I think this question is hard to answer objectively (I doubt there has ever been a controlled experiment). So the best way to answer it is to do opinion research in different parts of the world. I can tell you my opinion for the province in which I live: Nova Scotia, Canada. This is just one opinion for one region of the world.

In Nova Scotia we have 5 types of forest land ownership: government-owned; large-company owned; private and small enterprise-owned; conservancy-organization owned; and First Nations (original people)-owned. Government and large-companies own large parcels of land, the others own relatively small parcels.

The government-owned land is moderately well-managed and of course the management is governed by laws and so the quality is relatively uniform. There are two main uses of government forest land: conservation (including hunting), and forestry. The large company-owned land has less conservation and more utilization. The management standards of large-holdings are about the same on average as the government-owned, though with greater variability (some companies are better than others). The privately-owned small holdings are much more variable, from the worst in the province to the best in the province. From the point of view of conservation of rare species, these properties tend to have high value, and so this variability creates some serious difficulties. On the other hand, from the point of view of improving conservation-oriented forestry practices, leadership comes from the best small-holders. The conservancy-owned and First-Nations owned lands are minor portions but very interesting. The conservancies manage the highest value conservation lands, which they select for that purpose, so we might say that they have very high standards. First Nations lands are more variable, but tend to have higher conservation standards, which the First-Nation people say is due to their traditional beliefs.

There has been a tendency (in my opinion) for companies based in foreign countries to be less careful than local companies, so this could be a risk factor for Poland. Forest conservation in Nova Scotia has benefited from a vigorous NGO sector, so this is also something you might evaluate in Poland. NGOs can influence government and locally-owned businesses, but have more difficulty influencing international corporations. Lastly, I think the government should not sell lands with high conservation value to private owners, but if there are conservancies who will take over ownership or management, then this is a good thing.

Greetings Mateusz,

I echo the response above in many respects, clearly it is true that there is a tension between conservation and productivity, and as a half academic half practical worker I observe the best conservation happening in smaller privately owned woods. Also, it is in private ownership that the worst conservation happens.

In the UK there is a wide range of ownership. I'd like to consider the UK Forestry Commission, a government department. In brief the effectiveness of that body is excellent in covering their remit, unfortunately even in the UK it is not well understood (at least by the public) what that remit is. It is to ensure productive forestry, and sufficient stocks of standing timber. Not conservation - which is attended to, but is or was a very secondary consideration. I evidence this statement with an interim report including the incidence of ancient tree (Taxus) destruction on Forestry Commission land which by chance I have just revised and uploaded as field notes/data set.

Happily the Forestry Commission seems to have vastly improved its conservation track record in recent years, presumably in line with government thinking.

The point, I think, is that in the case of management by an official organisation everything depends on the care with which the remit is created. It is better I think to have the continuity and certainty of a well run large organisation with a well thought-out remit than an uncertain patchwork of individuals with less accountability.

If there is to be a "sell-off" or privatisation of forestry then there needs to be some very strict regulation and careful monitoring by an official body with real powers. Bad private owners are, as I've mentioned, the worst conservation offenders.

I do hope that helps.

Regards,

Toby

Thank you Martin and Toby your opinions are very helpful, I agree that experience from many countries can help to find good solutions.

”belong to one public company called 'National Forests'”

Here is the same kind of situation: ”RomSilva” National Forestry Company is managing most of the forested areas. After privatizing some forests, on huge areas the forests were cleaned (totally) due to the lack of proper control of the activities (up to the privatization the control was performed by the employes of the state company, but after privatization most of the employees from the respective zones were fired...).

Actually, in case of the forests is somehow the same rule as in case of aquariums: large ones are easier to manage in order to have a properly balanced system on long-term...

I have the same feeling

Hi Mateusz,

Just a note on the country I live in, Belgium. Ownership in Belgium is a mix as well by private owners and public ones. In Belgium also several forest land ownership types exist, with conflicting interests. We have so called public forests; They are owned by village or city communities mostly. (Federal) State owned forests are are almost non-existent in Belgium. Company owned forest don't exist neither. Forests are commercially not very interesting in Belgium, because the forest surface area is too small and especially very fragmented in the Northern part of the country. There is only less than 6 % of the Flemish region which is forested. In the Southern part, the Walloon region, forested area is larger, up to almost 25 %. This means that the forest left in the North is or owned by the communties and cities (small part) or privately owned (large part) or owned by nature conservation organizations (large part). In the Walloon region the mix is somewhat different, a large part is owned privately and by the communities and cities.There is only a very small part owned by nature conservation organizations. The Ardennes region has the densest forests which are exploited extensively by small private foresters (mostly local farmers), who buy forest exploitation rights (yearly basis) from the big landowners or the villages and cities. No big companies are operational in Belgium. That's how it looks like.

