ICCA Consortium Territories of Life Report 2021, Romania Case Homórdkarácsonyfalva Közbirtokosság

Abstract

As negotiations intensify ahead of the UN biodiversity and climate conferences in late 2021, the time is now to recognise Indigenous peoples and local communities as central to sustaining the diversity of life on Earth. One of the biggest opportunities to catalyse transformative changes from local to global levels is to support Indigenous peoples and local communities to secure their human rights, and particularly their rights to self-determined governance systems, cultures and collective lands and territories. Although there are no panaceas, this is arguably a key missing link in efforts to address the biodiversity and climate crises and ensure a safe, healthy and sustainable planet for all.
The Romanian Case spotlights the emblematic Homoródkarácsonyfalva community which reestablished in 2000 its ancestral system of common rights over forests and pastures. Since then, the community has also seen a turn towards nature conservation, including a return of emblematic species, lower rates of forest harvesting and celebration of voluntary established protected areas of cultural significance.

Full text

2
Hungarian Kingdom as a privilege given in exchange for
border defence services (Varga, 1999). Towards the end of
the 19th century, the Közbirtokosság was constituted as a
formal institution in charge with governing the commons
according to by-laws (Dezsö, 2002).
After the First World War when Transylvania was
annexed by the Romanian Kingdom, the local
customary institution (Közbirtokosság) became
recognised by the Romanian state. Up until the middle
Photo: George Iordăchescu
Homoródkarácsonyfalva village (hear pronunciation;
English: Christmas village; Romanian: Crăciunel) is
nestled in the valley of the Homorod stream, in the
scenic foothills of the eastern rim of the Carpathian
Mountains, South-Eastern Transylvania, Romania.
The community identies as Szekler (székelyek), a
subgroup of the Hungarian-speaking people and an
ethnic minority in Romania. It is an area with a rich
silvo-pastoral culture, entangled with a recent history
of centralized socialist economic modernization. In
2000, the community has regained communal rights
over pastureland and forests that were conscated
and passed to state ownership by the socialist regime
(1948-1989). Since then, the community has also seen a
turn towards nature conservation, including a return of
emblematic species, and lower rates of forest harvesting.
As a special feature, in the whole region, ancestral
Author(s):1 George Iordăchescu, Anna Varga, Monica Vasile, and Irina Sinziana Opincaru
systems of common rights and traditional ways of
rights distribution have survived, although transformed,
despite impositions by successive legal reforms.
We are who we were, and we will be who
we are
The community denes itself strongly in relation to
ancestry and past landholding traditions, which enabled
them to remain free landholders and to prosper
during periods of hardship for most Eastern European
communities (Imreh, 1973, 1982).
The present communal landholding system goes back to
the older rights systems, with a communal freeholding
regime recognised by the medieval and early modern
The Christmas Village in Romania
Homórdkarácsonyfalva
Közbirtokosság
1 Dr. George Iordăchescu, Department of Politics and International
Relations, University of Shefeld, UK.
Dr. Anna Varga, Department of Ethnography and Cultural
Anthropology, University of Pécs, Hungary.
Dr. Monica Vasile, Department of History, Maastricht University,
Netherlands.
Irina Sinziana Opincaru, Department of Sociology, University of
Bucharest, Romania.
George, Anna and Monica are Honorary members of the ICCA
Consortium.
The report is based on data collected by the authors in 2021. The
material was published with the free, prior and informed consent of
the community.
“During
communism we
did not have
full control of
our lands and
this affected
our capacity to
self-organize,
to strategize
and to nurture
the community.
Since we
received our
commons back,
we started
to think as a
collective again,
to plan for the
future.”
Csaba Orbán, President of the
Közbirtokosság, 2021
1,098 hectares
of land in total
732 hectares of
forest
347 registered
rightsholders
ICCA Consortium
Online version: report.territoriesoife.org
1Territories of Life • 2021 REPORT

43
of the 20th century, the community property and land
use systems followed the typical patterns of feudal
silvo-pastoral villages in Europe, with a certain degree of
independence in self-managing resources communally.
During state socialism (1948-1989), the communist
regime nationalized the lands and put an end to this
customary property regime. Forests were nationalized
and managed in a state-centralized manner. Most of
the agricultural land was collectivized as a cooperative.
