Naturo consorvation, contlict

and discoursos on torost managomont :

communitios and protoctod aroas
trom Voridional arpathians
Monica Vasile
Universitatea din Bucure,ti
The paper aims to bring into focus the issue of nature conservation in Romania and the
response of local actors to top-dovn conservation policies. A type of conflict that arises
at the fringe of Romanian protected areas, the conflict betveen collective proprietors
and national parks' administration vill be taken as a research example. It vill be
shovn that the top-dovn approach of the park administrators is based on the ideas of
lav and science and on the idea of traditional, ,good" state forestry practice. This
approach is strongly contested by communities, vhich begin to establish as relatively
organised entities vith small steps, ,participation" begins to function.
Keywords. obyte, coIIective property, joint-ownership systems, reguIation and
customary systems.
Cuvinte-cheie. ob,te, proprietate coIectiv, devIm,ie, IegisIa(ie, sistem cutumiar
Introduction
In Romania, Iorests were privatised in pro-
portion oI 50, out oI which 60 (meaning
1.5 miIIion hectares) are owned and managed
in a coIIective manner (RNP
1
, 2007).
ThereIore, a huge number oI community-
-based institutions were estabIished or
re-estabIished aII across Iorested areas, named
obyte, composesorat or comunitate de avere.
ConsequentIy, a very dense net oI Iorestry
institutions is beginning to ,move in ruraI
Romania Ior administrating, managing and
reguIating Iorest-reIated issues in a
decentraIised way.
In this sociaI setting, the environmentaIist
discourse gains more ground and
environmentaI protection organisms expand
their inIIuence.
Romanian environmentaI Iaws and poIicies
did change very oIten over the Iast years and
there is an institutionaI rupture, meaning that
the institutions reIated to environmentaI pro-
tection (Ministry oI Environment, Ministry
oI AgricuIture, Romanian Iorest Adminis-
tration RNP) do not communicate eIIicientIy
and do not beneIit Irom each other`s stock
oI knowIedge, skiIIs and attributions
2
.
In this context, the aim of the present
paper is to investigate the consequences oI
these environmentaI reIorms on the ground,
at the IeveI oI ruraI communities that Iive at
the Iringe oI protected areas. The response
oI the communities to conservation measures
might be categorized a priori as being positive
and negative. The exampIe presented in this
paper is on the negative side and iIIustrates a
conIIict. Besides quarreIs between brothers,
88 Monica VasiIe
neighbours, peopIe and municipaIities, a new
type oI ,property conIIict arises in
Romania
3
, the one concerning interaction
between environmentaI protection organisms
and private owners. UsuaIIy, the conIIict
arises because oI two empiricaI reasons.
restrictions regarding pastoraI uses oI Iand
or restrictions regarding Iorestry in
protected areas. The case presented in this
articIe concerns Iorestry.
The paper tries to grasp the Iorms oI this
conIIict, its causes and consequences and
the narratives oI actors on each side. It wiII
be shown that the centraI motives Ior conIIict
Iye on the distribution oI power and on the
Iack oI communication skiIIs. It wiII aIso be
shown that the participation oI the community
in the management oI the protected area is
not aIways the best soIution, at Ieast not
participation per se, but prepared and construc-
ted in a certain manner and by certain actors.
Irom the methodoIogicaI point oI view,
I have undertaken a quaIitative approach
4
,
consisting in intensive interviewing with Iay
members oI the viIIage community
5
, members
oI the obytea committee
6
, Iorestry agents and
guards (beIonging to both obytea and the
Park)
7
and members oI the park adminis-
tration
8
. InitiaIIy, it was my academic interest
in the topic oI Iorestry that drove the research
methodoIogy, but during the work in the
IieId, the idea oI intervening in conIIict
management made me take a more deIinite
position, in order to be abIe to make certain
recommendations, as it is visibIe in the IinaI
part oI the paper
9
. AnaIyzing interviews in
the case oI conIIict, when inIormation and
interviewees` opinions sometimes express
certain interests and sides oI stories more
convenient Ior the speaker, is not an easy
task and the subjectivity and deduction skiIIs
oI the researcher might interIere in the
presentation and interpretation oI research
data.
