Abstract
Abstract Forest policy and forest ownership patterns in Slovenia and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) have changed considerably in recent decades due to unprecedented scale of social, political and economic change. The distribution of ownership types varies between the countries – in Slovenia private forest ownership predominates (77%), while in FBiH only about 20% of forest is private-owned. In both countries, private forest properties are small-scale and fragmented, which affects management opportunities and the scale at which policy interventions need to be made. This paper analyses the Slovenian and Central Bosnia Cantonal Law on Forests to assess how the regulatory framework affects private forest owners’ (PFOs) rights, forest management and accelerates cooperation of PFOs. Both laws impose exclusive rights and responsibilities of PFOs, as well as limitation on how they can use their forests. In both countries, legislation contains detailed regulations for forest management activities and stipulate that mandatory forest management plans (FMPs) are an important tool that supports the implementation of sustainable forest management. In Slovenia, FMPs are prepared as common plans for all forests regardless the ownership, while in FBiH the Cantonal Law prescribes a separate forest management planning system for private forests. To improve the efficiency of private forest management, both laws support voluntary cooperation of PFOs. From the analysis, it can be concluded that there is a need for better harmonisation of public and private interests in relation to forest resources, especially in the case of FBiH, and that the deregulation of property right is needed as well as that the level of involvement of PFOs in the forest policy making process is unsatisfactory, in most cases only formal.
Highlights
Private forests are widespread in most European countries and provide a variety of goods and services to society and economic benefits to private forest owners (Glück 2000; Fabra-Crespo & RojasBriales 2015)
Based on the existing regulatory framework in Slovenia and CBC in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH), it can be concluded that the provisions of forest legislation apply to all forests regardless the ownership type, there are some differences between public and private forests in the case of FBiH
Public and private forests in Slovenia and FBiH differ in several aspects mainly due to the fact that large proportion of private forest owners’ (PFOs) are passive and lacks knowledge of both forest management and the related bureaucratic procedures
Summary
Private forests are widespread in most European countries (more than 70% in Western Europe and less than 50% in Eastern Europe, but with an increasing trend) and provide a variety of goods and services to society and economic benefits to private forest owners (hereafter PFOs) (Glück 2000; Fabra-Crespo & RojasBriales 2015). Structural changes over the last decades have stimulated an increasing diversity of PFOs (new urbanized or absentee PFOs), in Slovenian and FBiH, and in Europe (Glück et al 2011; Dayer et al 2014; Côté et al 2017; Ficko et al 2019; Weiss et al 2019). This is accompanied by a change in their interests, objectives, attitudes and demands towards forest ownership (Pezdevšek Malovrh 2010; Glück et al 2011; Feliciano et al 2017; Kumer 2017; Laakkonen et al 2019; Weiss et al 2019), w h i c h in t u r n i n f l u e n c e s th e h i e r a r c h ie s o f p r i o r i ties in their forest management decisions (Ziegenspeck et al 2004) and challenges forest policy decision makers to reshape forest policy (Laakkonen et al 2019).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
