(PDF) FOREST AND PASTURE COMMONS IN ROMANIA: TERRITORIES OF LIFE, POTENTIAL ICCAs: COUNTRY REPORT

FOREST AND PASTURE

COMMONS IN ROMANIA

TERRITORIES OF LIFE, POTENTIAL ICCAs: COUNTRY REPORT

Author

Dr. Monica Vasile

2019

Monica

Vasile

is

an

environmental

anthropologist.

She

has

conducted

research

in

the

mountainous

regions

of

Romania,

concerned

with

issues

of

collective

action

in

relation

to

natural

resources,

both

historically

and

in

the

present.

Her

research

focused

on:

environmental

governance,

forest

and

logging

practices,

conservation

and

rewilding.

Between

2015

and

2017

she

coordinated

a

research

group

at

the

Institute

of

Sociology

of

the

Romanian

Academy,

which

extensively

documented

forest

and

pasture

commons

across

the

Carpathian

Mountains.

She

was

the

receipient

of

the

prestigious

Carson

Fellowship

at

the

Rachel

Carson

Center

for

Environment

and

Society.

She

studied

and

taught

sociology

and

social

anthropology

at

the

University

of

Bucharest,

where

she

obtained

her

PhD

in

2008.

From

2009

to

2013

she

was

a

researcher

at

the

Max

-

Planck

Institute

for

Social

Anthropology,

Halle

-

Saale.

She

also

worked

extensively

in

applied

projects

coordinated

by

environmental

NGOs.

Citation: Vasile, M. (2019). Forest and Pasture Commons in Romania. Territories of Life, Potential ICCAs: Country

Report. 53 pp.

Report funded by: ICCA consortium

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written

permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for

resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Disclaimer and acknowledgements: The information presented in this report is based on the author's own research,

and also partly on data obtained in Romanian Mountain Commons Project (more information available here

http://romaniacommons.wixsite.com/project), partly funded by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific

Research and Innovation, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2865. The quantitative data

available in this report was collected and processed within the Romanian Mountain Commons project, processed in

the AE database. The author wishes to acknowledge Irina Opincaru, Ștefan Voicu, and George Iordăchescu for

their participation in the project, and for their input in the research behind this report. The views expressed in the

report reflect the author's views solely.

1. Brief country description and context

2. Features of Romanian potential ICCAs

2.1. What are potential ICCAs in Romania? General overview

2.2. Numbers and coverage

2.3. Historical developments

2.4. Contemporary laws and regulations

2.5. Communities of rightholders: a typology of Romanian potential ICCAs

2.6. Socio-economic uses. Contribution to livelihoods and delivery of public

good

2.7. Governance and community participation

2.8. Small and large commons

2.8.1. Case-study 1: Forest Composesorat Tauții de Sus – Valea Gordanului

2.8.2. Case-study 2: Forest and pasture Composesorat Zetelaka

3. Area case-studies

3.1. Harghita County

3.2. Vrancea county

3.2.1. Case-study 3: Forest and Pasture Obștea Chiliile Zboinei

3.3. Maramureș county

4. Threats

4.1. Land grabbing and encroachment on the commons

4.2. Legislative and bureaucratic confusion

4.3. Conservation, sustainability and negative perceptions

4.4. Internal conflicts

4.5. Negative structural effects of rights distribution systems

5. Recommendations

5.1. Overview

5.2. Capacity building, information, training

5.3. Enhancing participation

5.4. Changing internal rules

5.5. General reccomendations

6. References

Contents

3

4

8

10

12

15

17

22

27

29

31

34

35

38

39

41

42

43

44

45

47

48

49

50

51

Maps

Map 1. Map of Romania p.6

Map 2. The network of protected areas Natura 2000 in Romania p.7

Map 3. Commons in the Romanian Carpathian Mountains, surveyed in the project Romanian

Mountain Commons (AE database) p.11

Map 4. Geographical distribution of types of Romanian commons p.21

Romania

is

located

in

Eastern

Europe

.

Its

territories

include

the

Carpathian

Mountains

,

with

the

highest

peak

Moldoveanu

at

2

,

544



m

altitude

,

and

border

the

Black

Sea

to

the

East

,

and

the

Danube

river

to

the

south

.

28

%

of

the

country

is

mountainous

,

40

%

hills

and

30

%

plains

.

It

borders

other

eastern

European

countries

:

Bulgaria

,

Ukraine

,

Hungary

,

Serbia

and

Moldova

.

It

has

an

area

of

238

,

391

square

kilometers

.

The

climate

is

temperate

-

continental

;

in

general

summers

are

hot

and

winters

are

very

cold

with

lots

of

snow

.

The

country

has

roughly

19

million

inhabitants

,

from

which

3

.

4

millions

are

temporary

or

definitive

emigrants

,

mostly

to

other

countries

of

the

European

Union

.

Romania

is

part

of

the

European

Union

since

2007

.

A

strong

majority

of

the

population

identify

themselves

as

Eastern

Orthodox

Christians

and

are

native

speakers

of

Romanian

,

a

Latin

language

.

Like

other

countries

in

the

region

,

its

population

is

expected

to

gradually

decline

in

the

upcoming

years

as

a

result

of

sub

-

replacement

fertility

rates

and

high

emigration

rates

.

In

October

2011

,

the

latest

census

,

Romanians

made

up

88

.

9

%

of

the

population

.

The

largest

ethnic

minorities

are

Hungarians

-

6

.

1

%

of

the

population

,

and

Roma

,

3

.

0

%

of

the

population

,

official

estimates

.

Modern

Romania

was

formed

in

1859

through

the

unification

of

the

Danubian

Principalities

of

Wallachia

and

Moldavia

.

The

new

state

,

officially

named

Romania

since

1866

,

gained

independence

from

the

Ottoman

Empire

under

a

foreign

prince

,

Carol

I

,

in

1877

.

1. Brief country description

and context

4

At

the

end

of

World

War

I

,

Transylvania

,

Bukovina

and

Bessarabia

united

with

the

sovereign

Kingdom

of

Romania

.

Following

World

War

II

,

Romania

became

a

socialist

republic

and

member

of

the

Warshaw

Pact

.

Abolition

of

private

property

,

command

economy

,

industrialization

modernization

,

nationalization

of

forests

,

collectivization

of

agriculture

and

rural

exodus

,

among

others

,

characterized

this

period

.

After

the

Revolution

in

1989

,

Romania

entered

a

post

-

socialist

transition

phase

in

which

privatization

,

market

economy

and

democracy

were

the

main

acclaimed

goals

.

Post

-

socialist

property

reforms

(

post

1990

)

did

not

innovate

;

they

stressed

on

‘

restitution

’,

forwarding

the

ideological

promise

of

reinstalling

the

traditional

peasant

society

.

This

wave

of

rights

recognition

assumed

the

reversibility

of

events

and

treated

the

socialist

era

as

a

black

hole

,

without

reflection

on

the

fact

that

rural

households

that

were

viable

fifty

years

ago

have

members

who

have

died

,

emigrated

,

married

and

substantially

changed

their

relationship

to

land

(

Verdery

1996

:

134

).

Claims

were

often

overlapping

and

contentious

;

they

were

assessed

based

on

formal

knowledge

from

documents

and

also

based

on

informal

local

knowledge

of

kinship

and

labor

;

land

assignments

and

contestations

often

became

memory

struggles

,

over

authoritative

knowledge

of

past

relations

(

Verdery

2003

).

A

number

of

scholars

argue

that

the

Romanian

countryside

is

increasingly

depopulated

and

land

is

being

abandoned

(

Kuemmerle

et

al

.

2008

,

2016

;

Müller

and

Kuemmerle

2009

).

To

counteract

these

losses

,

the

European

Union

’

s

conservation

policy

promoted

subsidies

to

encourage

farmers

to

keep

up

traditional

pastoral

practices

,

advocating

for

a

nature

-

culture

hybrid

model

of

conservation

(

Neumann

2014

).

Most

rural

households

in

Romania

practice

subsistence

agriculture

;

locals

also

occasionally

hunt

and

fish

,

forage

for

berries

,

mushrooms

,

and

medicinal

plants

.

A

large

percent

of

Romanian

rural

population

consumes

mostly

home

-

grown

products

.

In

many

rural

areas

,

locals

have

worked

in

industrial

factories

during

socialism

and

now

their

income

consists

of

state

pensions

.

Usually

,

people

in

the

Romanian

countryside

are

neither

poor

nor

uneducated

.

Forests

make

up

approximately

6

398

000

ha

of

the

Romanian

landscape

(

National

Institute

of

Statistics

2015

).

Of

these

,

approximately

400

,

000

hectares

are

meadows

,

marshes

and

ponds

.

Approximately

27

%

of

Romania

is

covered

in

conifer

and

deciduous

forest

.

Forests

are

dominated

by

beech

(

Fagus

Sylvatica

) (

30

%)

and

Norway

spruce

(

Picea

Abies

) (

22

%)

with

an

abundance

of

oak

(

Quercus

) (

19

%)

and

other

conifer

species

,

such

as

silver

fir

(

Abies

Alba

) (

5

%).

From

1960

-

1985

inappropriate

native

and

introduced

coniferous

species

were

planted

in

a

few

areas

,

resulting

in

ecological

problems

in

artificial

forest

stands

and

low

wood

quality

.

However

,

the

main

function

of

44

%

of

forests

was

in

the

immediate

post

-

socialst

period

to

protect

different

ecosystems

from

soil

erosion

,

pollution

,

and

to

create

watershed

protection

(

Function

Group

I

) (

Borlea

FAO

report

1997

,

http

://

www

.

fao

.

org

/

3

/

a

-

w7170e

/

w7170e0f

.

htm

).

Romania

has

one

of

the

largest

areas

of

undisturbed

forest

in

Europe

.

Pastures

amount

to

3

,

272

,

000

ha

,

of

which

approximately

85

%

are

privately

owned

,

and

meadows

another

1

556

000

ha

(

National

Statistics

Institute

2014

).

In

this

category

we

count

alpine

pastures

,

above

the

timberline

,

which

are

used

as

summer

ranges

.

The

mountain

meadows

occupy

1

,

240

,

000

ha

.

Also

there

are

lower

pastures

and

meadows

,

the

villages

(

izlaz

),

which

are

usually

used

for

the

village

cattle

and

horses

.

Romanian

pastures

are

usually

fertilized

with

manure

and

pesticides

are

not

used

.

ROMANIAN

POTENTIAL

ICCAS

5

Currently

forests

in

Romania

are

managed

under

the

same

laws

(

Ioras

and

Abrudan

2006

),

but

the

region

has

historically

experienced

very

different

forest

management

regimes

because

it

was

split

between

the

Habsburg

-

region

of

Transylvania

,

and

Ottoman

Empires

–

regions

of

Wallachia

and

Moldavia

,

during

the

18th

and

the

19th

century

(

Munteanu

et

al

.

2015

,

2016

).

Historical

forest

management

in

Romania

was

mostly

focused

on

natural

regeneration

.

After

the

Second

World

War

(

WWII

)

all

land

was

nationalized

and

managed

by

the

state

.

Soviet

policies

heavily

influenced

forest

management

leading

to

widespread

clear

cuts

and

planting

of

fast

growing

species

.

With

the

collapse

of

the

Soviet

Union

in

1990

,

land

was

partially

returned

to

former

private

owners

following

three

restitution

laws

in

1991

,

2000

and

2005

(

Ioras

and

Abrudan

,

2006

).

In

2007

,

Romania

joined

the

European

Union

,

and

new

land

management

regulations

,

such

as

a

requirement

for

management

plans

for

private

forests

(

Ioras

and

Abrudan

,

2006

).

However

,

forests

experienced

high

levels

of

disturbance

after

1990

,

and

particularly

after

2000

(

Griffiths

et

al

.

2012

,

2014

),

including

the

loss

of

valuable

ecosystems

and

old

-

growth

forests

(

Knorn

et

al

.

2012

).

The

forest

service

,

in

charge

of

forest

administration

and

guarding

,

currently

is

partly

a

state

structure

,

partly

private

structure

.

During

socialism

it

was

one

of

the

most

powerful

territorial

state

structure

,

with

more

than

The

privatization

of

forest

service

structures

started

in

2002

.

A

private

forestry

district

included

former

state

employees

,

and

it

needed

authorization

form

various

state

institutions

.

It

needed

to

make

administration

contracts

with

private

forest

owners

,

so

as

to

cover

a

minimum

of

7000

hectares

of

forest

(

criteria

for

mountain

areas

). 

In

2016

,

there

were

104

private

forestry

districts

from

478

in

total

[

1

].

The

state

forestry

districts

automatically

administer

the

state

forests

and

also

some

of

the

private

owners

,

which

choose

to

contract

their

service

for

a

negotiated

price

.

Studies

argued

that

while

foresters

from

both

state

and

private

structures

shared

values

forestry

,

as

they

had

the

same

education

,

there

were

increasing

tensions

between

the

two

sides

(

Lawrence

2009

)

and

the

foresters

who

started

working

for

the

private

structures

were

trusted

more

by

the

local

communities

that

they

worked

with

,

and

had

a

better

morale

(

Lawrence

and

Szabo

2005

).

[

1

]

According

to

official

website

http

://

ocoalederegim

.

ro

/

index

.

html

.

6

Map 1. Map of Romania

Roughly

25

%

of

the

Romanian

land

territory

is

in

some

form

of

nature

protection

(

UNEP

-

WCMC

2016

),

either

as

national

parks

,

natural

parks

,

nature

or

scientific

reserves

,

or

protected

under

the

Natura

2000

Network

,

on

the

basis

of

the

Habitats

and

Birds

Directives

.

These

areas

mostly

have

their

own

management

structures

and

management

plans

.

In

some

cases

they

overlap

with

territories

owned

by

communities

of

local

users

.

The

relation

between

the

administration

of

protected

areas

and

local

communities

who

own

land

in

those

areas

is

not

always

an

easy

one

;

there

are

many

complaints

on

both

sides

.

Usually

,

the

communities

complain

of

lack

of

respect

for

property

rights

,

lack

of

participation

in

the

decision

-

making

process

and

severe

impositions

on

their

livelihoods

.

In

return

,

he

protected

area

administrators

complains

about

the

‘

greed

’

of

local

dwellers

,

about

poaching

and

illegal

logging

.

Romania

has

the

largest

population

of

large

carnivores

in

Europe

including

the

brown

bear

(

Ursus

arctos

),

wolf

(

Canis

lupus

)

and

lynx

(

Lynx

lynx

).