Theoretical perspectives: nature
conservation and conflict
I draw my study on two bodies oI Iiterature,
one on conservation practices in the Iight oI
environmentaI anthropoIogy, and the second
on the more generaI perspective on conIIict.
Approaching nature conservation
from a social sciences' perspective
Irom the Iirst perspective, concerning nature
conservation and, more speciIicaIIy, pro-
tected areas, I am especially interested in
the vay that the ideology and practices of
conservation are received by and interact
vith local communities, and, more speci-
fically, vith local actors.
Because in Romania the socioIogicaI and
anthropoIogicaI Iiterature on ecoIogy-reIated
aspects are underrepresented (a gap that the
present journaI speciaI issue is trying to IiII),
I wiII take the occasion in the IoIIowing Iines
to give a brieI review oI the main ideas and
study directions concerning the topic oI
nature conservation and protected areas.
Protected areas are thought to be rich
sites oI sociaI production and sociaI interaction
(West et al., 2006). The sociaI discipIines
concerned with the topic oI protected areas
have mainIy Iocused on the sociaI, materiaI
and symboIic eIIects oI protected areas and
on the way they impact peopIe`s Iives.
They are thought about as changing the
Iace oI the Earth by renaming pIaces, drawing
boundaries around areas, and erasing boun-
daries between states (ibidem). In Western
societies, schoIars beIieve that protected
areas have become the means by which many
peopIe see and understand parts oI the worId
that are caIIed nature and the environment.
However, even in non-western societies, the
organizations and actors which promote and
impIement protected areas Iormation derive
their ideas and discourses Irom westernized
internationaI environmentaIist discourses.
The poststructuraIist and more generaIIy, the
constructivist perspective on environment
89 Nature conservation, conIIict and discourses on Iorest management
(Brosius, 1999b, Escobar, 1999) consider
that the internationaIIy (in subsidiary, Western)
production oI concepts, such as conservation,
biodiversity, protected area, uItimateIy
determines the production oI nature, through
highIy circuIated ideas that inIIuence peopIe`s
ways oI representing nature. ThereIore, in
this view, nature is a construct and peopIe
that are subject to studies depIoy oIten impor-
ted discourses or produce themseIves diIIe-
rent ideas in which they constantIy construct
nature. And the concept oI protected area,
together with the reIated concepts such as
species, reserve, biodiversity, ecosystem,
highIy contributes to the sociaI construction
oI the concept oI nature as something isoIated
and distinct Irom humans and uItimateIy
separate nature Irom cuIture.
Ior Romania, environmentaIist discourses
and practices are quite new, as I have stated
in the introduction. The emerging environ-
mentaIist internationaI discourse, promoted
through internationaI organisms in order to
support this new ,environmentaIist cos-
moIogy oI the naturaI as a just, moraI and
right way oI seeing and being in the worId
(West et al., 2006) begins to take shape.
Understanding conflicts
Many studies concerning protected areas go
in the direction oI studying conIIicts. Irom
various exampIes, taking the shape oI dispIa-
cements or aIteration oI Iand-use rights, pro-
tected areas` estabIishment and maintenance
are IueIing conIIicts (West et al., 2006).
In the post-socialist states, emergence of
conflicts is seen as a feature of the property
reform (Swinnen and Mathijs, 1997, apud
Sikor, 2004). ConIIicts gave birth to poIiticaI
negotiations between centraI state actors,
IocaI state authorities, historicaI Iandowners,
agricuIturaI managers and new entrepreneurs.
These negotiations mediated the reIorm
impIementation at the IocaI IeveI. These
actors have competed with each other in
gaining IegaI rights to Iand and agricuIturaI
assets and in transIating the IegaI rights into
rights-in-practice (Sikor, 2004).
The wider concept oI conIIict has been
discussed in reIation to severaI issues.