The cooperative erased the older communal rules
and allowed locals to retain ownership of only one
head of cattle per household, but obliged people to
enrol as paid workers for the cooperative herd and
deliver produce for the centralized economy (Verdery,
2003). In the socialist system, economic productivity
was paramount, and an ethos of modernization and
industrialization dominated land use and management
(Verdery, 2001).
After the 2000s, a set of legal land reforms allowed the
community to regain property and use rights to their
territories.
Restoring rights to common land, a
restitution moment
In the post-socialist period, in the year 2000, the
communal property system, Közbirtokosság (which
existed prior to 1948), was reinstated through restitution
law 1/2000 and the community again took hold of
pastures and forests. 2 Under this law’s provisions,
Homoródkarácsonfalva Közbirtokosság was registered
on 1 April 2000, with the founding document signed
by the regional and local authorities along with
appointed representatives of the community. The
biggest challenge in the registration process was
the lack of historical documents to prove rights to
commons. Eventually, the commission in charge of
restitution found a table mentioning the distribution of
commons’ forest rights dated 1946 and a land registry
from the 1890s. These documents are now framed and
displayed in the main hall of the commons institution’s
headquarters as a remembrance of the past (see photo
‘Historical tables of rights to commons’).
Közbirtokosság: a system to collectively
govern the commons
The forest, pasture and water sources are governed by
the community institution as a commons: an elected
executive committee functions according to written
by-laws and decisions taken by the general assembly
of rightsholders. The commons are considered private
property of the community, and delimited within
the Romanian legal categories of land ownership as
‘historical associative forms of property’ – separate from
municipality property, state property and individual
private property.3
The commons has 1098 hectares of land in total, of
which 732 ha are forest (with an estimated monetary
value of 1,389,800 euros) and 366 ha are pastures.
There are currently 347 registered rightsholders, around
half of whom reside in the village. The other half are
descendants of the old rightsholders who currently
reside elsewhere, though they have relatives in the
village who are delegated to use the common lands
and participate in decision-making processes. The
Unitarian and Catholic Churches are also considered
rightsholders, as entities with distinct rights given their
need for rewood to heat the church and so on.
Within the community, each rightsholder has inherited
rights from their ancestors. The rights are legally
registered and counted as communal shares called
‘quota-parts’. Sales of shares between the members
of the community of descendants are allowed but not
excessively, as the rules of the commons mention that
no person can inherit or acquire more than 5% of all
shares. A small percentage of village families do not hold
rights to the commons, such as newcomer families who
moved there in the 20th century.
The rights are held by the elders and only after the
death of an elder the offspring can inherit the rights.
As such, some younger families do not ofcially hold
rights or participate in communal assemblies, but have
‘arrangements’ with their parents or grandparents for
using the commons. Though women and men are
entitled to inherit rights to the commons, women tend
to marry outside the village, and it is usually men who
“Vagyunk, akik
voltunk, és leszünk,
akik vagyunk – We
are who we were,
and we will be who
we are.”
The inscription on ag of
Homoródkarácsonyfalva
2 For an extended discussion of the commons in present day Romania,
see Vasile and Mantescu 2009, Vasile 2018, Vasile 2019a and Vasile
2019b.
3 For an extended discussion of the Romanian commons, including
cross-regional and historical comparisons, refer to the website of the
Romanian Mountain Commons Project: https://romaniacommons.
wixsite.com/project.
Historical tables of
rights to commons
from 1946. Photo:
George Iordăchescu
Map of forestland
showing
the species
composition, over
90% European
beech followed by
sessile oak, pine
and other species.
Various tracts of
forest alternate
with pastures or
forests belonging
to private owners.
Territories of Life • 2021 REPORT ICCA Consortium
Online version: report.territoriesoife.org

65
properties, both forests and pastures, are interspersed
throughout or border the territory of life. A sweet
chestnut orchard of approximately one hectare is
located close to the center of the village. The pastures
are divided into two categories according to seasonal
use: the upper pastures are more difcult to reach and
used for young cattle from April to September and
the pastures around the village are used daily to graze
milking cows, goats and sheep.