There

are

approximately

6600

brown

bears

and

3000

wolves

(

Ministry

of

Environment

and

Climate

change

report

2014

[

1

]).

The

country

supports

half

of

Europe

’

s

brown

bears

and

30

per

cent

of

Europe

’

s

wolves

.

There

are

89

mammal

species

in

Romania

including

the

red

deer

(

Cervus elaphus

),

wild

boar

(

Sus

scrofa

)

and

fox

(

Vulpes vulpes

).

Birds

are

abundant

in

the

beech

forest

and

include

a

large

diversity

of

species

.

It

is

estimated

that

Romania

has

33

,

802

faunal

species

and

3700

flora

species

(

ibid

.).

[

1

]

https

://

www

.

cbd

.

int

/

doc

/

world

/

ro

/

ro

-

nr

-

05

-

en

.

pdf

consulted

June

15

2017

Map 2. The network of protected

areas Natura 2000 in Romania.

http://www.rosilva.ro/articole/prez

entare_generala__p_184.htm

©National Forest Directorate

7

The

first

point

to

be

clarified

regarding

ICCAs

in

Romania

is

that

the

concept

of

ICCA

is

unknown

locally

,

to

practitioners

or

administrators

and

,

as

a

consequence

,

there

are

no

formally

recognized

ICCAs

.

However

,

there

are

land

commons

with

characteristics

that

fit

the

ICCA

definition

as

stated

in

Borrini

-

Feyerabend

et

al

. (

2004

),

however

,

they

cannot

be

formally

called

such

.

As

the

expertise

of

the

author

bears

mainly

on

forested

and

grassland

areas

,

the

analysis

provided

will

mainly

be

focused

on

this

type

of

land

,

to

be

found

in

the

Carpathian

Mountains

of

Romania

.

Community

.

The

described

potential

ICCAs

are

forests

,

pastures

and

woody

pastures

owned

and

governed

mostly

by

communities

,

which

can

be

territorial

villages

,

kinship

-

groups

or

groups

of

descendants

.

And

while

the

territorial

villages

are

clearly

groups

of

people

living

together

in

a

certain

bounded

area

,

the

kinship

-

groups

are

more

diffuse

2. Features of ICCAs

2.1. What are potential ICCAs in

Romania? General overview

communities

,

based

on

common

ancestry

,

or

descendance

from

a

group

of

villagers

who

were

given

rights

to

the

commons

at

a

certain

point

in

history

and

inherited

the

rights

.

The

community

rightholders

have

a

bond

to

the

owned

territory

,

and

this

bond

understood

as

ownership

and

stewardship

is

getting

stronger

,

as

the

commons

were

only

restituted

for

19

years

(

details

section

history

).

The

rural

residents

of

today

Romania

are

mostly

literate

and

educated

,

making

a

living

from

sparse

wages

and

pensions

,

small

business

operations

,

day

-

labor

,

and

subsistence

practices

.

Rural

inhabitants

of

Romania

are

fully

integrated

in

a

European

society

,

with

aspirations

for

education

,

good

living

standards

and

consumption

.

But

,

the

possibilities

for

earning

an

income

are

not

as

developed

as

in

Western

Europe

.

This

gap

increased

in

the

last

25

years

.

because

of

dezindustrialization

after

the

fall

of

socialism

the

countryside

was

left

without

jobs

.

Grazing on the Southern Carpathian summer ranges.

Fagaras Mountains, Wallachia. ©Arryn Snowball

2016, AE database

Household work in Apuseni Mountains, Transylvania

©Monica Vasile 2010 8

The

villages

today

are

slightly

aged

and

depopulated

,

with

an

average

rate

of

depopulation

of

20

%

for

the

last

25

years

.

The

commons

and

the

communities

of

rightholders

are

organized

in

legal

entities

,

which

include

the

members

of

communities

and

the

owned

territory

.

They

are

called

in

Romania

‘

traditional

associative

forms

’,

reffered

to

in

local

language

mainly

as

obște

(

pl

.

obști

),

composesorat

(

pl

.

composesorate

)

and

asociație urbarială

(

pl

.

asociații

urbariale

).

in

Romanian

,

obște

and

composesorat

designate

mainly

the

institution

governing

the

commons

,

but

also

the

community

of

rightholders

and

can

also

be

used

to

designate

the

area

,

the

land

itself

.

From

a

legal

point

of

view

,

these

commons

are

considered

land

in

private

property

of

‘

juridical

persons

’.

Governance.

The

potential

ICCAs

described

here

have

governance

independence

and

were

organized

since

year

2000

,

when

a

property

restitution

law

(

law

1

/

2000

)

enabled

the

return

of

the

land

in

the

hands

of

communities

,

after

60

years

of

hiatus

when

it

was

owned

,

governed

and

managed

exclusively

by

the

state

.

The

local

institutions

/

organizations

of

community

members

–

owners

of

the

commons

are

legally

recognized

as

associations

,

also

generically

called

'

historical

property

forms

',

with

own

by

-

laws

and

decision

-

making

system

-

usually

assemblies

,

of

commoners

and

elected

councils

,

as

it

will

be

detailed

further

in

the

report

.

Thus

,

governance

is

independent

,

but

management

of

forests

is

co

-

management

,

together

with

specialized

forest

service

providers

,

either

private

forestry

districts

,

ocol privat de regim

,

or

state

forestry

districts

,

ocol de stat

.

Conservation.

The

Romanian

Carpathian

ecosystems

are

considered

to

be

healthy

and

biodiverse

,

a

wilderness

frontier

of

Europe

.

Part

of

them

are

in

stewardship

of

communities

since

the

land

restitution

law

in

year

2000

.

Among

these

areas

,

some

are

included

in

the

Natura

2000

network

,

in

natural

and

national

parks

,

and

most

of

the

pastures

conform

to

European

Union

regulations

for

traditional

use

and

management

,

and

receive

subsidies

,

which

are

partly

destined

towards

maintaining

further

biodiversity

levels

.

From

the

AE

database

,

42

%

of

the

Romanian

forest

and

pasture

commons

organizations

have

areas

included

in

protected

areas

,

and

15

%

are

in

national

parks

.

Despite

being

a

practice

in

the

awareness

of

local

people

, '

nature

conservation

'

is

a

concept

that

is

not

central

to

community

vocabularies

,

but

mostly

perceived

as

a

recent

restrictive

idea

,

imposed

from

'

above

',

through

designated

protected

areas

.

Communities

do

not

perceive

environmental

threats

to

a

high

degree

,

neither

aridity

nor

invasive

species

,

the

forests

and

grasslands

being

considered

abundant

and

nutritious

.

Communities

often

derive

livelihoods

from

using

the

environment

commercially

,

either

through

logging

,

and

selling

roundwood

and

sawnwood

,

or

through

shepherding

and

selling

produce

,

meat

and

cheese

(

details

in

section

2

.

6

.).

Most

of

the

potential

ICCAs

described

are

centered

on

use

of

the

land

,

mostly

grazing

and

logging

,

from

which

the

communities

derive

monetary

income

,

distributed

towards

commoners

and

invested

in

needed

community

infrastructure

.

Firewood

is

also

extracted

and

distributed

towards

local

population

,

for

heating

and

cooking

(

further

details

in

section

2

.

6

.).

In

several

areas

,

environmental

organizations

and

government

agencies

levered

severe

accusations

that

community

dwellers

use

resources

unsustainably

,

accusations

of

illegal

logging

,

and

poaching

.

Recently

,

since

2015

,

a

governmental

clampdown

on

illegal

logging

reduced

it

drastically

,

and

there

is

an

obvious

turn

towards

environmentally

sound

practice

.

In

addition

,

a

number

of

communities

with

commons

support

conservation

projects

in

partnership

with

NGOs

.

9

Basic

official

statistics

on

forest

and

pasture

commons

of

Romania

are

either

inconsistent

or

entirely

missing

.

The

present

study

is

mainly

based

on

research

the

author

has

done

in

the

past

15

years

(

Vasile

2006

,

2007

,

2009

,

2015

,

2018

;

Vasile

and

Mantescu

2009

),

examining

a

wide

range

of

case

-

studies

and

interviewing

a

large

number

of

commons

representatives

.

The

main

research

database

for

quantitative

estimations

comes

from

a

survey

of

330

commons

from

2015

-

2017

,

Romanian

Mountain

Commons

Project

,

henceforth

reffered

to

as

AE

database

[

1

].

From

my

research

,

by

piecing

together

information

from

different

sources

[

3

],

it

can

be

said

that

there

are

around

1500

forest

and

pasture

commons

,

counting

873

.

000

ha

of

forest

,

14

%

of

the

total

forested

surface

of

the

country

.

This

official

figure

is

presented

for

‘

traditional

associative

forms

’

by

the

Romanian

Court

of

Accounts

in

a

report

from

2014

[

4

];

other

sources

indicate

other

figures

,

such

as

788

.

694

ha

(

year

2015

),

source

official

report

filed

by

the

Ministry

of

Forest

and

Waters

[

5

].

In

addition

,

the

potential

ICCA

territories

consist

of

about

300

.

000

ha

of

pasture

,

which

is

a

rough

estimate

[

6

].

The

resources

are

owned

and

managed

by

over

400

.

000

commoners

[

7

].

Commons

are

located

in

the

mountains

,

but

also

in

hilly

areas

.

The

potential

ICCAs

on

the

exterior

arc

of

the

Carpathians

,

in

the

historical

regions

of

Wallachia

and

Moldova

are

generally

larger

,

and

the

ones

situated

inside

the

Carpathian

arc

,

in

the

historical

region

of

Transylvania

are

smaller

,

but

more

numerous

.

in

the

region

of

Moldova

,

a

strong

local

class

of

landed

landlords

during

the

feudal

period

Their

size

depends

on

historical

conditions

at

the

moment

of

their

legal

recognition

,

more

than

100

years

ago

,

which

will

be

detailed

in

the

further

sections

of

this

report

.

[

1

]

AE

database

was

created

in

the

project

„

Romanian

Mountain

Commons

",

led

by

the

author

.

More

information

on

methodology

at

:

http

://

romaniacommons

.

wixsite

.

com

/

projec

t

[

3

]

Such

data

sets

include

official

forestry

statistics

,

reports

provided

by

the

state

court

of

accounts

,

databases

with

registered

associations

.

[

4

]

Consulted

under

the

following

link

http

://

www

.

curteadeconturi

.

ro

/

Publicatii

/

Sin

teza

_

FF

.

pdf

in

May

2017

.

[

5

]

Consulted

under

the

following

link

http

://

www

.

mmediu

.

ro

/

app

/

webroot

/

upload

s

/

files

/

2016

-

12

-

16

_

Raport

_

Starea

_

padurilor

_

2015

.

pdf

[

6

]

Official

data

is

absent

in

this

case

.

[

7

]

Estimation

based

on

AE

survey

database

2.2.Numbers and coverage

cca

. 453.000

commoners

*

in

2016: 24%

in

Wallachia

, 67%

in

Transylvania

, 9%

in

Vrancea

cca

. 338.343

commoners

*

in

1948: 15%

in

Wallachia

, 73%

in

Transylvania

, 12%

in

Vrancea

111%

increase

of

number

of

commoners

in

Wallachia

since

1948

24%

increase

of

number

of

commoners

in

Transylvania

since

1948

*

estimations

from

AE

database

10

cca

. 1500

commons

cca

. 450.000

commoners

cca

870.000

ha

woodland

are

commons

,

owned

and

governed

by

communities

14%

of

the

forested

area

of

Romania

cca

. 300.000

ha

grazeland

are

independent

commons

,

owned

and

governed

by

communities

Map 3. Commons in the Romanian Carpathian Mountains, surveyed in the project Romanian Mountain Commons (AE database) in

three main regions. Stars indicate the location of communities in which research was conducted.

http://romaniacommons.wixsite.com/project ©Monica Vasile

Wallachia

Vrancea

T r a n s y l v a n i a

Estimates from AE survey, Romanian Mountain Commons Project:

Land in Commons

11

2.3. Historical developments

Contemporary

commons

and

their

governance

owe

a

lot

to

their

historical

development

in

the

feudal

period

,

leading

up

to

formal

recognitions

after

1850

.

As

it

will

be

seen

further

,

their

governance

regulations

,

surfaces

owned

,

names

,

ways

of

defining

the

community

of

rightholders

,

are

due

to

their

historical

recognition

and

formalization

in

the

modern

period

(

19th

-

20th

century

),

which

followed

processes

of

the

earlier

historical

periods

(

16th

-

18th

century

).

The

Romanian

forest

and

pasture

commons

were

legally

recognized

in

relation

to

communities

of

landholders

during

the

19th

and

20th

century

in

the

different

historical

provinces

.

The

delineation

and

recognition

of

commons

in

Transylvania

,

coupled

with

a

formalization

of

personal

rights

occured

in

the

19th

century

,

starting

in

1853

:

this

process

was

a

massive

,

centrally

-

driven

policy

by

Austrian

state

and

its

continuator

,

the

Austro

-

Hungarian

Empire

,

which

essentially

transformed

the

of

peasants

to

common

lands

.

It

also

quantified

the

shares

of

peasants

in

the

commons

.

A

similar

process

happened

in

Wallachia

in

1910

,

a

region

under

Romanian

rule

,

covering

the

Southern

Carpathians

;

a

centrally

driven

operation

of

legal

recognition

and

registration

of

commons

,

with

roots

in

local

customs

of

rights

demarcations

,

based

on

lineages

and

broadly

understood

kinship

groups

.

However

,

in

Wallachia

,

as

well

as

in

Transylvania

,

grassroots

processes

of

rights

recognition

ratified

by

local

courts

happened

much

earlier

in

connection

to

free

peasants

.

These

free

holders

existed

merely

in

the

mountainous

areas

,

where

landlords

did

not

spread

their

influence

to

a

large

extent

.

The

rights of free holders

were

based

on

(

1

)

donations

from

medieval

kings

to

communities

of

kin

-

groups

of

vassals

,

arms

-

bearing

cavalry

,

or

knights

,

or

borderguards

,

or

(

2

)

on

rights

of

first

settlers

on

unclaimed

land

,

or

(

3

)

on

redemptions

(

buying

)

of

land

by

peasants

from

former

landlords

or

land

-

owning

monasteries

.

Various

peasant

groups

/

communities

were

constituted

as

legal

persons

,

following

different

rationales

.