Iirst, conflict is about resources. In this
approach, conIIict is expIained in terms oI
interests oI the groups and persons invoIved,
especiaIIy their competition Ior resources or
gains (SchIee, 2004, 135). Second, conflict
is about identification. Here, attention is
drawn Irom the object to the subject oI the
conIIict and the research question is ,who
Iights whom". One becomes concerned
who is excIuded and who is incIuded and on
which basis, in which ways peopIe make and
break aIIiances and which patterns oI
identiIication they IoIIow (ibidem). Third,
conflict is about pover. Here, power is the
centraI concept oI the research and conIIict
is one possibIe point oI entry, a methodoIogicaI
setting in which power reIations are reveaIed
(Nuijten, 2005, 9).
Empirical context
Description of obtea and the park
Cheia is a viIIage Iying at the Ieet oI the
BuiIa-Vnturari(a MassiI
10
, right next to a
Iamous tourism centre, the OIne,ti city.
AIthough pIaced in such a Iortunate
neighbourhood, their prospects Ior tourism
are very poor.
The Iaw 1l2000 enabIed the community
to restore its Iormer Iorest property in the
Iorm oI a common property regime, named
obyte
11
. AImost aII inhabitants oI the viIIage
have shares (drepturi) in the obytea, unequaIIy
distributed. The totaI surIace oI owned Iorest
and pastures is 3700 hectares. Irom this
surIace, aImost 30, 1400 hectares, were
incIuded since 2004 in the BuiIa-Vnturari(a
NationaI Park.
Obytea is a community-based institution
that owns and administrates the Iorest, through
the ,ruIing counciI an executive committee,
Iormed oI a president, a secretary and Iive
members, eIected among IocaI inhabitants,
usuaIIy those with the highest amount oI
shares. ParaIIeI with this committee, at the
90 Monica VasiIe
decision-making process the viIIage assembIy
participates aIso Iormed oI aII members
(usuaIIy once a year).
In this type oI geneaIogicaI obyte, the
members are the heirs oI the ,originaI
members, those who were registered on the
property tabIes beIore 1948. They can be
inhabitants oI Cheia, or residents eIsewhere.
There is a totaI oI 400 members, spread
over 16 viIIages and cities. However, the
inhabitants oI Cheia are members oI obytea
in proportion oI 90. The inequality of
shareholding is not very high. There are
70.000 shares, out oI which the organization
itseII hoIds 14.3, the Iargest sharehoIder
has 8.6, and the next has 4.3. AnnuaIIy,
timber is expIoited by companies and the
revenues are aIIocated partIy towards the
members (the Iargest sharehoIder makes a
proIit oI 2250 euros), partIy towards invest-
ments in inIrastructure.
TheoreticaIIy, this Iorm oI property regime
has aII premises to contribute to the IocaI
deveIopment Irom the management oI the
Iorest-resources. UnIortunateIy, untiI now
peopIe that I have spoken with in the com-
munity are not satisIied with the manage-
ment oI the obytea, many oI them appreciating
that the obytea oIIiciaIs are corrupt, and the
signaIs Ior deveIopment are weak. As I wiII
show Iurther in the paper, this is partIy due
to internaI conIIicts and to excIusive orientation
towards pure timber expIoitation as economic
strategy oI obytea. NevertheIess, everybody
in the community seems to consider that the
biggest probIem is the ,encroachment oI
Iorest by the NationaI Park.
BuiIa Vanturarita is the smaIIest nationaI
park in Romania, with a totaI area oI 4186
ha, Iying on the territory oI Coste,ti and
Brbte,ti viIIages and oI the BiIe OIne,ti
city, in which is incIuded the community oI
Cheia, our Iocation. The Park administration
is ensured by a state structure, the NationaI
Iorest Administration (NIA) together with
the NGO Kogayon. The activity oI the admi-
nistration is supervised by the ScientiIic
CounciI oI the Park, Iormed oI speciaIists in
geography, bioIogy, Iorestry. The participation
oI IocaI communities and other interested
agents is ensured by the ConsuItative CounciI
oI the Park, Iormed oI representatives oI
proprietors, IocaI municipaIities and other
peopIe invoIved.
The park was Iormed out oI the ini-
tiative oI a group oI young ,nature Iovers
Irom the communities around the MassiI,
students in geography or geoIogy, the mem-
bers oI the today NGO Kogayon. Seeing
that the mountain becomes dirtier with the
inIusion oI tourists, they did everything to
decIare it a nationaI Park and they succeeded
in 2004.