Wood pastures are among the oldest land use types
in Europe and have high ecological and cultural
importance (Hartel et al, 2013). Here, grassy vegetation
4 For more details about commons as forms of social economy, refer to
Opincaru, 2020.
regulations dictated by a policy of direct payments
under the Common Agricultural Policy. Forests are
additionally subjected to country-wide legislation
and vested in specialized institutions – i.e., forestry
districts accredited by the state, forest management
plans designed by hired experts and approved by
the Ministry of Environment. In addition, a series of
customary documents locally regulates the use of
resources, for example, the use of pasture and mineral
water springs.
Revenues from commons are used in part to sponsor
community activities such as the construction of a
communal spa bath, the annual Chestnut Festival, the
renovation of historical buildings and various other cultural
activities. More recently, the governing institution started
to sponsor these activities using EU direct payments.
Over the years, the community built a complex of public
baths around the mineral springs located in the south-
eastern part of the village, called “Dungó Feredő”. Due
to a set of miraculous healings, some members tend to
attach spiritual values to Dungó Feredő and consider the
place sacred. Other revenues derived by the community
institution Közbirtokosság are used to cover the costs
of its operations, such as bills and taxes, and the rest is
redistributed to members of the community.4
The territory of life – pastures and woods
The territory of life surrounds the village and it is
zoned in three main areas of approximately equal
size: forestland, wood pastures and pasture. Private The landscape around Homoródkarácsonyfalva. Photo: Anna Varga
Map of pastures.
The use of pasture
differs according
to proximity to
the village, those
closer to the village
are used for daily
grazing, while
those located
further are reserved
for grazing young
cattle over the
summer months.
inherit the household and thus the common land rights.
The community devised a set of clear rules to avoid
challenges such as excessive division of rights and lack
of participation. For example, the parents usually choose
only one of their offspring as inheritor and bearer of
the rights, usually the youngest one or the one that
will continue to live in their house after their death.
The siblings have to agree with this decision, and the
governing bodies do not require certied documents to
attest the inheritance of rights.
Rights to forest use are quantied and considered
different than rights to pasture use (Vasile, 2019b). For
each right (share) to the forest, a rightsholder is entitled
to approximately 0.62 cubic meters of timber. If the
member does not need the timber (for example, if they
reside in the city, or can supply it from a private forest),
they will receive the equivalent in cash. For each right to
pasture, the member can send one cow or up to 7 sheep
to graze. Those who do not need to use the pastures
receive around 10 euro (50 RON) per year per right.
Similarly, rightsholders who own more cattle but do not
have sufcient pasture rights are allowed to acquire the
grazing rights from other rightsholders who do not use
them and offer compensation in return.
The communal rights are currently recognized by
Romanian law (Law no. 1 of 2000) and registered in
ofcial land books and property documents. The
by-laws are validated and registered with the court
of law. However, the management of local resources
is also dictated by overarching regulations and
policies. Pasture management is subject to European
“We protected
the large trees on
the pastureland,
but many of them
were cut down in
the 1960s during
socialism.”
Mózes Balázs, forester assistant, 2008
forms a mosaic landscape with interspersed ancient
trees, including oak, sessile oak, and beech, which
represent local biodiversity hotspots. Mosaic areas
offer a broad range of habitats for biodiversity and
good conditions for silvo-pastoral livelihoods, grazing
livestock, in shade and sun (Varga and Molnár, 2014).
Wood pastures are rapidly declining all over Europe
because of changes in land use and lack of regeneration,
and they are generally not recognized in the nature
conservation policies of the EU or protected as distinct
landscapes despite evidence from research showing
their special management history and values. In
Karácsonyfalva, the wood pastures were maintained
by the community throughout history despite adverse
state-driven tendencies. ‘Acorn’ forests were incredibly
valuable in medieval Transylvania and most of Europe
given the importance of acorns for feeding pigs.
During socialism, animal husbandry practices were
intensied, large trees on pastureland were cut down
and articial fertilizers introduced.