In

some

areas

,

the

villages

as

territorial

units

were

entitled

to

own

land

(

e

.

g

.

obști

in

Vrancea

region

,

South

-

Eastern

Carpathians

);

in

others

,

it

was

kinship

groups

,

the

descendants

of

initial

settlers

who

were

constituted

as

legal

owners

of

the

common

land

,

with

the

exclusion

of

newcomers

(

e

.

g

.

obști

in

region

of

Wallachia

);

yet

in

others

it

was

descent

-

groups

formed

of

heirs

of

those

who

redeemed

lands

from

the

local

landlords

in

the

18

-

19th

centuries

;

or

descent

-

groups

of

former

military

that

were

donated

lands

by

medieval

kings

for

whom

they

fought

wars

(

e

.

g

.

composesorate

nobile

of

Maramureș

)

or

descent

groups

of

former

serfs

.

The

different

categories

will

be

detailed

din

further

sections

.

When

they

were

constituted

as

legal

persons

,

most

of

these

groups

had

allocated

unequal

individual

shares

,

as

rights

,

to

the

mountain

commons

for

individual

households

or

persons

,

on

the

basis

of

their

holdings

–

in

Transylvanian

associations

of

former

serfs

,

or

on

the

basis

of

their

position

in

the

lineage

of

the

initial

settlers

,

in

the

southern

region

of

Wallachia

,

or

on

their

monetary

contribution

in

the

redemption

process

,

etc

.

Such

shares

/

rights

did

not

mean

that

they

were

allotted

a

certain

plot

,

but

that

they

were

allowed

to

derive

a

certain

quantity

of

benefits

from

the

commons

,

for

example

to

graze

a

number

of

animals

,

or

receive

a

certain

amount

of

money

from

leasing

the

forest

.

These

groups

were

organized

in

self

-

governing

institutions

,

they

elected

a

management

committee

,

elected

a

forest

12

guard

,

organized

village

assemblies

and

devised

their

own

by

-

laws

,

ratified

by

legal

courts

and

registered

.

Regional

by

-

laws

were

at

times

suggested

as

unified

models

and

adopted

.

The

commons

governance

institutions

,

obsti

and

composesorate

,

were

thus

functioning

from

the

19th

century

,

and

some

even

from

before

,

as

independent

governing

bodies

,

according

to

their

own

rules

,

with

full

recognition

from

the

state

,

upon

fulfilling

legal

procedures

of

registration

.

An

important

distinction

should

be

made

between

the

independent

commons

,

considered

'

private

domain

'

and

the

municipality

lands

considered

'

public

domain

'.

The

municipality

owned

land

(

păduri

,

pășuni

comunale

)

starts

to

be

an

important

category

of

ownership

starting

with

1920

.

This

land

was

called

the

communal

forest

,

padure

comunala

,

or

the

communal

pasture

,

with

reference

with

the

name

of

the

territorial

administrative

rural

unit

called

commune

,

comună

.

The

municipality

land

was

a

form

of

owning

land

especially

in

Transylvania

,

destined

also

for

the

use

of

residents

,

governed

by

the

local

state

officials

(

mayor

and

councillors

),

but

without

any

say

on

the

part

of

the

actual

community

of

residents

.

In

the

past

,

the

independent

commons

forests

were

used

for

firewood

and

construction

timber

,

for

digging

peat

,

also

for

grazing

pigs

in

early

spring

.

Pastures

were

extremely

important

for

raising

cattle

and

sheep

.

They

were

also

an

important

source

of

monetary

income

for

local

communities

,

as

some

mountains

were

leased

to

shepherds

from

other

areas

,

and

to

logging

companies

.

Especially

in

the

end

of

the

19th

century

and

the

beginning

of

the

20th

century

,

many

companies

from

the

Austro

-

Hungarian

Empire

started

the

capitalist

exploitation

of

the

Carpathian

forests

,

and

in

many

areas

they

mercilessly

deforested

entire

areas

.

They

build

logging

infrastructure

,

narrow

-

gauge

railways

,

roads

,

and

funiculars

and

used

timber

flottation

techniques

,

which

ensured

the

transport

of

large

quantities

of

timber

.

In

many

cases

dubious

deals

were

struck

between

local

elites

and

commercial

entrepreneurs

representatives

of

the

companies

,

considered

abuses

of

local

rights

,

leading

to

dispossession

of

the

peasants

of

their

rights

to

the

commons

(

Stahl

1998

;

Iuga

1936

).

The

state

attempted

to

stop

this

kind

of

'

irational

'

logging

and

define

better

the

rights

of

locals

,

in

order

to

protect

them

,

and

this

is

one

reason

for

the

regulations

of

the

commons

from

1910

.

Socialism.

Between

1950

and

1957

,

the

socialist

state

seized

the

commons

in

a

process

of

nationalization.

In

this

period

,

forests

became

a

state

resource

,

their

timber

started

to

be

produced

,

extracted

and

commodified

by

the

state

.

Community

users

became

forest

workers

,

guards

,

woodcutters

,

wood

transporters

,

forestry

engineers

,

technicians

,

sawmilling

specialists

and

so

on

–

tens

of

thousands

of

employees

.

A

network

of

forestry

districts

was

put

in

place

and

forest

was

mapped

into

UA

–

administrative

units

and

UP

–

production

units

.

Also

local

language

of

forests

became

that

of

scientific

forestry

and

the

language

of

production

.

Concerning

pastures

,

they

were

administered

by

local

socialist

collectives

,

either

by

independent

associations

called

‘

camaraderies

’

or

‘

communities

of

comrades

’ (

întovărășiri

),

which

kept

the

old

rules

for

sharing

pastures

,

grazing

and

making

cheese

.

They

were

restituted

to

communities

after

year

2000

.

The

historical

track

is

very

important

for

current

developments

.

Post-socialism.

In

the

contemporary

period

,

after

1989

,

there

were

a

few

successive

restitution

laws

,

which

allowed

the

property

restitution

of

land

to

former

owners

,

those

from

before

the

nationalization

in

1948

and

their

rightful

heirs

.

The

restitution

law

1

/

2000

allowed

the

pre

-

socialist

commons

to

be

13

commoners

,

property

documents

,

and

about

making

new

official

documents

.

Overall

,

the

surface

of

land

restituted

after

2000

was

less

than

what

the

commons

covered

prior

to

1948

.

This

diminishing

relates

to

various

situations

:

1

)

unaffordable

or

unavailable

legal

assistance

and

lack

of

initiative

of

the

heirs

of

former

commoners

;

2

)

lack

of

evidence

for

claims

,

i

.

e

.

legal

property

documents

,

which

were

either

lost

,

made

unavailable

,

hidden

,

stolen

or

destroyed

;

3

)

confusion

regarding

the

legal

procedures

of

reconstituting

commons

property

;

4

)

the

reluctance

of

local

state

officials

,

entitled

to

run

the

restitution

process

,

to

hand

over

the

land

to

the

new

claimants

;

5

)

reluctance

of

state

forestry

districts

,

who

managed

the

forest

land

,

to

hand

over

the

land

to

commons

claimants

;

6

)

changes

in

the

administrative

structures

that

created

confusion

;

7

)

new

private

enclosures

.

reorganized

and

the

former

commoners

to

receive

back

their

property

rights

,

but

limited

the

amount

of

land

that

could

be

restituted

.

Later

on

,

law

247

/

2005

aimed

to

right

that

wrong

and

to

restitute

integrally

,

This

law

was

called

restitutio in integrum

.

The

post

-

socialist

laws

did

not

introduce

many

innovations

and

explicitly

required

the

use

of

the

old

by

-

laws

.

Even

though

formal

recognition

was

initially

fairly

straightforward

,

the

process

of

full

titling

and

registration

in

the

‘

land

book

’

required

cumbersome

procedures

.

According

to

the

law

,

the

new

entitled

commoners

were

the

‘

old

’

members

(

from

1948

),

and

their

descendants

.

However

,

after

60

years

of

interrupting

the

'

existence

'

of

the

commons

,

it

was

not

obvious

who

these

people

were

.

The

process

of

making

new

commoners

entailed

complex

negotiations

.

The

stories

of

restitution

were

mostly

bureaucratic

stories

about

‘

papers

’,

of

finding

and

deciphering

old

maps

,

lists

with

40%

of

the

communities

of

commoners

had

lawsuits

regarding

the

restitution

of

commons

39%

of

all

lawsuits

were

against

local

state

officials

,

mostly

in

Transylvania

23%

of

all

lawsuits

in

Wallachia

had

as

reason

the

unclear

borders

between

neighboring

commons

13%

of

all

lawsuits

in

Transylvania

were

due

to

lack

of

clarity

regarding

the

old

border

between

the

Austro

-

Hungarian

Empire

and

the

Romanian

Principalities

38%

of

the

commons

do

not

have

a

property

title

as

per

2016, 16

years

into

the

restitution

process

26%

of

the

communities

of

commoners

'

representatives

believe

that

confusing

legislation

is

the

main

reason

for

the

commons

problems

19%

of

the

representatives

see

the

incomplete

restitution

as

their

primary

problem

in

governing

the

commons

13%

of

the

representatives

fear

a

new

nationalization

Results from AE survey, Romanian Mountain Commons Project:

Shortcomings of post-socialist commons restitution; N=329

14

inscribed

in

the

“

Registry

of

Associations

and

Foundations

”.

Forest

management

and

harvesting

is

regulated

by

state

laws

,

communities

are

bound

to

follow

imposed

management

plans

(

Forestry

Code

2008

)

and

to

affiliate

to

forestry

districts

,

which

can

be

state

-

run

or

privately

-

run

for

guarding

and

administration

of

the

forests

(

for

more

details

see

section

2

.

6

.).

Pasture

management

is

regulated

mostly

by

rules

pertaining

to

the

subsidies

schemes

offered

by

the

European

Union

CAP

policy

;

these

regulations

require

fulfillment

of

certain

procedures

:

limits

the

number

of

animals

per

hectare

,

requires

the

maintenance

of

pasture

from

growing

weeds

and

encroaching

trees

,

as

well

as

keeping

the

sources

of

water

.

Collectives

own

the

ponds

and

streams

on

their

lands

,

of

less

than

5

km

long

and

with

a

hydrographic

basin

of

less

than

10

sq

km

.

Over

this

size

,

they

are

owned

by

the

state

.

The

right

to

use

the

water

is

free

for

all

.

The

community

may

not

use

the

water

for

commercial

purposes

without

formal

authority

from

the

government

(

Law

of

waters

107

/

1996

).

Some

commons

are

located

in

areas

that

are

designated

protected

areas

.

This

does

not

relinquish

the

right

of

commoners

to

the

land

;

it

imposes

restrictions

,

according

to

the

degree

of

protection

.

Protected

areas

may

contain

land

held

under

any

tenure

type

,

including

collective

entities

,

and

are

divided

into

core

zones

and

buffer

zones

.

In

these

zones

,

restrictions

of

use

apply

and

compensations

should

be

paid

to

owners

(

Government

decree

on

protected

areas

OUG

57

/

2007

).

However

,

these

compensations

are

usually

not

paid

automatically

and

the

communities

of

owners

have

to

fulfill

bureaucratic

operations

to

obtain

them

,

which

are

costly

and

not

immediately

available

.

The

law

provides

for

community

ownership

rights

to

forest

and

pasture

lands

(

Art

.

92

,

Forest

Code

,

2008

;

Art

.

26

,

Law

1

/

2000

),

in

the

form

of

village

communities

or

kinship

-

groups

,

constituted

as

associations

–

juridical

entities

with

private

ownership

.

The

commons

are

called

obste

,

composesorat

,

asociatie

urbariala

,

in

law

text

named

under

the

unified

denomination

of

‘

historical

associative

forms

’.

Communities

of

owner

-

users

form

associations

to

obtain

these

rights

(

Arts

.

93

-

95

,

Forest

Code

,

2008

),

as

independent

governance

bodies

,

managed

by

elected

committees

/

councils

.

The

community

or

kinship

-

group

are

considered

private

collective

owners

,

their

property

is

guaranteed

,

indivisible

and

inalienable

,

and

provided

security

(

Forest

Code

,

2008

,

art

.

94

-

95

).

The

laws

that

first

recognized

collective

landowning

rights

required

the

formation

of

legal

entities

(

at

the

end

of

19th

century

,

beginning

of

the

20th

century

),

formed

of

individual

members

,

enlisted

in

tables

;

in

most

cases

the

common

property

came

to

be

expressed

in

a

sum

of

individual

shares

,

although

the

property

was

not

divided

on

the

ground

(

Forestry

Code

,

1910

);

thus

it

somehow

denied

the

wholeness

of

a

collectivity

and

reduced

it

to

a

sum

of

parts

.

The

process

of

establishing

who

was

a

commoner

50

years

ago

and

who

are

their

heirs

today

proved

to

be

cumbersome

.

Today

,

the

tables

with

commoners

and

the

number

of

each

commoner

’

s

shares

is

an

important

instrument

of

governance

.

Law

explicitly

grants

authority

over

commons

to

the

community

itself

.

Power

is

devolved

to

the

local

level

,

communities

of

rightholders

govern

independently

through

elected

councils

and

general

assemblies

,

according

to

locally

created

and

approved

by

-

laws

,

upheld

by

state

courts

(

Law

1

/

2000

,

Art

.

29

).

These

procedures

are

upheld

by

the

law

of

associations

and

all

the

changes

must

be

2.4. Contemporary laws and regulations

regarding commons

15

It

is

recognized

that

community

land

rights

may

be

held

in

perpetuity

.

There

is

no

durational

limit

mentioned

in

Forestry

Code

or

property

restitution

laws

1

/

2000

or

247

/

2005

.

Most

legal

by

-

laws

found

in

local

communities

mention

‘

unlimited

duration

’.

Land

in

the

commons

,

or

quota

-

shares

held

by

individual

persons

cannot

be

acquired

from

or

sold

towards

persons

who

are

not

part

of

the

community

of

rightholders

(

law

400

/

2002

).

thus

,

external

members

cannot

be

accepted

,

by

law

.

However

,

in

certain

areas

members

can

sell

their

shares

/

quotas

to

other

rightholders

inside

the

same

obște

/

composesorat

;

the

sales

were

usually

a

reason

for

confusion

and

abuses

in

the

past

,

and

in

some

cases

also

in

the

present

,

see

section

on

"

Threats

".

ransactions

with

shares

have

to

be

approved

by

the

council

and

the

assembly

of

commoners

and

properly

publicized

in

advance

.

In

case

the

legal

landholding

entity

‘

dissolves

’,

the

land

becomes

property

of

the

municipality

,

enters

the

public

domain

,

but

does

not

become

state

property

.