The Flemish region is trying to reforest parts of the region, but until know this policy is a failure. The pressure on the land is too high in the Flemish region, with a population density of more than 450 inhabitants per km². This means that the surface area of built-up land in Flanders land is higher than the that of forests! This means that the forests left in the North of the country are under a heavy threat of being cut for construction purposes.(private as well as public construction projects. 70% of the Flemish population owns its houses!).

So forests worthy of that name, in Belgium are in fact only found in the Walloon region. To my opinion the Walloon government should protect its forests better, because population pressure on these forests is rising as well. If a a large part of the Ardennes forests is to stay it will have to be protected, which it is not at this moment in time. It should be protected to keep some extensive local wood production (Fagus, Quercus and Picea mainly) and quite importantly as a habitat protection for fauna and flora.Remarkably enough wolves and lynxes are back in the Ardennes as well as beavers in some rivers. That can only remain as such, when the habitats for these animals are large enough and protected. For the time being wolves are much more scared from humans than vice versa ;-). They also have to compete with wild dogs hunting in groups as well. Wild dogs are more dangerous.for wildlife actually than wolves, at least in the Ardennes.

Cheers,

Frank

Thank you Frank.

This paper may help.

http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/389

Thank you Alex, for this interesting paper providing case study which may be interesting here.

It's a difficult question because it depends on the culture. In Mexico's Yucatan, one of the lowest rates of tropical forest deforestation is found in the Maya Zone where indigenous peoples work in ejidos, or community-owned forests. They manage it themselves with some outside technical assistance. The reason the forests are so well cared for is because each ejido, or small community, needs the forest for their economic and cultural survival so if they exploit the forest, they are exploiting their own community. Unless the private parties have an interest in preserving the forest for their own survival, I believe it is risky to privatize the forest land. What would stop the private owners from selling all of the timber, or would outside global interests be able to buy the forests? The other problem with privatization is that if the forest is sold off in small parcels, and one owner manages his/her parcel sustainably but the adjoining parcel is deforested, it creates habitat fragmentation which will lead to making the entire forest and its resources vulnerable to degradation. I believe it completely depends on the nature of the privatization, who these prospective owners would be, but it sounds extremely risky to me. Good luck, this is a huge turning point and there's a lot at stake

.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hLRPrtN2ii0J:www2.fiu.edu/~brayd/mexicos_community_managed_forests.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I do not know, how this planned privatization in Poland should happen. If it is about restitution to former owners that had lost their land titles during socialist period, this might give better results than selling it to private companies. In the latter case, these companies will have to earn back the invested money within rather short time. They will tell you they have no other choice. However, in the other case there is some kind of moral pressure to prove that "now the forest is back in the right hands". I am thinking about former possessions of monasteries or aristocratic families. Anyway, as a first step and as an important prerequisite there should be established efficient controls that forest laws are observed.

To be honest I'm not sure if the intension of the government is to give back the national forests to the former (before socialism) hands. I have a feeling, it is rather motivated by supplying funds to the state budget, which is in very bad condition. In last months it emerged some political opposition against this project. In Poland forests are not only for wood production. Many people benefits from them as a recreation place, people from local villages, some times situated inside large forests pick up a mashrooms and blueberries what is additional source of the founds and traditional food. Everybody afraid that private owners forbide visiting forests for the local people and tourists. From the ecological point of view national forests are well govern, and we are aware that private owners will focuse mainly on the wood production, not including to their plans ecological function of them. There is general, widespread agreement that nationalisation of the forests was bad, but now most of people don't want it reprivatisation.

OK, I see it will be necessary to amend forest laws before privatisation. In Austria, since 1975 forest law (§ 33) explicitely allows that everybody may enter forests for recreational purposes, all the forest area and not only roads, private and public forests. Collecting mushroomes or berries are included in this recreational purposes. However, the law also gives an upper limit of 2 kg mushrooms per person and day. Of course, some exceptions exist, but it is generally accepted that there is free access for everybody to all the forests.