After the fall of socialism in 1989, pastureland was
abandoned, and scrub was not cleared thoroughly
anymore. Yet, Romania’s accession to the European
Territories of Life • 2021 REPORT ICCA Consortium
Online version: report.territoriesoife.org

87
Union in 2007 brought direct payments through the
Common Agricultural Policy, which spurred scrub
clearance and pasture maintenance activities to correct
the neglect of the previous years (Varga, 2006). The
pasture is currently understocked with no problems of
overgrazing. Most people have few animals and a few
farmers have a higher number of cattle and sheep.
The forest is temperate and over 90 per cent of it is
comprised of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) that
is healthy and around 120-200 years old; the rest of the
forest is sessile oak (Quercus petraea), oak (Quercus
robur) and pine (Pinus sylvestris). Though pine was
planted by the Hungarian state and considered an
imposition from outside, it offers great protection to the
chestnut orchard by stabilizing the land against erosion
and landslides.
The forests owned and managed as commons have
two types of uses: rewood and commercial use. The
community can harvest up to 2200 cubic meters
of timber annually (as calculated by experts in the
management plan for keeping to a sustainable yield
principle), but the actual volume has always been
lower, contributing to a net increase of the tree
cover. The majority of timber felled is used locally as
building material or for rewood. Although practiced
in neighbouring communities and throughout the
area, commercial felling in Karácsonyfalva dropped
constantly and is now almost insignicant. The fact that
the community harvests less than what they would be
allowed to do and only to cover home necessities is a
remarkable conservation feature for this area.
There are several forest conservation elements,
including 120 hectares under voluntary non-intervention
protection, where no cuts are allowed, and 30 hectares
of sessile oak is under strict protection as a seeding area.
It is also considered a quiet zone, which commoners
believe has contributed to the return of wildlife.
Emblematic species and conservation
actions
There are several vulnerable, endangered and critically
endangered species of ora and fauna with important
ecological functions. Oak is a diminishing species
around the world; thus, this sessile oak reserve holds
special importance. The black stork (Ciconia nigra), a
threatened species in the EU, nests on undisturbed
mature trees in the area and has been spotted by locals
recently. The European beaver (Castor ber), a species
considered under threat in Europe, lives here and is
welcomed by locals. Numbers of the grey wolf(Canis
lupus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) have increased
in the area and country in the last ve years after the
Romanian government introduced a strict ban on
hunting. More recently, endangered species such as
the lynx (Lynx lynx) and the wild cat (Felis silvestris)
have been sighted. The number of white storks (Ciconia
ciconia) is increasing year after year, not only signalling
a healthy habitat, but also locals’ positive attitude, as this
species usually nests around houses and is considered a
good omen for the health and prosperity of each family.
A Natura 2000 protected area (PA ROSPA0027) for bird
protection overlaps most of the Homoródkarácsonyfalva
village and commons and the surrounding villages.
Among the most representative species conserved
within this protected area are: lesser spotted eagle
(Aquila pomarina), greater spotted eagle (Aquila
clanga), common kingsher (Alcedo atthis), black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), grey-
headed woodpecker (Picus canus) and lesser grey shrike
(Lanius minor). Locals were not consulted when the
protected area was declared, as is the situation with
almost all Natura 2000 areas in Romania (Iordachescu,
2019). Nevertheless, the community welcomes the
existence of the protected area and has plans to seize
the opportunity and build ecotourism in the village.
Since its reestablishment as a juridical entity, the
governing board of the commons managed to register
two protected areas of local interest in an attempt
to protect natural values from infrastructure or
construction development (decision No.162/2005 of the
Harghita County Council).
A chestnut grove, herbal medicine, an
open-air spa, and a festival
The age of the villagers and rightsholders inuences
their relationships with the commons. Some areas of the
territory such as the open-air baths complex are used for
leisure and healing. Some members are hunters of wild
boar and deer and tend to know the forests better than
the others. They also declare sightings of species that
have returned or are new to the area. Some commoners
have an intimate knowledge of existing species of ora
and engage actively in harvesting and selling traditional
medicine based on herbs and plants that are picked,
dried and made into teas, creams, and lotions (Papp
and Dávid, 2016). One such plant is the striking blue
trumpet-shaped gyertyángyökér (Gentiana asclepiadea
L.), a ower that lls the pastures from late summer
and into autumn. Locals organise regular meetings and
workshops, open to the community and to outsiders, for
transmitting traditional knowledge about plants. Edible
mushrooms are also collected in the forest.