The

‘

dissolving

’

procedure

is

detailed

in

the

by

-

laws

(

according

to

law

1

/

2000

,

art

.

28

).

Most

by

-

laws

specify

that

the

dissolving

has

to

be

decided

by

the

general

assembly

,

following

detailed

voting

procedures

.

Village in Apuseni Mountains, Transylvania ©Monica

Vasile 2010

16

Currently

,

the

Romanian

communities

land

commons

can

be

defined

as

‘

communities of rightholders

’,

people

who

own

and

share

the

land

and

mostly

live

in

the

same

territory

.

In

practice

,

what

we

understand

by

‘

community

of

rightholders

’

is

complex

and

very

different

across

the

Carpathians

,

defined

by

layers

of

successive

histories

,

local

and

state

decisions

.

Communities

are



always

in

flux

,

changing

in

the

course

of

time

,

with

their

borders

being

defined

also

by

administrative

-

bureaucratic

policies

attempting

to

regulate

and

contrive

concepts

of

what

makes

community

and

what

makes

rights

to

territory

.

As

mentioned

before

,

the

Austrian

state

policies

starting

with

1853

in

Transylvania

,

and

the

Romanian

Forestry

Code

implemented

in

1910

in

the

Romanian

Principalities

(

Wallachia

and

Vrancea

county

included

here

)

enabled

various

peasant

groups

to

constitute

as

landholding

legal

persons

,

and

recognized

their

rights

to

common

lands

,

following

different

rationales

.

2.5. Communities of rightholders:

a typology of Romanian potential ICCAs

Today

in

the

Carpathian

commons

,

we

see

a

range

of

different

communities

linked

to

certain

territories

,

owning

rights

to

common

lands

,

which

can

be

distinguished

in

a

few

types

:

1)

The

territorial

villages

.

Rights

to

commons

defined

by

residence

.

Here

,

the

community

holding

rights

to

the

commons

is

formed

by

people

who

live

at

a

certain

time

in

a

village

.

Locally

this

system

is

called

‘

organized

by

the

chimney

smoke

’ (

in

Rom

. ‘

pe

fumuri

’),

meaning

that

if

you

want

to

count

the

members

in

the

community

,

you

count

the

number

of

smoke

columns

coming

out

of

chimneys

in

winter

.

This

means

one

counts

the

households

that

are

lived

in

at

the

moment

.

This

suggests

that

,

as

in

other

parts

of

Europe

,

we

have

a

‘

community of households’, a

territorial village unit holding the

rights to the land

.

We

have

here

the

primacy

of

households

,

or

of

place

over

persons

,

suggesting

a

conception

linked

to

the

Germanic

type

of

ownership

.

Group of commoners of Composesorat Suseni,

before 1948. Harghita county, Transylvania. ©Stefan

Voicu 2016, AE database

Elected executive council of Composesorat Ciucani,

database

17

over

the

course

of

history

it

raised

the

question

of

who

is

entitled

to

pasture

and

how

many

sheep

can

be

allowed

,

which

leads

to

a

quantification

of

rights

/

shares

to

avoid

overgrazing

,

as

in

other

parts

of

Europe

(

the

Swiss

Alps

for

example

).

In

this

type

,

commoners

usually

inherit

rights

/

shares

,

which

are

split

between

heirs

,

in

time

leading

to

an

inequality

of

shares

inside

the

community

.

This

type

is

defined

by

a

historical

reference

to

the

group of people descending from

the first pioneer settlers

in

a

given

territory

,

or

descendants

of

people

with

military

titles

,

knights

or

borderguards

(

called

plăieși

),

who

were

considered

freeholders

in

the

feudal

ranking

,

and

were

granted

communal

rights

to

the

land

by

rulers

/

kings

,

for

their

military

service

.

In

time

,

various

transactions

with

the

land

had

occurred

,

so

that

by

the

16

-

17th

centuries

some

of

the

peasant

communities

lost

the

land

to

large

landlords

or

monasteries

,

and

in

order

to

become

community

-

lands

again

,

they

had

to

be

bought

/

reclaimed

.

Crucial

to

our

discussion

is

the

fact

that

today

these

groups

of

rightholders

hold

an

understanding

of

being

a

community

and

are

also

legally

recognized

as

traditional

groups

of

owners

.

Historical

references

,

a

sense

of

shared ancestry

,

and

past

struggles

against

feudal

exploiters

–

take

shape

in

a

shared

identity

as

a

community

that

lays

claim

today

to

certain

pieces

of

common

land

.

In

the

documents

from

the

beginning

of

the

20th

century

,

as

well

as

since

the

postsocialist

restitution

,

these

communities

of

rightholders

call

themselves

in

vernacular

language

'ceata

de moșneni'

,

group

with

a

common

ancestor

,

or

'

obștea de moșneni

',

the

word

obște

coming

from

Slavonic

and

meaning

‘

togetherness

’

or

community

.

At

the

beginning

of

the

20th

century

,

the

moșneni peasants

were

50

-

60

%

of

all

peasants

inhabiting

the

northern

counties

of

Gorj

,

Vâlcea

and

Argeș

.

They

were

defined

by

the

Ministry

of

Water

,

Forests

and

Domains

in

1899

as

those

peasants

who

were

not

dependent

,

The

community

is

historically

linked

to

a

certain

piece

of

land

,

to

a

certain

place

,

a

mountain

that

includes

pasture

and

forest

,

in

which

every

villager

holds

equal

rights

in

common

with

all

the

others

.

This

is

the

simplest

form

of

commons

.

When

someone

leaves

the

village

to

settle

somewhere

else

,

they

lose

the

right

to

the

common

land

.

If

the

person

comes

back

,

they

receive

their

right

back

.

If

a

foreign

person

comes

as

a

newcomer

to

the

village

,

they

receive

the

right

to

the

common

land

.

The

rights

are

not

transferable

,

and

not

inheritable

.

This

type

of

commons

/

rights

holding

system

are

located

preponderantly

in

the

Eastern

part

of

the

Carpathians

,

all

the

30

communities

of

the

region

of

Vrancea

,

owning

rights

to

over

60

,

000

hectares

of

forest

within

the

Vrancea

Mountains

.

In

the

region

of

Vrancea

,

the

average

number

of

commoners

per

community

of

rightholders

is

971

,

according

to

the

AE

database

.

This

type

of

commons

are

also

scattered

across

the

other

regions

,

11

%

of

such

commons

are

located

in

Transylvania

(

especially

in

Brașov

and

Sălaj

counties

).

2)

The

communities

of

former

free

-

holders

of

northern

Wallachia

.

Rights

to

commons

defined

by

common

ancestry

.

They

inhabit

the

mountain

villages

ranging

along

the

southern

rim

of

the

Carpathian

Mountains

.

They

own

approximately

24

%

of

the

forested

surface

of

the

area

(

counties

Argeș

,

Vâlcea

and

Gorj

)

and

17

%

of

the

grazeland

of

the

area

.

The

commons

owned

by

each

community

count

on

average

2600

ha

of

mountain

land

,

including

forest

and

pasture

(

alpine

pastures

and

lower

foothills

grasslands

),

and

a

community

of

rightholders

currently

counts

on

average

741

members

,

according

to

AE

database

.

Their

land

is

mostly

defined

as

‘

mountains

’,

the

land

of

each

community

comprising

forest

and

pasture

,

and

alpine

pastures

.

The

land

in

these

areas

is

different

from

other

areas

of

the

Carpathians

,

as

it

has

alpages

,

alpine

pastures

above

the

timberline

with

nutritious

grasses

grazed

by

sheep

in

summer

.

This

feature

is

important

because

18

did

not

pay

tribute

to

monasteries

or

landlords

,

and

freely

owned

their

lands

prior

to

the

agrarian

reform

from

1864

,

on

the

basis

of

their

ancestral

rights

(

Ciobotea

1999

).

In

time

,

in

order

to

survive

,

the

customary

property

rights

of

these

‘

communities

of

moșneni

’

had

to

be

formalized

and

recognized

by

the

Romanian

state

,

and

tune

in

to

complex

concepts

of

law

and

procedures

of

quantification

and

bureaucratization

.

The

formalization

of

the

community

as

a

legal

juridical

body

(

obște

)

owning

rights

to

the

land

,

in

late

19th

-

early

20th

century

,

was

crucial

for

the

survival

and

definition

of

such

communities

of

descent

.

In

past

times

all

commoners

would

inhabit

one

village

,

but

,

in

time

,

with

increasing

mobility

some

commoners

migrated

to

cities

,

but

did

not

lose

their

right

,

which

was

inherited

and

secure

as

a

property

right

.

So

,

at

the

time

of

postsocilaist

restitution

,

in

2000

,

in

most

cases

a

core

nucleus

of

the

community

of

descent

would

still

live

in

the

village

,

i

.

e

.

on

average

73

%

of

the

rightholders

according

to

AE

database

,

while

a

number

of

descendants

don

’

t

inhabit

the

area

anymore

,

but

they

are

still

registered

as

commoners

and

can

participate

in

meetings

and

receive

part

of

the

distributed

proceeds

.

Such

communities

are

reminiscent

of

the

segmentary

lineage

systems

of

the

African

tribes

,

such

as

the

Nuer

and

are

also

similar

to

the

Montes

de

Socios

in

Spain

.

3)

Communities

of

former

enserfed

peasants

(

urbarialisti

,

iobagi

,

coloni

)

in

Transylvania

.

Rights

to

commons

defined

by

descent

from

a

group

of

entitled

predecessors

.

feudal

landlords

had

all

the

interest

to

keep

large

estates

for

themselves

and

they

had

the

power

to

control

the

comissions

of

clerks

and

judges

in

charge

with

operating

the

land

allocation

to

peasants

.

The

resulted

communal

plots

of

land

,

the

'

composesorate

of

former

serfs

'

were

usually

too small

to

actually

sustain

the

livelihoods

of

peasant

communities

,

and

thus

were

subject

to

ceaseless

conflicts

,

complaints

and

reassessments

.

Their

organization

as

governing

institutions

was

provisioned

by

an

Austrian

law

in

1898

,

which

required

formulation

of

by

-

laws

.

The

processes

of

recognition

and

formalization

of

rights

have

lasted

very

long

,

marked

by

successive

changes

to

legal

provisions

,

administrative

changes

,

recalculations

and

re

-

delineations

,

which

in

fact

did

not

cease

until

the

abolition

of

the

commons

in

1948

.

Today

,

these

commons

are

usually

of

a

small

size

.

Most

are

organized

on

the

basis

of

unequal shares, genealogically

,

as

in

type

2

).

with

the

inheritance

of

rights

from

the

entitled

'

former

serfs

'

listed

in

the

membership

tables

and

the

official

land

books

at

the

time

of

the

formalization

of

rights

(

late

19th

century

).

For

this

category

the

process

of

restitution

after

2000

was

made

very

difficult

by

local

state

officials

in

the

area

(

local

government

,

mayor

’

s

office

).

The

forests

of

these

commons

are

predominantly

deciduous

-

located

at

small

altitudes

in

the

immediate

vicinity

of

the

villages

,

from

which

a

share

of

firewood

is

allocated

to

the

commoners

.

26

%

of

composesorate

commons

in

this

category

have

no

pasture

at

all

.

Monetary

proceeds

in

this

type

of

commons

are

very

low

,

and

therefore

,

due

payments

and

fees

towards

state

forestry

districts

that

guard

and

manage

the

forests

by

law

,

often

represent

a

problem

. ;

ost

of

the

time

,

the

presidents

of

these

composesorate

dedicate

a

lot

of

voluntary

time

for

running

the

governing

institutions

and

fulfilling

legal

procedures

(

for

further

details

,

see

also

case

-

study

Composesorat

Tauții

de

Sus

–

Valea

Gordanului

).

These

commons

have

been

formally

recognized

since

1853

,

when

after

the

liberation

of

feudal

serfs

,

an

imperial

patent

law

(

called

the

segregation

law

)

delineated

plots

of

lands

from

the

larger

manorial

estates

for

the

use

of

liberated

peasant

communities

.

The

delineations

were

fraught

with

conflicts

and

injustice

,

as

the

former

19

4)

The

communities

of

former

small

nobility

and

borderguards

of

Transylvania

.

Rights

to

commons

defined

by

descent

from

a

group

of

entitled

predecessors

.

In

1762

,

in

the

Transylvanian

Princedom

,

communities

located

along

the

Carpathian

mountain

rim

,

at

the

border

of

the

Austrian

Empire

,

received

land

in

ownership

in

exchange

for

military

service

to

the

Crown

.

To

the

south

,

the

counties

of

Sibiu

,

Brasov

and

Hunedoara

.

To

the

east

,

Harghita

and

Covasna

counties

,

areas

inhabited

mostly

by

the

Hungarian

minority

[

1

].

The

local

communities

derived

their

rights

to

the

commons

historically

from

a

feudal

class

of

cavalry

,

who

,

in

exchange

for

class

and

property

privileges

,

were

required

to

defend

the

borders

of

the

Habsburg

Empire

,

and

therefore

to

support

horses

,

bear

arms

,

and

be

ready

to

fight

.

They

are

similar

to

other

cavalry

in

feudal

Europe

.

Were

considered

free

people

,

lesser

nobility

and

were

provided

with

land

,

as

opposed

to

being

serfs

.

They

were

called

either

borderguards

,

grăniceri

,

or

nobles

,

nobili,

or

nemeși

.

To

some

extent

they

were

also

considered

peasants

,

free

peasants

,

similar

to

the

moșneni

in

Wallachia

.

These

commons

were

owned

by

legal

institutions

-

a

community

of

members

-

called

composesorat

,

with

independent

elected

councils

and

by

-

laws

from

1898

,

organized

according

to

a

law

passed

by

the

Austro

-

Hungarian

state

,

which

made

similar

provisions

for

type

3

(

the

former

serfs

commons

).

Within

one

territorial

village

,

sometimes

the

community

of

borderguards

descendants

would

distinguish

themselves

from

the

rest

of

the

village

population

,

and

so

only

a

part

of

the

village

would

have

rights

to

commons

.

The

same

inheritance principle

described

for

Wallachian

communities

above

also

operates

here

,

the

commons

organized

on

the

quota/shares system

whereby

the

rights

inherited are transmitted and

divided

among

the

heirs

,

and

are

preserved

even

if

the

person

leaves

the

area

where

the

land

is

located

,

or

is

born

elsewhere

.