Premises for participation
The core of the conflict vith the community
of Cheia lies in the regulations and inter-
dictions presupposed by the existence of the
park. Inside the speciaI conservation area,
the proprietors have no right to extract wood,
except Ior one that has been ,IeIIed by
naturaI caIamities. In the area around the
speciaI conservation, named the ,buIIer
area (with a surIace equaI to that oI the
speciaI conservation area), proprietors have
the right to extract timber, with the approvaI
oI the park administration.
Theoretically, through the above-men-
tioned ConsuItative CounciI, aII the
communities invoIved in the constitution oI
the park do participate in the decision-making
process. As the denomination suggests, the
type oI participation impIied is the consuI-
tative one, in which decisions are taken by
the centre and Iegitimated through the
participative scheme (Lawrence, 2006, 283).
The generaI discourse oI state represen-
tatives concerning environmentaI measures
and decisions in the case oI estabIishing
protected areas is that oI a centraIized autho-
ritarian protection strategy. They beIieve
that communities shouId not be consuIted
Ior estabIishing protected areas, because oI
exaggerated demands and oI Iack oI
communication skiIIs.
De facto, the community oI Cheia does
not even recognize the constitution oI the
91 Nature conservation, conIIict and discourses on Iorest management
Park, denying aII coIIaboration. They even
sued the administration oI the Park, arguing
that they constituted iIIegaIIy, because obytea
Cheia did not sign Ior incorporating their
territory in the Park. The others communities
that have property rights in the park
recognize the Park and some oI them have a
IavorabIe attitude. However, untiI now very
Iew participatory actions have taken pIace.
Actors and their profile
The two main actors invoIved are ,the
community and ,the park. However, I do
not approach the community as a monoIith,
as a body that acts independentIy and
uniIormIy. Very oIten, in the Iiterature on
environmentaIism, even in anthropoIogicaI
or socioIogicaI studies, the community is
reiIied and essentiaIized (,the community
against the state ,the community against
iIIegaI Iogging), even though in depth case
studies reveaI that inside a community there
are divergent ,Iorces and actors (Brosius
1999b, Boonzaier, 1996). My paper takes
into consideration that muItipIe actors
compose both community and the park.
The most active pIayer in the conIIict is
the committee oI obytea. A president, together
with a secretary (both over 65 years oId),
ruIes the committee. Both were active
communist members and part oI the ,oId
structures. Irom this characteristic derives
the Iact that they are supposed to have very
good connections at the IocaI IeveI and to be
important pIayers in diIIerent patron-cIients
networks. PeopIe Irom the viIIage oIten
characterize the obytea as ,the same vay as
it vas vith the collective farm in communism"
and through the term oI corrupt.
Lay members oI the obytea and mereIy
peopIe that are not directIy invoIved in Iorestry
do not express vehement opinions against
the park. They wouId rather dispIay aestheticaI
and ecoIogicaI arguments in Iavour oI it,
expressing their satisIaction with its esta-
bIishment.
The Iay members oI the community have
a consuItative roIe in the participatory process.
They aIso have a roIe oI ,Iegitimizing
audience Ior the decisions oI the committee.
Because the ruIes Ior membership in obytea
are based on the inheritance principIe, the
oIder members oI the community are the
rightIuI owners, thus the generaI assembIy
has the appearance oI a gerontocracy
12
.
The actors oI the park are the state
structure, RomsiIva, and the Association
(NGO) Kogayon. The park has a ManageriaI
CounciI, a ScientiIic CounciI and a ConsuI-
tative CounciI, in the Iatter being invoIved
the representatives oI the surrounding commu-
nities. The members oI the Association are
mostIy young and enthusiastic ,nature
speciaIists that grew up in the area, thus
maniIesting a strong attachment towards
environment in the region. In the ManageriaI
CounciI there are Iorestry speciaIist Irom
the Romanian Iorest Administration (RNP
Regia Najional a Pdurilor).