Another beloved communal territory is the sweet
chestnut grove, planted by community members at the
beginning of the 20th century and used by the school
to teach lessons about biology and ecology. Every rst
Saturday of October, the community organises the
Cattle resting in the forest, 2008. Photo: Anna Varga
Building the Dungo Spa Community Baths in 2006.
Photo: Anna Varga
“We did not try to
nd explanations
for the recent
return of wildlife,
we are just very
happy about it.”
Csaba Orbán, President of the
Közbirtokosság, 2021
The community
attending the
opening of the
Chestnut Festival.
Photo: Csaba Orbán
Territories of Life • 2021 REPORT ICCA Consortium
Online version: report.territoriesoife.org

109
Chestnut Festival using the commons’ budget and
reunites members from all over, assembling for a day to
celebrate their commons. This festival represents a true
expression of community values.
Worries and hopes for the future
Although the Homoródkarácsonfalva Közbirtokosság
has recovered well from pressures during the period
of state socialism, it is not without worries. Today, the
threats of invasive plants and drought are causing
serious vulnerabilities. Medicinal plants are declining
and others such as stag’s horn clubmoss (Lycopodium
clavatum) and the blueberry bush (Anum myrtillus L)
are migrating to higher altitudes. Erosion was affecting
the topsoil in small areas some years ago, but they have
been planted with appropriate species and grazing was
reduced to more than half of the allowed capacity.
The lack of cooperation with national authorities
in managing growing interaction with potentially
dangerous wildlife is also a disturbing issue for the
community.
The community’s vision for the future is centred
around raising the quality of life for its members. They
hope that their village and commons will be blessed
with a favourable climate, including enough rains and
water to thrive.
From a demographic point of view, children are an
important part of the village’s future. For them, the
community desires university education, as well as a
quality of life comparable to other European countries
(which can only be achieved with monetary revenue).
To halt potential emigration and demographic collapse,
the community feels revenue should be generated from
conservation initiatives.
The community sees value in developing ecotourism
services catering to a market of consumers that
appreciate nature-based activities such as horse riding,
walks and hiking, wildlife observation and consuming
natural products. The community envisions a future
of rich cultural activity around the local churches as
historical heritage, the chestnut orchard as a place of
celebration, and around the mineral springs of Dungo
(see map Vision for the future).
References and further readings
• Garda, Dezsö. 2002. A székely közbirtokosság. Státus
Könyvk., Csíkszereda.
• Hartel, T., T. Plieninger, and A. Varga. 2015. Wood-
Pastures in Europe. In Europe’s Changing
Woods and Forests: From Wildwood to Managed
Landscapes, edited by K. J. Kirby and C. Watkins.
Wallingford: CABI, pp. 61–76.
• Hartel, Tibor, Ine Dorresteijn, Catherine Klein, Orsolya
Máthé, Cosmin I. Moga, Kinga Öllerer, Marlene Roellig,
Henrik von Wehrden, and Joern Fischer. 2013. Wood-
Pastures in a Traditional Rural Region of Eastern
Europe: Characteristics, Management and Status.
Biological Conservation 166 (October): 267–275.
• Imreh, Istvan. 1982. Viata Cotidiana La Secui: 1750-
1850. Bucharest: Kriterion.
• Imreh, Istvan. 1973. A rendtartó székely falu.
Bucharest: Kriterion.
• Iordachescu, George. 2019. Wilderness Production
in the Southern Carpathians. Towards a Political
Ecology of Untouched Nature. IMT School of
Advanced Studies.
• Opincaru, Irina‐Sînziana. 2020. Elements of the
Institutionalization Process of the Forest and
Pasture Commons in Romania as Particular
Forms of Social Economy. Annals of Public and
Cooperative Economics, October, apce.12294.
• Papp Nóra, Horváth Dávid: „Ezt nagyon
tartották Édesanyámék, Nagyanyámék” –
Homoródkarácsonyfalva hagyományai és népi
orvoslása / Traditions and ethnomedicinal data in
Craciunel (in Hungarian) Homoródkarácsonyfalvi
Füzetek III. Homoródkarácsonyfalva Közbirtokosság
kiadványa, Homoródkarácsonyfalva, 2016. pp 1-150.