Office buildings for composesorate/institutions of

former borderguards (type 4) commons in Harghita

county, Transylvania. 1. Ciucsangeorgiu 2. interior of

Ciucsangeorgiu composesorat headquarters, youth

orchestra practice room 3. Frumoasa, 4. Mădăraș

©Stefan Voicu 2016, AE database

20

Rights

,

just

as

in

southern

Wallachian

communities

,

can

be

transfered

to

other

persons

inside

the

community

,

by

selling

or

donation

.

The

commons

in

this

type

are

relatively

large

,

on

average

they

are

around

1500

ha

,

larger

in

Harghita

.

The

monetary proceeds

are therefore quite substantial

,

and

these

institutions

are

locally

very powerful

,

they

run

their

own

small

enterprises

,

like

1

2

Vrancea

Argeș

Vâlcea

Gorj

3

2

3+4

4

Covasna

Harghita

Maramureș

Hunedoara

Cluj

Brașov

Mureș

Sălaj

sawmills

,

tourism

facilities

,

farms

,

or

tree

nurseries

,

and

they

contribute

revenues

from

the

commons

to

community

life

by

sponsoring

local

youth

groups

,

village

cultural

associations

,

fanfares

,

fire

brigade

.

they

also

sponsor

building

infrastructure

.

[

1

]

85

%

of

the

population

in

Harghita

county

is

Hungarian

and

74

%

in

Covasna

.

Map 4. Geographical distribution of types of Romanian commons, names of

database

Legend

1 = territorial, egalitarian,

residence-based, obști

2 = descent-groups,

former freeholders

unequal shares, obști de

moșneni

3 = heirs of former serfs,

unequal shares,

composesorate

4 = heirs of former small

nobility, unequal shares,

composesorate

21

Distribution of types detailed in section 2.5. on counties:

type 1: Vrancea

type 2: Gorj, Argeș, Vâlcea

type 3: Sălaj, Cluj

type 4: Harghita, Covasna

type 3+type 4: Hunedoara, Maramureș, Brașov

Commoners

perceive

the

primary

uses

of

the

commons

to

be

firewood

,

grazing

and

liquid

proceeds

from

commercial

leases

and

enterprises

.

The

forest

commons

are

a

mixture

of

broadleaved

species

in

the

lower

areas

,

beech

(

Fagus

)

trees

,

hornbeam

(

Carpinus

betulus

),

used

as

firewood

,

and

also

oak

(

Quercus

),

and

at

higher

altitude

coniferous

species

of

commercial

value

,

which

can

be

leased

to

timber

entrepreneurs

;

Norvegian

spruce

(

Picea

abies

),

silver

fir

(

Abies

alba

)

some

are

spruce

plantations

,

some

are

natural

forests

.

Currently

,

strict

state

directives

regulate

the

harvesting

of

forest

,

vested

in

forestry

specialists

,

however

accusations

of

overlogging

loom

large

,

especially

in

areas

densely

forested

with

resinous

species

.

Each

common

property

institution

is

affiliated

with

a

forestry

district

,

which

guards

,

manages

and

administers

the

forests

,

for

a

price

per

hectare

,

which

translates

into

costs

for

commoners

.

For

example

,

for

a

small

commons

of

say

200

ha

,

the

expenses

towards

the

forestry

district

can

amount

to

2000

euro

per

year

,

which

is

a

significant

amount

in

the

Romanian

countryside

.

Each

commons

forest

has

a

detailed

management

plan

[

1

],

which

states

how

much

can

be

harvested

,

where

,

what

kind

of

work

needs

to

be

done

to

allow

for

healthy

growth

and

regeneration

,

according

to

scientific

forestry

conceptions

.

Forests

are

viewed

as

productive

.

Communities

lease

them

to

lumber

companies

which

log

them

,

through

selective

cuttings

,

which

according

to

forestry

conceptions

ensure

regrowth

.

Logging

,

even

if

for

small

quantities

of

firewood

,

has

to

be

done

by

a

specialized

company

,

according

to

the

law

,

which

translates

into

monetary

costs

for

the

commoners

.

Usually

,

commoners

,

the

obsti

and

composesorate

hire

local

companies

and

log

an

average

of

3

cubic

meters

of

timber

per

hectare

,

from

which

one

part

is

for

local

necessities

of

firewood

for

heating

and

cooking

and

another

part

is

sold

as

timber

and

the

proceeds

are

used

to

cover

expenses

and

to

distribute

sums

of

money

to

commoners

.

[

1

]

The

management

plan

is

a

large

work

of

more

than

200

pages

,

containing

tables

and

maps

.

It

is

done

by

private

companies

,

accredited

by

the

state

.

To

acquire

the

plans

is

very

costly

,

especially

burdensome

for

small

commons

.

2.6. Socio-economic uses. Contribution to

livelihoods and delivery of public good

Mixed forests of commons obșteaTitești, Vâlcea county, Wallachia.

©Arryn Snowball 2016, AE database

22

The

commons

pastures

are

1

)

lower

pastures

located

the

village

(

izlaz

),

where

cattle

and

horses

are

usually

left

to

graze

on

their

own

,

and

2

)

remote

alpine

pastures

(

up

to

2500m

altitude

)

leased

by

owners

of

large

sheep

-

herds

,

who

often

incorporate

the

village

sheep

into

their

flocks

.

Sheep

herding

is

a

traditional

occupation

,

especially

on

the

southern

Carpathian

alpages

,

also

called

the

Transylvanian

Alps

,

both

on

the

side

of

Wallachia

,

southern

exposure

,

and

of

Transylvania

,

northern

exposure

(

the

border

is

on

the

mountain

crest

).

In

the

past

,

the

organizing

of

shepherding

on

the

common

alpine

pastures

was

an

important

component

of

commons

governance

and

many

interesting

systems

of

sharing

were

devised

,

however

,

today

pastoral

practices

are

declining

;

there

are

fewer

herds

,

less

competition

.

Usually

rights

to

common

alpine

pastures

are

allocated

yearly

to

the

one

or

two

owners

of

larger

flocks

in

the

community

for

a

small

fee

.

These

shepherds

might

take

on

the

alpage

also

the

sheep

of

the

villagers

for

a

small

fee

and

the

villager

will

receive

a

quantity

of

cheese

.

The

alpages

are

usually

remote

,

shepherds

and

flocks

build

sheepfolds

and

do

not

return

to

the

village

during

summer

grazing

.

The

community

is

paid

EU

subsidies

for

maintaining

the

pasture

.

Shepherds

complain

about

the

low

prices

they

obtain

for

their

produce

and

the

hard

life

of

transhumance

,

exposed

to

attacks

by

wildlife

.

Pastoral

occupations

are

declining

in

Romania

,

yet

in

several

traditionally

pastoral

areas

there

is

competition

for

the

use

of

pasture

.

In

some

areas

,

commons

yield

individual

revenues

and

cash

proceeds

derived

from

commercial

logging

and

subsidies

.

Research

findings

suggest

that

the

material

value

derived

from

such

proceeds

for

individual

commoners

,

are

on

average

not

significantly

high

.

Rarely

commoners

with

larger

shares

can

receive

between

2500

-

3000

euro

/

year

The shepherds' hut and alpine pasture commons in Southern

Carpathians, Vâlcea county, Wallachia. ©Arryn Snowball 2016, AE

database

23

from

commons

dividends

.

However

,

this

is

usually

the

case

with

only

one

or

two

persons

in

a

commons

,

especially

in

the

Southern

Carpathian

commons

,

in

the

region

of

Wallachia

,

which

tend

to

be

more

unequal

.

In

general

,

a

commoner

receives

around

100

euro

per

year

on

average

from

proceeds

and

also

can

graze

animals

for

free

,

and

receive

a

quota

of

firewood

at

half

price

.

Animal

husbandry

is

generally

a

declining

practice

at

household

level

,

however

firewood

is

very

necessary

,

being

the

only

fuel

for

heating

and

cooking

.

The

commons

institutions

also

sponsor

young

families

for

building

houses

,

offering

up

to

20

cubic

meters

of

wood

,

they

sponsor

funerals

of

poor

families

,

village

festivities

and

Christmas

presents

for

school

children

.

The

ways

in

which

the

proceeds

from

commercial

enterprises

on

the

commons

are

distributed

varies

substantially

from

place

to

place

,

being

subject

to

the

decisions

of

the

general

commons

assemblies

.

Alpine pasture commons in Southern Carpathians, Vâlcea county,

Wallachia. ©Arryn Snowball 2016, AE database

In

many

cases

,

instead

of

distributing

the

proceeds

to

commoners

,

the

communities

of

commoners

decide

to

invest

the

proceeds

into

much

needed

community

infrastructure

,

for

which

local

government

does

not

allocate

funds

.

The

commons

institutions

that

are

oriented

mostly

towards

community

-

at

-

large

benefits

are

in

the

Eastern

areas

of

Vrancea

,

the

region

of

Moldavia

and

the

eastern

Transylvanian

counties

(

Harghita

and

Covasna

).

Here

they

contribute

to

reparations

of

infrastructure

,

public

buildings

,

schools

,

and

roads

.

Churches

are

often

category

of

commons

are

mostly

broadleaved

–

beech

,

hornbeam

,

ash

,

oak

, -

lower

altitude

forests

in

the

proximity

of

villages

,

which

are

used

for

domestic

purposes

.

Pastures

are

also

small

,

village

pastures

.

The

commercial

value

of

resources

in

these

potential

ICCAs

not

being

very

high

,

making

the

institutions

financially

vulnerable

,

meaning

that

various

fees

and

payments

due

represent

a

problem

.

Especially

the

payments

towards

the

forestry

districts

that

administrate

and

guard

the

forest

make

up

an

important

amount

of

the

expenses

.

The

most

important

benefit

for

communities

is

firewood

and

the

possibility

to

graze

animals

.

Because

the

revenues

are

not

high

and

many

commoners

regard

them

as

unimportant

,

participation

does

not

work

properly

,

not

many

commoners

want

to

involve

.

Most

of

the

work

of

managing

the

commons

is

done

voluntarily

by

the

council

and

the

president

.

Because

of

the

socialist

legacy

,

in

which

the

state

administered

large

surfaces

of

forest

for

production

of

timber

,

the

small

commons

today

are

regarded

by

the

forestry

district

to

which

they

are

affiliated

and

also

frequently

by

the

commoners

themselves

,

as

not

productive

enough

,

not

efficient

.

The

lack

of

perceived

productive

value

might

mean

that

these

forests

are

not

exploited

and

left

on

their

own

.

However

,

for

the

respective

commons

institutions

to

continue

to

exist

as

legal

entities

,

as

2.8. Small and large commons

29

2.8.1.

Case

study

1

small

commons

:

Composesorat

Tauții

de

Sus

–

Valea

Gordanului

,

Maramures

The

commons

is

in

the

proximity

of

the

former

mining

town

Baia

Sprie

in

Transylvania

,

an

industrial

mining

area

with

more

than

six

working

factories

during

socialism

.

Gold

and

silver

mining

was

famous

in

the

area

apparently

from

Roman

times

.

Recently

,

it

is

also

an

area

renown

for

edible

chestnuts

and

locals

would

collect

chestnuts

and

sell

them

.

Nowadays

,

the

chestnut

trees

are

drying

up

,

for

unknown

reasons

,

people

suspect

air

pollution

.

Also

,

locals

complain

that

“

people

who

were

working

the

land

have

died

,

nobody

mows

the

grass

anymore

,

forest

is

growing

and

encroaching

our

village

.” 

The

commons

is

very

small

,

it

has

45

hectares

of

forest

.

Historically

,

it

was

the

commons

of

former

serfs

(

urbarialiști

),

type

3

.

There

were

also

45

hectares

of

pasture

,

but

during

the

socialist

period

industrial

buildings

were

erected

on

the

pasture

and

now

the

area

stores

mining

sterile

.

In

order

to

get

the

area

recognized

as

the

commons

’

property

,

they

needed

to

sue

the

state

,

which

was

costly

,

and

the

commoners

did

not

want

to

contribute

to

the

cost

of

lawsuit

,

which

in

the

end

was

covered

by

the

president

.

The

forest

is

broadleaved

,

oak

and

beech

species

.

The

trees

are

old

,

over

100

years

and

the

oak

is

starting

to

dry

up

.

In

the

period

following

the

fall

of

socialism

(

1990

-

2000

),

before

the

constitution

of

the

commons

,

the

forest

was

not

regulated

,

it

was

“

nobody

’

s

forest

,

and

people

would

just

take

wood

from

there

” (

president

,

interview

October

2016

).

Small

commons

The

only

cuttings

of

trees

done

in

this

commons

are

clearing

from

dry

or

fallen

trees

.

In

order

to

prevent

further

drying

,

they

do

sanitary

cuts

.

In

2015

there

were

windthrows

in

the

area

,

which

allowed

the

community

a

harvest

of

139

cubic

meters

of

thrown

wood

in

2015

.

The

commons

is

affiliated

to

a

forestry

district

since

2015

,

but

because

of

the

inefficiency

of

small

surfaces

,

guarding

and

administration

is

perceived

to

be

difficult

.

Therefore

the

state

forestry

district

to

which

the

commons

is

currently

affiliated

requires

a

high

price

for

their

services

(

twice

as

much

as

in

other

areas

),

1000

euro

per

year

for

the

Tautii

commons

.

In

2016

,

all

over

Romania

there

was

a

‘

firewood

crisis

’.

Scarcity

of

firewood

in

the

area

became

a

problem

in

recent

years

.

However

,

the

commons

decided

not

to

distribute

any

firewood

to

the

members

for

the

time

being

,

and

instead

to

sell

some

of

the

timber

and

make

‘

a

stock

of

money

’

that

can

be

used

for

community

needs

;

building

a

celebration

hall

is

one

of

the

strongest

wishes

of

the

commoners

.

Another

wish

of

the

commons

’

council

is

to

distribute

firewood

only

to

the

commoners

in

need

.

There

were

roughly

100

members

on

the

lists

from

1948

.

Currently

they

do

not

keep

updated

registers

yet

,

because

apparently

people

were

not

interested

to

come

and

claim

their

rights

,

so

the

list

of

rightholdersis

‘

still

open

’.

The

commons

president

believes

people

will

start

to

be

more

interested

in

the

near

future

,

and

they

will

contact

the

commons

institution

,

as

since

the

affiliation

with

the

forestry

district

and

the

possibility

to

harvest

, ‘

there

is

a

stake

’.

The

distribution

of

rights

is

unequal

,

on

shares

.

However

,

the

level

of

inequality

is

low

.

One

of

the

problems

is

lack

of

participation

.

