolc

László Haraszthy, Péter Besze, WWF, Hungarian Programme Office

György Kállay, Ministry of Environment

Literature:

József Fidlóczky: Az erdõgazdálkodás helyzete és annak természtevédelmi vonatkozásai, WWF füzetek 7., 1995.

László Haraszthy: Biológiai sokféleség megõrzésének lehetõségei Magyarországon, WWF füzetek 8., 1995.

György Kállay and Zoltán Rakonczay: Útmutató a védett természeti területek kisajátításáról, 1996.

Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forestry: Az 1997. évi erdõállomány-gazdálkodásról szóló jelentés, 1998.

back to UC Process