ISBN 978-606-8599-31-1
• Varga Anna. 2006. “Kis-Homoród mente tájtörténete
(Landscape history of Kis-Homoród valley).” Néprajzi
Hírek 1-2: 40-41.
• Varga, Anna, Molnár, Zs. 2014. The Role of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge in Managing Wood-pastures.
In European Wood-pastures in Transition, Hartel, T.,
Plininger, T. (eds). Routledge, pp.187-202.
• Varga, Árpád. 1999. Hungarians in Transylvania
between 1870 and 1995; original Title: Erdély Magyar
Népessége 1870–1995 Között, Magyar Kisebbség 3–4,
1998 (New Series IV), pp. 331–407.
• Vasile, Monica. 2018. Formalizing Commons,
Registering Rights: The Making of the Forest and
Pasture Commons in the Romanian Carpathians
from the 19th Century to Post-Socialism.
International Journal of the Commons 12 (1):
170–201.
• Vasile, Monica, and Liviu Mantescu. 2009. Property
Reforms in Rural Romania and Community-Based
Forests. Sociologie Romaneasca 7(2): 95–113.
• Vasile, Monica. 2019a. Forest and Pasture Commons
in Romania: Territories of Life, Potential ICCAs:
Country Report’.
• Vasile, Monica. 2019b. The Enlivenment of
Institutions: Emotional Work and the Emergence of
Contemporary Land Commons in the Carpathian
Mountains. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 62 (1): 124–50.
• Verdery, Katherine. 2001. Inequality as Temporal
Process: Property and Time in Transylvania’s Land
Restitution. Anthropological Theory 1(3): 373–92.
• Verdery, Katherine. 2003. The Vanishing Hectare:
Property and Value in Postsocialist Transylvania.
Culture & Society after Socialism. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Community’s own publications and other sources
• “Travelling in Székelyföld along the Rivers Homoród”
by Sándor István Jánosfalvi, a manuscript from
1857 published by the Minerva Rt. in Kolozsvár in
1942 and also by the Litera Publishing House in
Székelyudvarhely in 2003.
• “On the banks of the River Homoród bordered by
willow meads”. Collected studies about the border
area between Székelyföld and the “Saxon Land” (in
Hungarian: Szászföld) of Transylvania. (the collection
of studies is titled in Hungarian: A Homoród fűzes
partján), published by Pro Print Publishing House,
Csíkszereda, 2000.
• “Homoródkarácsonyfalva” – Information Book about
the Villages of Székelyföld Series. Litera Publishing
House, Székelyudvarhely, 1999.
• “Rika Region”. (The book is titled in Hungarian: Rika
kistérség) published by the Association for the Rika
Region in Oklánd, 2003.
• “The Garden of Sweet Chestnut Trees”. Booklets
about Homoródkarácsonyfalva 1. published by the
Committee Responsible for the Common Estates of
Homoródkarácsonyfalva, 2005.
Vision for the future of Homoródkarácsonfalva Közbirtokosság drawn by the community’s children.
Photo: George Iordăchescu
Territories of Life • 2021 REPORT ICCA Consortium
Online version: report.territoriesoife.org

This chapter is part of the Territories of Life: 2021 Report, composed of local, national,
regional and global analyses of territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples
and local communities (sometimes abbreviated as “ICCAs” or “territories of life”). The
report is part of an ongoing process to develop the knowledge base on territories of life
in support of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ self-determined priorities. It
is produced by the ICCA Consortium with the support of several partners.
ICCA Consortium. 2021. Territories of Life: 2021 Report. ICCA Consortium: worldwide.
Availableat: report.territoriesoife.org.
The ICCA Consortium is a global non-prot association
dedicated to supporting Indigenous peoples and local
communities who are governing and conserving their
collective lands, waters and territories. Its organisational
Members and individual Honorary members in more
than 80 countries are undertaking collective actions
at the local, national, regional and international levels
across several thematic streams, including documenting,
sustaining and defending territories of life, as well as
youth and intergenerational relations.
Learn more about the ICCA Consortium at
www.iccaconsortium.org
About this report
About the ICCA Consortium
Territories of Life • 2021 REPORT