Members

seem

not

to

be

interested

and

at

commons

’

assemblies

they

show

up

in

very

small

numbers

;

only

30

members

were

present

at

the

last

assembly

.

the

president

has

a

background

in

forestry

.

His

complaints

are

that

“

it

is

not

possible

to

make

a

team

,

people

do

not

show

any

involvement

or

30

Large

commons

understanding

;

they

just

grumble

in

the

backstage

.”

Despite

this

,

he

is

optimistic

,

“

we

managed

to

do

this

association

now

,

to

have

administration

and

a

management

plan

,

my

hope

is

that

we

can

rehabilitate

this

commons

,

it

will

grow

in

the

future

.”

For

the

category

of

‘

large

commons

/

potential

ICCAs

’,

an

estimate

would

be

30

commons

in

the

country

owning

and

managing

above

4000

hectares

of

forest

and

pasture

each

[

1

].

The

very

large

commons

were

formed

in

areas

of

freeholders

,

usually

close

to

the

high

mountains

,

in

remote

localities

at

the

end

of

the

roads

.

Forests

of

large

commons

are

mostly

coniferous

,

of

high

commercial

value

,

including

species

such

as

spruce

and

fir

.

Some

of

the

large

commons

include

large

amounts

of

pasture

(

e

.

g

.

obștea

Petrila

in

Hunedoara

county

1002

ha

of

pasture

or

composesorat

Sândominic

in

Harghita

county

with

1500

hectares

of

pasture

),

but

this

is

not

a

rule

,

in

Vrancea

and

in

Maramureș

they

do

not

own

large

pastures

.

The

commons

governing

instituions

were

able

to

constitute

their

own

private

forestry

district

(

ocol

silvic

),

and

to

hire

their

own

forest

administrators

and

guards

.

Because

the

commons

governing

institutions

are

basically

controlling

the

forestry

districts

,

the

power

balance

is

in

favor

of

the

commoners

,

which

means

1

)

they

have

more

decision

power

over

forest

issues

;

2

)

they

can

impose

lower

prices

on

forestry

services

,

resulting

in

lower

costs

of

management

.

[

1

]

9

commons

in

the

southern

counties

Gorj

and

Vâlcea

,

3

in

the

county

of

Argeș

,

10

commons

or

more

in

Harghita

county

,

also

4

in

Vrancea

,

1

in

Mureș

,

2

in

Maramureș

.

The

large

obsti

and

composesorate

function

as

community

institutions

,

sometimes

more

important

than

the

town

hall

;

with

a

few

exceptions

,

their

budgets

are

largely

used

for

improving

community

facilities

,

building

water

supply

,

building

village

markets

and

a

village

bakeries

,

celebration

halls

,

road

reparations

,

etc

.

Often

cash

is

distributed

to

the

commoners

;

but

also

firewood

(

e

.

g

.

obștea

Runcu

,

Gorj

county

distributed

3000

cubic

meters

of

firewood

to

420

members

in

2015

);

from

commons

proceeds

there

is

sponsoring

towards

commoners

in

need

(

e

.

g

.

sponsor

funerals

or

medical

interventions

for

severe

illnesses

);

sponsoring

for

sportive

and

cultural

activities

such

as

football

teams

,

music

festivals

,

artistic

residencies

.

With

proceeds

from

large

commons

,

there

are

investments

for

commercial

enterprises

,

which

can

be

forestry

enterprises

,

fish

farms

,

tourism

ventures

,

aiming

at

increasing

the

revenues

for

the

communities

of

commoners

.

The

communities

also

own

large

machinery

with

which

they

contribute

to

reparations

in

the

communities

(

e

.

g

.

bulldozers

),

also

agricultural

machines

,

which

can

be

rented

out

to

members

for

cheap

prices

.

31

4000

hectares

of

composesorat

land

is

included

in

the

protected

area

network

Natura

2000

,

for

protecting

bear

habitat

.

Bears

are

regarded

as

one

of

the

most

important

problems

of

the

area

,

bears

debarking

trees

which

then

dry

up

,

they

are

also

a

threat

to

livestock

.

They

attack

shepherds

,

they

depredate

domestic

animals

,

also

crops

;

locals

do

not

cultivate

corn

because

they

fear

bear

depredation

.

Bears

in

the

area

are

apprently

more

numerous

than

‘

normal

’

levels

.

The

composesorat

counts

today

2500

rightholders

,

of

which

approximately

65

%

reside

in

the

locality

.

Distribution

of

rights

is

unequal

,

based

on

successive

divisions

among

heirs

of

the

initial

rightholders

,

and

transactions

.

The

normative

statute

limits

the

shares

members

can

acquire

;

one

member

can

accumulate

(

through

buying

)

at

2

.

5

%

of

the

total

.

The

average

share

can

be

calculated

at

about

4

ha

and

20

%

of

the

commoners

count

around

1

ha

[

1

].

The

composesorat

board

declared

that

they

have

annual

proceeds

of

more

than

600

,

000

euro

,

distributed

towards

their

members

.

In

2015

,

the

benefits

for

the

members

included

(

as

the

composesorate

calculates

according

to

different

categories

of

revenue

):

cash

proceeds

from

selling

timber

,

firewood

,

cash

proceeds

from

pasture

subsidy

.

To

stimulate

the

commoners

to

keep

raising

animals

,

and

to

stock

the

pastures

,

the

commons

institutions

pays

money

to

the

commoners

for

the

animals

they

put

on

the

commons

pasture

(

roughly

25

euro

per

year

for

a

cow

and

5

euro

per

year

for

a

sheep

).

For

example

,

a

member

without

animals

on

the

commons

pasture

,

with

1

share

receives

335RON

/

year

(

roughly

80

euro

).

A

member

with

4

shares

,

3

sheep

and

1

cow

on

the

pasture

receives

1525RON

/

year

(

roughly

350

euro

).

[

1

]

The

system

of

shares

does

not

mean

that

commoners

have

a

precise

plot

,

the

whole

area

is

still

communal

,

administered

and

managed

in

common

;

only

the

uses

and

proceeds

distributions

are

calculated

for

each

member

in

function

of

their

share

.

2.8.2.

Case

study

2

large

commons

:

Zetelaka

composesorat

-

a

potential

ICCA

The

largest

commons

in

Harghita

county

is

Zetea

(

Zetelaka

kozbirtokossag

–

in

Hung

.),

comprising

of

10

,

275

ha

of

land

,

8305

ha

coniferous

forestland

and

1970

ha

grazeland

.

It

belongs

to

type

4

,

community

of

former

borderguards

,

formalized

and

registered

as

a

composesorat

in

1886

.

Livelihoods

in

the

area

are

based

on

forestry

and

animal

husbandry

.

During

socialism

,

a

forestry

enterprise

was

based

in

the

locality

(

IFET

),

which

employed

many

locals

,

but

dissolved

.

The

composesorat

plants

annually

20

ha

with

seedlings

from

their

own

nursery

and

log

annually

around

40

,

000

cubic

meters

of

timber

.

Logging

and

processing

of

the

compossesorate

timber

is

done

by

local

companies

,

leading

to

cca

.

500

local

people

employed

in

the

timber

industry

.

There

are

4

members

with

over

50

shares

,

the

maximum

being

70

shares

.

The

member

with

50

shares

and

no

animals

receives

annually

16

,

750

RON

,

that

is

4000

euro

.

Great

emphasis

is

put

on

investment

.

Composesorat

Zetea

invested

in

their

own

factory

for

processing

wild

forest

berries

and

wild

mushrooms

.

They

gather

annually

from

local

collectors

quantities

of

30

tones

of

blueberry

,

10

tones

of

raspberry

,

and

30

tones

of

mushrooms

(

boletes

,

in

Rom

.

hribi

).

In

addition

,

they

have

their

own

farm

with

about

250

cattle

that

belong

to

the

commoners

.

In

the

near

future

they

also

want

to

breed

bulls

.



The

president

and

the

administrator

see

the

role

of

the

composesorate

as

“

the

most

important

institution

in

the

community

,

a

form

of

common

management

that

sustains

and

develops

the

community

”.

In

the

future

they

would

like

to

develop

the

farming

activities

more

and

support

small

farmers

with

4

-

5

cattle

to

market

their

products

.

The

board

complained

that

the

subsidies

system

encourages

large

individual

farmers

and

they

faced

a

lot

of

problems

as

a

collective

to

apply

for

EU

subsidies

.

The

board

members

perceived

that

commons

are

a

good

way

of

maintaining

rights

to

the

land

;

they

estimated

that

if

there

wasn

’

t

a

commons

,

70

%

of

the

forestland

would

have

been

sold

towards

foreign

capitalist

companies

and

local

people

would

have

been

dispossessed

and

made

precarious

.

The

council

members

and

the

commoners

are

very

much

attached

to

the

idea

of

rights

to

the

commons

.

Zetelaka

community

own

a

very

abundant

and

valuable

commons

,

which

is

managed

responsibly

,

with

regard

to

the

environment

and

also

with

regard

to

local

livelihoods

,

yielding

important

revenues

for

the

commoners

.

This

commons

would

in

my

opinion

qualify

as

an

ICCA

.

32

Tree nursery of Zetelaka composesorat

and council members, president and

forest administrator ©Stefan Voicu

2016, AE database

33

Average surface of land for each common in studied

counties (units: hectares). Source AE survey database 2016

Size of communities of rightholders. Average number of registered commoners

per commons in studied counties. Source AE survey database 2016

Average surface of common land per each commoner in the studied

counties (unit: hectares). Source AE survey database 2016

Distribution of types detailed

in section 2.5. on counties:

type 1: Vrancea

type 2: Gorj, Argeș, Vâlcea

type 3: Sălaj, Cluj

type 4: Harghita, Covasna

type 3+type 4: Hunedoara,

Maramureș, Brașov

*for spatial distribution consult

map on p.21

Results from AE survey: statistics on counties

Harghita

county

is

located

in

Transylvania

in

the

Eastern

part

of

the

Carpathians

–

the

interior

Arc

.

It

features

a

large

number

of

commons

.

Historically

,

the

area

had

a

large

number

of

freeholders

in

the

feudal

period

,

being

an

area

of

borderguards

endowed

with

property

in

exchange

for

their

military

service

towards

Austrian

empress

Maria

Theresa

.

47

%

of

the

county

'

s

forests

are

owned

by

composesorate

,

nearly

100

.

000

ha

of

forestland

in

total

.

They

function

as

veritable

village

institutions

,

frequently

sponsoring

community

activities

and

investing

in

community

utilities

.

Nearly

20

%

of

their

revenues

regularly

go

towards

community

investments

,

which

include

:

warm

water

installations

with

solar

panels

(

composesorat

Mădăraș

),

gas

installations

(

composesorat

Ciucani

),

reparations

and

maintenance

of

roads

,

churches

and

schools

,

building

of

cemetery

chapels

(

composesorate

Văcărești

,

Racu

,

Lueta

for

example

),

and

houses

of

culture

,

celebration

halls

.

They

usually

sponsor

cultural

activities

,

such

as

small

village

orchestras

,

or

fire

brigades

,

they

sponsor

funerals

or

birth

events

,

also

provide

monetary

help

in

cases

of

fire

damages

to

households

,

provide

stipends

for

students

.

34

View from Borsec area in Harghita county, CC BY-SA 3.0

3. Area case studies

3.1.Harghita County

On

the

land

of

a

few

compossesorates

there

are

famous

tourist

resorts

(

the

Tușnad

Baths

or

the

Borsec

Baths

)

and

branded

protected

areas

,

such

as

the

lake

Saint

Anna

.

Also

some

of

the

lands

have

important

mineral

water

sources

that

were

industrially

exploited

since

200

years

ago

and

in

time

became

large

businesses

(

mineral

water

Perla

Harghitei

and

mineral

water

Borsec

).

The

Borsec

brand

for

example

bottles

yearly

350

million

litres

of

mineral

water

.

The

forests

are

considered

to

be

highly

productive

,

mostly

consisting

of

coniferous

essence

(

spruce

and

fir

).

Most

composesorate

own

large

pastures

,

around

1

/

4

of

their

lands

.

Commons

in

Harghita

are

usually

large

.

From

the

40

researched

composesorates

,

5

are

below

500

hectares

,

most

are

above

2000

ha

and

the

largest

is

Zetea

composesorat

with

over

10

.

000

hectares

.

Most

composesorate

own

buildings

in

the

villages

,

also

machinery

(

for

roads

reparations

,

for

agricultural

work

,

for

cleaning

pastures

)

and

a

few

have

their

own

logging

enterprise

(

for

ex

.

Sântimbru

,

Merești

),

enabling

them

to

create

employment

and

to

increase

the

value

of

sold

timber

.

The

potential

ICCAs

of

Vrancea

,

called

obști

are

different

from

the

rest

of

the

commons

across

the

Carpathians

.

Here

,

all

the

members

have

equal

shares

,

only

one

share

for

each

,

and

,

implicitly

,

equal

votes

,

corresponding

to

type

1

.

The

rights

are

territory

-

based

.

Each

inhabitant

becomes

member

in

the

village

obște

at

the

age

of

18

,

provided

they

reside

in

the

village

.

If

someone

leaves

the

village

to

live

elsewhere

,

he

/

she

loses

the

right

.

If

someone

moves

in

the

village

,

the

person

can

become

a

member

.

The

right

to

membership

is

non

-

inheritable

,

non

-

transmissible

and

non

-

alienable

.

This

specificity

leads

to

veritably

community

-

based

institutions

with

social

functions

.

Here

,

the

commons

invest

large

amounts

of

money

,

sometimes

half

of

their

revenues

,

in

public

utilities

.

Also

,

as

a

rule

,

they

sponsor

funerals

and

cases

of

extreme

illnesses

and

surgery

interventions

that

would

otherwise

be

unaffordable

for

the

members

.

Members

in

Viișoara

village

described

the

obște

as

an

'

ultimate

safety

net

'.

By

contrast

to

other

areas

of

the

Carpathians

,

the

restitution

of

commons

in

Vrancea

went

very

smoothly

,

without

confusion

and

trials

.

The

system

of

equal

rights

distribution

generates

an

important

advantage

,

by

avoiding

confusion

and

quarrels

regarding

genealogies

and

inheritance

,

which

persist

in

many

of

the

other

types

of

communities

.

The

commons

of

Vrancea

count

a

total

amount

of

over

60

,

000

ha

of

forests

and

pastures

,

across

30

commons

.

They

count

roughly

1

/

3

of

the

total

surface

of

forests

of

the

county

.

Main

revenues

come

from

logging

.

Pastures

are

not

abundant

.

The

forests

of

most

obști

are

productive

;

preponderantly

coniferous

and

over

80

years

old

;

however

,

most

land

surfaces

are

prone

to

erosion

and

slides

;

the

accessibility

to

the

forest

is

problematic

,

most

roads

being

broken

;

Vrancea

is

probably

the

only

area

of

the

Carpathians

where

logging

is

still

done

with

oxen

.

35

3.2.Vrancea County

In

total

they

count

roughly

24

,

500

commoners

.

The

commons

in

the

area

are

usually

large

,

over

1000

ha

.

The

largest

is

the

obște

of

Tulnici

with

13

.

000

ha

.

The

legend

says

that

a

medieval

ruler

from

the

15th

century

,

Stephen

the

Great

,

donated

the

land

to

the

inhabitants

of

Vrancea

for

military

merits

.

The

legend

is

proudly

recounted

and

featured

in

various

local

monuments

,

contributing

to

strengthening

local

identities

and

the

bond

between

people

and

their

mountains

.

Almost

all

villages

in

the

area

have

their

obște

.

A

few

villages

do

not

have

an

obște

commons

,

either

because

the

villages

were

relatively

recently

formed

(

Ploștina

)

or

because

they

sold

their

property

in

the

course

of

time

(

Bodești

).

A

few

villages

have

smaller

surfaces

,

up

to

400

ha

,

because

of

situations

,

such

as

land

sales

(

Rugetu

)

or

recent

formation

and

struggles

over

property

between

villages

over

long

periods

of

time

(

Prahuda

,

Vîlcani

,

Ghebari

).

In

Vrancea

,

the

villages

are

lined

up

on

three

river

valleys

(

Putna

,

Năruja

and

Zăbala

)

and

the

forested

mountains

with

AE database

36

few

pasture

areas

are

clustered

together

to

the

western

side

,

about

20

to

60

km

away

from

the

inhabited

village

areas

.

Only

a

few

localities

have

their

properties

close

to

the

mountain

,

Nereju

,

Tulnici

and

Hăulișca

.

The

geographical

distribution

that

does

not

follow

a

classical

model

of

villages

surrounded

by

forests

and

pastures

posed

a

puzzle

in

the

course

of

history

:

which

mountains

belong

to

which

village

?

Sociologist

Henri

H

.

Stahl

(

1901

-

1991

)

explains

the

history

of

commons

and

the

divisions

of

territory

:

initially

,

the

whole

mountain

area

was

owned

and

used

jointly

by

the

whole

Vrancea

Country

and

,

over

time

,

because

of

growing

grazing

necessities

,

villages

divided

the

mountains

between

them

with

a

lot

of

struggle

.

The

first

division

of

the

mountains

between

villages

took

place

in

1755

.

Subsequently

,

another

five

division

actions

took

place

,

the

latest

in

1840

.

As

H

.

H

.

Stahl

describes

,

the

distribution

criteria

was

the

monetary

contribution

of

each

village

at

the

“

great

trial

of

Vrancea

”

against

a

powerful

landlord

claiming

its

lands

starting

in

1801

.

By

the

end

of

the

nineteenth

century

,

villagers

’

access

to

their

forests

became

more

and

more

restricted

as

exploitation

technologies

improved

and

wood

became

a

valuable

commodity

on

the

European

market

,

needed

as

fuel

for

industry

.

During

this

period

,

several

powerful

foreign

forestry

companies

,

especially

from

Austria

and

Italy

,

struck

deals

with

local

elites

for

leasing

and

exploiting

large

areas

of

forest

.

In

several

villages

,

with

the

money

yield

,

the

old

elites

worked

for

the

best

of

the

community

,

building

schools

,

village

halls

and

communal

baths

(

e

.

g

.

Vrâncioaia

,

Neculai

Jăchianu

).

In

others

,

the

locals

’

collective

memory

remembers

elites

who

deceived

people

to

sell

their

use

rights

,

often

for

a

pack

of

cigarettes

(

e

.

g

.

Nereju

).

The

foreign

companies

ended

their

activity

in

Vrancea

by

the

beginning

of

the

First

World

War

,

leaving

behind

massive

deforestation

,

a

true

ecological

disaster

.

In

the

1940s

and

later

during

the

socialist

perod

,

Vrancea

Mountains

have

undergone

an

ecological

reconstruction

,

with

forest

plantations

and

stabilisation

of

soil

against

landslides

.

In

1950

in

Vrancea

,

like

elsewhere

in

the

Carpathians

,

the

state

nationalized

all

the

forests

,

and

the

obști

were

dissolved

.

Locals

’

experiences

during

the

communist

period

varied

a

great

deal

.

Some

people

worked

as

wage

earners

within

state

structures

.

Others

‘

stole

’

wood

from

their

former

common

property

with

the

tacit

acceptance

of

local

authorities

.

A

black

market

for

wood

arose

alongside

the

legitimate

market

,

facilitated

by

bribes

paid

to

party

officials

.

I

found

in

my

study

of

forest

usage

during

the

communist

period

that

“

having

”

and

“

owning

”

were

not

very

important

.

More

important

was

access

and

use

,

which

were

facilitated

in

many

ways

,

both

legal

and

illegal

,

usually

involving

state

officials

and

corruption

practices

.

Collective

property

rights

were

re

-

established

in

2000

and

a

local

industry

of

logging

and

sawmilling

developed

.

Local

logging

companies

were

set

up

.

37

A

troublesome

issue

for

many

interviewed

presidents

of

obști

was

the

interference

of

political

issues

in

the

affairs

of

forests

,

with

dramatic

consequences

for

the

commoners

,

such

as

long

lasting

trials

and

economic

problems

.

A

few

commons

declared

that

the

most

problematic

issue

is

the

dense

regulations

concerning

both

financial

and

forestry

issues

,

leading

to

constant

fear

of

mistakes

and

fines

.

Also

,

the

fact

that

forestry

roads

are

not

owned

by

the

commons

,

but

by

the

municipalities

,

prevent

the

possibility

of

reparations

.

A

widespread

consideration

on

the

part

of

the

councils

was

that

most

commoners

do

not

have

an

understanding

of

what

it

means

to

manage

a

commons

and

thus

the

decisions

they

take

in

the

general

assembly

are

rather

'

retrograde

'.

however

,

Vrancea

is

the

area

where

commons

have

most

prominently

a

very

communitarian

and

equalitarian

orientation

,

and

the

commoners

are

most

aware

and

involved

,

manifesting

a

strong

attachment

to

the

idea

of

commons

.

The

obște

of

the

village

of

Spinești

is

frequently

given

as

an

example

of

a

well

working

obște

in

the

area

.

In

contemporary

Spinești

,

the

commons

president

is

very

popular

and

he

was

elected

time

and

time

again

since

the

restitution

of

obște

in

2000

.

The

obște

does

not

feature

internal

conflicts

or

various

suspicions

and

disputes

between

the

members

and

the

council

,

as

we

found

in

a

significant

number

of

other

obști

.

It

has

3447

ha

of

forestland

and

100

ha

of

pasture

from

which

55

ha

are

subsidized

with

EU

funds

,

and

1000

members

.

Their

forest

is

productive

,

preponderantly

coniferous

and

over

80

years

old

.

The

council

cares

about

sustainability

and

there

is

a

pronounced

discourse

of

stewardship

of

natural

resources

for

future

generations

.

The

obște

replanted

90

ha

of

forest

in

the

last

3

years

.

38

The

profit

made

from

selling

timber

and

grazing

subsidies

is

distributed

to

members

and

invested

in

the

community

.

Approx

.

50

%

of

the

profit

of

obștea

Spinești

was

invested

in

1

)

rebuilding

four

forestry

cabins

,

which

are

intended

to

be

used

as

tourism

facilities

in

the

future

;

2

)

rebuilding

the

village

church

;

3

)

building

a

celebration

hall

;

4

)

reparations

and

furniture

for

the

school

.

Future

plans

include

extensive

roads

reparations

.

50

%

was

distributed

to

members

,

reaching

a

value

of

150

euro

/

member

/

year

.

Wood

is

sold

to

commoners

at

preferential

prices

:

firewood

and

construction

timber

(

up

to

3

cubic

meters

per

member

50

%

below

market

price

).

Other

benefits

for

commoners

include

support

for

difficult

situations

:

funeral

sponsorship

of

250

euro

/

case

,

in

one

year

approximately

15

cases

;

sponsorship

for

medical

treatment

in

case

of

severe

illness

.

Iordachescu 2016, AE database

3.2.1.

Case

study

3:

Obștea

Chiliile

Zboinei

,

Spinesti

-

a

potential

ICCA

Maramureș

county

is

situated

in

the

northern

part

of

Romania

,

historically

part

of

the

former

Austro

-

Hungarian

empire

.

To

understand

the

historical

dynamic

of

the

commons

in

Maramureș

,

one

has

to

understand

the

complex

transformation

of

territory

and

the

shifting

boundaries

.

Under

the

Hungarian

rule

,

the

commons

of

Maramureș

counted

in

1885

a

surface

of

127

,

440

ha

of

forest

(

Bedö

,

Albert

:

Die

wirtschaftliche

und

commercielle

Beschreibung

der

Wälder

des

ungarischen

Staates

,

1885

),

the

largest

surface

of

commons

in

the

whole

of

Transylvania

at

the

time

,

being

commons

donated

by

medieval

kings

to

lesser

nobility

(

type

4

).

After

WWI

,

from

the

territory

of

former

Maramureș

county

,

1

/

3

stayed

in

Romania

,

called

today

the

Historical

Maramures

,

and

2

/

3

went

to

Chechoslovakia

in

1920

,

and

to

Ukraine

at

a

later

point

.

To

make

a

more

viable

Maramureș

county

,

in

1968

the

Romanian

state

administration

added

other

areas

to

the

Historical

Maramureș

,

added

areas

Tara

Chioarului

,

Tara

Lapusului

and

Tara

Codrului

.

In

these

areas

,

before

1948

used

to

be

smaller

commons

,

of

former

serfs

,

there

were

no

medieval

cavalry

/

freeholders

.

To

date

,

what

is

called

the

Maramureș

county

counts

109

commons

,

with

30

,

101

hectares

of

forest

restituted

with

law

1

/

2000

,

amounting

to

15

%

of

the

total

forested

area

of

the

county

.

Also

,

approximately

2000

hectares

of

pastures

for

which

the

commons

receive

subsidies

.

The

forests

are

mostly

deciduous

,

beech

forests

and

they

were

heavily

harvested

during

the

socialist

years

.

There

is

a

significant

difference

between

the

commons

in

the

northern

part

and

the

southern

part

.

39

3.3.Maramureș County

In

the

northern

part

we

find

what

are

called

the

noble

composesorates

,

the

commons

formed

as

a

heritage

of

the

noble

families

of

Maramureș

,

descendants

of

cnezi

,

free

landlords

during

medieval

times

,

type

4

.

These

composesorates

tend

to

be

larger

than

the

others

.

For

example

,

the

following

:

·  

Viseu

de

Sus

 --

4524

ha

,

and

5000

ha

not

yet

fully

titled

,

1900

commoners

· 

Petrova

--

3822

ha

,

and

190

ha

not

yet

fully

titled

,

1130

commoners

· 

Săpânța

--

2053

ha

,

and

2500

ha

not

yet

fully

titled

,

1200

commoners

In

the

southern

part

we

find

much

smaller

composesorates

,

frequently

under

500

ha

,

and

a

few

even

under

100

ha

.

These

commons

were

usually

constituted

as

lands

of

former

serfs

,

called

urbarialisti,

type

.

A

few

examples

:

·

Composesorat

Mireșu

Mare

--

259

ha

222

ha

of

pasture

and

37

ha

of

forest

,

and

152

members

Composesorat

Curtuiușu

Mic

--

83

ha

of

forest

,

123

members

By Herbert Ortner - Own work, CC BY 3.0,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27152158

40

council

.

Property

restitution

went

very

slowly

in

the

area

featuring

conflicts

and

lawsuits

.

Frequently

,

commoners

are

not

aware

of

the

historical

origins

of

their

commons

,

and

only

know

scant

information

from

official

property

documents

.

Usually

in

the

area

the

monetary

proceeds

are

not

high

,

and

the

benefits

distributed

to

members

vary

greatly

from

one

place

to

another

.

Cca

.

50

%

of

all

the

communities

do

not

have

quorum

for

general

assemblies

.

One

of

the

northern

commons

,

Viseul

de

Sus

,

which

counts

roughly

2000

members

,

relinquished

the

system

of

direct

participation

of

all

members

and

instead

they

adopted

a

system

with

200

representatives

,

which

allows

for

a

lot

of

dissatisfaction

and

suspicion

.

There

is

a

tendency

towards

excessive

fragmentation

of

shares

and

increased

internal

inequalities

.

In

some

cases

,

the

fragmentation

of

shares

was

reduced

by

families

reaching

agreements

to

give

the

rights

to

only

one

of

all

siblings

,

instead

of

splitting

and

registering

all

the

heirs

.

Half

of

the

commons

in

the

area

allocate

firewood

to

their

members

and

half

distribute

cash

returns

.

30

%

of

the

commons

also

invest

part

of

their

profit

in

community

infrastructure

.

AE database

The

tendencies

of

these

composesorates

are

the

following

:

reduced

participation

,

high

levels

of

suspicion

among

the

rightholders

,

low

level

of

community

investment

.

Litigation

for

restitution

and

establishing

the

rights

of

commoners

are

still

ongoing

in

many

cases

.

There

is

high

variability

among

the

different

communities

regarding

the

management

and

the

revenues

distributed

towards

commoners

.

The

northern

part

of

the

area

is

well

known

for

being

a

focal

point

for

forest

industry

.

It

is

home

to

big

local

companies

,

and

it

featured

a

lot

of

conflicts

over

resources

.

The

Maramureș

Mountains

were

the

target

of

illegal

logging

accusations

,

even

inside

protected

areas

,

and

fights

between

local

factions

were

reported

frequently

.

A

long

trial

went

on

for

the

composesorat

of

Borșa

.

The

southern

area

features

problems

specific

to

small

commons

.

They

usually

do

not

have

enough

power

to

negotiate

lower

prices

for

forest

administration

with

the

local

forest

districts

,

thus

the

expenses

with

guarding

and

administration

of

forests

are

very

high

.

Also

,

they

need

to

associate

for

contracting

management

plans

.

In

the

smaller

commons

,

members

tend

not

to

participate

and

to

leave

most

of

the

responsibilities

on

the

shoulders

of

the

The

greatest

threat

to

the

commons

are

the

attempts

by

corporations

and

conservation

foundations

to

acquire

either

parts

or

entire

commons

,

or

to

acquire

rights

inside

the

existent

commons

,

enough

to

reach

a

majority

of

votes

and

further

control

the

governance

and

reap

the

benefits

.

By

law

,

land

held

in

commons

cannot

be

divided

,

sold

to

outsiders

,

to

people

who

are

not

members

of

the

communities

of

rightholders

,

or

to

companies

.

Neither

can

rights

-

shares

, '

quota

-

parts

',

be

sold

,

or

external

members

received

as

rightholders

(

see

section

2

.

4

regarding

legal

provisions

).

However

,

various

methods

were

found

to

twist

the

by

-

laws

and

persuade

court

juries

to

allow

for

such

dispossession

.

There

were

several

cases

in

Romania

of

such

sales

,

and

several

attempts

,

which

were

pushed

back

by

communities

after

cumbersome

trials

.

In

the

following

,

several

such

cases

found

through

research

will

be

given

:

(

1

)

One

case

is

obstea

Dobroneagu

from

Argeș

,

in

which

a

part

of

the

commons

was

sold

to

the

timber

corporation

Holzindustrie

Schweighofer

,

immediately

after

the

restitution

,

in

a

window

period

in

which

the

sales

prohibition

law

was

not

in

existence

.

It

was

a

sale

of

300

hectares

of

forest

,

and

the

president

declared

in

2016

:

"

In

the

beginning

we

needed

some

cash

to

support

the

start

up

operations

of

our

commons

,

so

we

decided

this

sale

was

beneficial

."

(

2

)

A

controversial

case

revealed

by

national

and

local

media

was

about

the

sale

of

an

entire

obște

in

county

of

Vâlcea

,

obștea

Turcinuri

amounting

to

about

1000

hectares

of

forest

and

pasture

,

towards

a

company

with

international

shareholders

,

for

a

price

of

1

,

5

million

euros

.

To

seal

the

deal

,

the

president

of

the

obște

obtained

the

agreement

of

the

general

assembly

of

obște

.

However

,

at

a

later

point

,

the

validity

41

4. Threats

4.1. Land grabbing and encroachment on

the commons

of

the

sale

contract

was

attacked

in

court

by

members

of

the

obște

,

and

the

contract

was

voided

.

(

3

)

In

a

case

from

Gorj

county

,

in

obștea

Runcu

,

counting

5400

hectares

,

a

company

managed

to

become

associated

as

rightholder

and

buy

nearly

15

%

percent

of

rights

from

righholders

facing

hardships

and

take

control

of

the

obște

.

Fights

and

protests

,

reciprocal

accusations

of

fraud

and

arson

led

to

a

very

tense

conflict

in

the

community

between

rival

groups

of

rightholders

.

few

rightholders

sued

the

company

for

voiding

the

decision

,

pursuing

lawsuits

for

many

years

.

(

4

)

In

a

case

from

Argeș

county

,

obștea

Rucăr

,

a

foundation

for

conservation

took

hold

of

approximately

30

%

of

the

shares

of

this

large

obște

(

over

8000

hectares

)

through

a

subsidiary

company

in

2014

,

and

later

on

in

2017

another

subsidiary

was

admitted

as

a

member

of

the

obște

.

The

admissions

of

the

firms

as

members

of

the

commons

further

paved

the

way

for

these

firms

to

buy

shares

from

the

members

who

were

persuaded

to

sell

.

In

2017

,

rightholders

took

the

issue

to

court

in

order

to

cancel

the

rights

of

the

subsidiaries

of

the

Foundation

,

as

illegally

obtained

.

They

won

in

the

first

court

case

.

Further

information

in

several

sources

[

1

] 

[

1

]

Iordachescu

,

George

. “

Making

the

‘

European

Yellowstone

’—

Unintended

Consequences

or

Unrealistic

Intentions

?”

Environment

&

Society

Portal

,

Arcadia

(

Spring

2018

),

no

.

10

.

Rachel

Carson

Center

for

Environment

and

Society

.

doi

.

org

/

10

.

5282

/

rcc

/

8303

and

in

Romanian

,

an

analysis

article

https

://

www

.

nostrasilva

.

ro

/

evenimente

/

insta

nta

-

opreste

-

definitiv

-

acapararea

-

obstii

-

mosnenilor

-

rucareni

-

si

-

dambovicioreni

-

de

-

catre

-

societatile

-

conservation

-

carpathia

/

Many

local

actors

involved

in

the

governance

of

the

commons

mentioned

in

the

AE

survey

that

they

perceive

laws

and

legal

provisions

as

the

main

threat

.

Problems

arise

from

difficulties

of

fitting

the

commons

and

the

community

-

based

institutions

that

govern

the

commons

into

inappropriate

legal

and

financial

categories

,

which

allows

for

confusion

and

mistakes

.

The

problem

of

unfitting

legal

categories

is

very

deep

and

it

refers

to

the

historical

reliance

of

property

law

on

roman

and

civil

concepts

,

which

attribute

power

to

the

individual

owner

,

rather

than

the

group

or

the

territory

,

as

in

the

germanic

common

law

.

Basically

the

legal

concepts

do

not

accurately

and

specifically

reflect

realities

and

regional

differences

on

the

ground

,

acting

to

twist

,

reduce

and

dilute

such

realities

to

inappropriate

formal

concepts

.

i

will

detail

this

in

the

following

.

In

Romania

,

from

a

legal

point

of

view

,

the

community

-

based

institutions

,

obsti

and

composesorate

,

are

considered

non

-

profit

associations

.

Both

notions

of

'

non

-

profit

'

and

'

association

'

are

inaccurate

with

regards

to

how

the

communities

of

rightholders

function

in

reality

.

As

it

was

shown

throughout

this

report

,

the

commons

yield

important

profits

.

The

surplus

cash

proceeds

(

profit

)

resulted

after

selling

timber

and

receiving

pasture

subsidies

is

distributed

to

the

rightholders

,

but

the

'

dividends

'

have

to

be

fitted

into

other

formal

categories

and

denominations

,

from

which

a

lot

of

confusion

arises

regarding

taxation

,

and

the

institutions

are

rendered

vulnerable

.

Moreover

,

the

community

-

based

institutions

are

not

associations

of

land

owners

.

The

term

association

of

owners

has

42

4.2. Legal and bureaucratic confusion

a

connotation

of

individualization

,

sends

to

the

idea

of

a

whole

composed

from

smaller

individual

pieces

;

persons

voluntarily

coming

together

,

owning

a

piece

of

land

and

deciding

to

put

it

together

with

others

'

for

common

management

and

governance

.

Or

,

in

the

case

of

obsti

and

composesorate

,

the

entire

commons

is

an

undivided

piece

of

land

,

and

there

is

no

correspondence

between

a

certain

piece

of

the

common

land

and

certain

individuals

.

Law

and

policy

makers

often

have

a

reduced

knowledge

about

the

ways

in

which

the

commons

and

the

rights

are

organized

,

their

historical

legacies

;

liberal

policies

regard

them

as

relics

of

the

past

,

as

hindrances

to

‘

progress

’

towards

fully

fledged

individual

property

rights

.

The

commoners

navigate

the

bureaucratic

density

,

being

subject

to

legal

provisions

concerning

pasturing

,

animal

husbandry

,

laws

concerning

forestry

,

conservation

and

commercial

enterprises

,

among

others

.

All

of

these

issues

require

expert

knowledge

from

the

part

of

the

council

,

which

is

in

some

cases

not

even

remunerated

for

their

work

.

In

this

case

,

the

commons

might

appear

as

‘

backward

’

and

‘

stuck

’

local

institutions

,

of

low

administrative

and

economic

performance

,

to

other

state

institutions

/

actors

with

which

they

interact

,

to

law

and

policy

makers

,

and

there

is

fear

from

the

commons

representatives

that

the

state

will

proceed

to

a

new

nationalization

.

The

recommendation

in

this

sense

might

be

financial

and

legal

capacity

building

for

council

members

,

or

training

of

local

members

about

their

rights

and

procedures

.

On

the

other

hand

,

it

is

also

necessary

to

train

the

law

and

policy

makers

.

A

common

pattern

is

observable

in

the

cases

:

the

companies

with

interests

persuade

the

councils

,

which

modify

the

by

-

laws

and

persuade

rightholders

to

accept

the

outsiders

,

or

the

sales

,

obtaining

a

decision

of

the

general

assembly

.

Rightholders

who

do

not

agree

with

these

decisions

can

attack

the

decision

in

court

if

they

possess

the

awareness

and

the

financial

means

to

pursue

such

an

action

in

court

.

The

prevalent

local

conception

of

nature

is

that

of

productive

resources

,

sustaining

livelihoods

,

and

with

commercial

value

.

Resource

extraction

and

commodification

have

a

strong

legacy

,

dating

back

to

the

Austro

-

Hungarian

Empire

in

the

19th

century

,

enhanced

during

the

socialist

period

through

intense

centrally

planned

extraction

of

forests

.

To

date

,

the

Carpathian

forests

and

grasslands

are

abundant

and

diverse

,

being

a

hotspot

for

European

wilderness

,

and

local

rightholders

have

a

strong

belief

in

their

resilience

and

regeneration

,

which

can

lead

to

a

lack

of

regard

for

sustainability

.

In

certain

areas

with

commons

,

reports

and

studies

(

e

.

g

.

Greenpeace

2017

)

have

shown

that

high

levels

of

undocumented

logging

is

driven

by

business

and

political

interests

.

However

,

such

logging

occurs

by

several

powerful

entrepreneurs

and

does

not

represent

the

interests

of

all

the

rightholders

,

whose

rights

are

in

fact

being

abused

in

such

cases

.

A

public

discourse

that

gained

prominence

around

2015

is

that

Romania

fosters

unique

natural

beauty

in

danger

of

being

destroyed

by

careless

politics

and

corrupt

local

practices

,

particularly

through

illegal

logging

.

Thus

,

the

local

communities

'

use

of

the

land

is

increasingly

regarded

as

lacking

environmental

care

.

These

perceptions

further

inform

policy

and

legislation

promoting

restrictions

.

When

this

view

is

applied

indiscriminately

,

without

consultation

of

the

particular

cases

,

it

can

be

very

harmful

for

those

communities

with

good

practices

,

which

strive

for

balancing

sustainability

with

making

a

livelihood

.

[

1

]

https

://

www

.

greenpeace

.

org

/

romania

/

Globa

l

/

romania

/

Illegal

%

20logging

%

20in

%

20Rom

anian

%

20forests

%

20in

%

202017

-

compressed

.

pdf

43

4.3. Sustainability, conservation and

negative perceptions

Attitudes

of

rural

dwellers

towards

wilderness

and

the

free

development

of

nature

are

mainly

positive

(

Bauer

and

Mondini

2014

).

However

the

existing

protected

areas

and

conservation

initiatives

,

by

governemnetal

agencies

and

NGOs

are

perceived

more

ambivalently

and

are

strongly

associated

with

restrictions

, ‘

conservation

’

being

perceived

as

'

command

and

control

'

type

of

governance

of

resources

,

in

competition

with

local

rights

.

The

majority

of

rightholders

'

representatives

declared

for

the

AE

survey

that

the

inclusion

of

commons

land

into

protected

areas

is

a

negative

thing

.

The

measures

of

conservation

-

restrictions

to

constructions

,

to

logging

,

uncontrolled

increase

of

wildlife

,

such

as

bears

,

non

-

intervention

policies

towards

bark

beetle

infestations

–

all

are

seen

as

threats

to

local

livelihoods

.

Therefore

,

trust

in

'

conservation

'

is

reduced

by

experiencing

unjust

restrictions

or

lack

of

consultation

from

protected

areas

administrations

.

On

the

other

hand

,

conservation

practitioners

also

see

local

communities

negatively

,

as

greedy

resource

consumers

,

without

regard

for

the

environment

.

As

a

consequence

,

participation

of

local

communities

in

conservation

programmes

is

not

desired

and

monetary

compensations

are

seen

as

the

way

to

offset

community

’

s

interests

in

land

.

The

threat

here

is

that

local

communities

increasingly

perceive

'

conservation

'

as

a

top

-

down

imposition

from

the

government

,

working

against

their

precarious

livelihoods

.

A

further

threat

is

that

the

communities

are

indiscriminately

seen

as

malign

to

the

environment

by

conservation

practitioners

,

NGOs

and

government

.

Negativity

both

ways

leads

to

lack

of

cooperation

and

mutual

understanding

for

common

goals

.

Another

prevalent

threat

to

the

commons

,

and

especially

to

the

processes

of

governance

and

community

participation

,

is

high

level

of

conflicts

among

rightholders

or

among

commoners

and

council

executives

.

These

conflicts

can

be

rooted

in

the

social

fabric

of

village

life

,

being

long

-

standing

family

feuds

,

or

political

quarrels

,

or

distributional

conflicts

.

In

some

of

the

commons

we

found

political

factionalism

,

which

leads

to

sharp

community

cleavages

,

contestation

and

occasionally

to

open

violence

.

A

large

percent

of

community

institutions

deal

with

official

complaints

and

contestations

from

commoners

.

As

part

of

their

empowerment

,

a

number

of

members

file

in

complaints

to

state

institutions

(

courts

,

control

institutions

)

about

the

working

of

the

commons

management

,

which

can

lead

to

costly

court

trials

.

This

might

be

an

effect

of

low

local

enforcement

of

rules

,

and

inefficient

mechanisms

for

conflict

resolution

on

a

local

basis

,

but

it

is

also

an

effect

of

the

broader

context

of

lack

of

generalized

trust

in

elites

and

frequent

accusations

of

corruption

and

funds

embezzlement

.

Romania

is

one

of

the

countries

with

lowest

measured

level

of

interpersonal

trust

,

this

generating

distrust

towards

associationism

and

working

in

groups

.

This

means

that

conflict

it

is

not

necessarily

a

feature

specific

to

the

communities

with

commons

,

but

to

most

rural

Romanian

communities

.

However

,

the

resurgence

of

this

type

of

resource

-

can

also

represent

a

sign

of

vitality

,

a

sign

of

healthy

contestation

,

a

sign

that

commoners

are

voicing

their

opinions

and

don

'

t

take

hierarchies

for

granted

.

44

4.4.Internal conflicts

database

The

current

s

FOREST AND PASTURE COMMONS IN ROMANIA: TERRITORIES OF LIFE, POTENTIAL ICCAs: COUNTRY REPORT

Abstract