Flow of conflicting ideas
I wiII try to Iist and anaIyse aII the arguments
and compIaints that the obytea committee
members and Iay peopIe Irom the community
have dispIayed in diIIerent conversations that
we had and to provide Ior each oI them the
,response Irom the Kogayon director (I.,
age 32) and oI RNP representative (M., age
40). This section oI the paper is meant to
depict the conIIict and the objects oI the
conIIicts Irom a discursive perspective. The
perspective of narratives, oI ,IIow oI ideas
is very important in this case, because the
,IIow oI actions does not yet pIay a very
important part. SchoIarIy work in anthro-
poIogy suggests that ,discourse
13
is at the
core oI any environmentaI movement or
action, because images and the metaphoric
cIoth are constitutive oI environmentaIism,
the concept oI ,nature being partIy a
constructed one (Brosius 1999b, Escobar,
1999).
92 Monica VasiIe
1he general lines of the narratives
and the main conflict reasons
The red Iine that crosses the narratives oI
both parts is the Iack oI communication.
Obytea compIains about ,nobody asking
them, whiIe the managers oI the Park
compIain about Iack oI understanding about
meaning oI protected areas Irom the part oI
the community.
It was very diIIicuIt Ior me to isoIate the
precise causes Ior the emergence oI the con-
IIict
14
, because oI the contrasting opinions
expressed by the two parts. However, I wiII
present the main ,accusations and then try
to anaIyse each oI the arguments.
IirstIy, it appears very interesting in the
obytea oIIiciaIs` narrative how the park is
associated with the ,imperiaIist (T., age
67, obyte counciIIor) or autocratic State. In
their opinion, the state stiII wants to admi-
nistrate the zone, despite the Iact that nowadays
the community is the private ,master.
The heads oI the obytea committee beIieve
that in the backstage oI the park constitution
Iies the poIiticaI interest oI state actors,
Ioresters and poIiticaI personaIities, which
want to controI access in the area. They do
not beIieve in the cruciaI scientiIic impor-
tance oI biodiversity oI the region and do
not understand the scientiIic argumentation
Ior the buIIer zone, as it appears in their
IoIIowing statement.
,There are some objectives in the park,
not exceeding 60 hectares. the yew trees and
the caves, the rest is buIIer zone. (L., age
75)
As Ior the members oI the Kogayon
Association, the obytea oIIiciaIs put them in
a mercantiIe Iight, saying that their goaI is to
obtain a saIe saIary and nothing more.
The principaI accusations oI the park
administrators against obytea oIIiciaIs are
that their prevaIent economic interest in the
area disregards environmentaI vaIues
15
and
that it is impossibIe to buiId an eIIective
communication, because oI ,old customs and
communist-like vays of relating to people
and pursuing self-interest (I., age 32).
Moreover, even iI not directIy reIated to
the conIIict obyte-park by the interviewees
themseIves, a very important point can be
made Irom interviews with Iay members oI
the community that treat corrupt practices
and seIIishness oI certain obytea oIIiciaIs.
Many peopIe Irom the community pIace guiIt
oI Iorest mismanagement on the top actors
oI obytea committee, saying that.
,S. and L. president and vice-president
are thieves, they are oId and do not care
what wiII happen in 10 years they are not
skiIIed and don`t care about the Iorest, onIy
about their economies and proIit (G., age
38, Iorestry worker)
Irom this point oI view, Iack oI care Ior
Iorest and, more generaIIy, Ior nature, and
economicaI interest in Iorest expIoitation,
might constitute an expIanation Ior the
negative view oI oIIiciaIs towards the park.
Contested legitimacy, participation
and symbolism of property
The Iirst cIaim oI the obytea oIIiciaIs is that
they have never been consuIted about the
constitution oI the park and they did not sign
anything giving the right oI estabIishing a
conservation area on their territory. The deniaI
went so Iar, that the obytea was severeIy
prejudiced IinanciaIIy. The area incIuded in
the park is IegaIIy exempted oI taxation, but
the obytea decided to pay the tax (amount oI
12.000 euro), in order to deny the existence
oI the park.
The director oI Kogayon (I., age 32),
who is responsibIe with the reIation to the
invoIved communities, toId me that he went
severaI times to taIk to the obytea oIIiciaIs,
that he even participated in the viIIage
assembIies to convince them that the park is
a good thing and there is no point in opposing
it, but he was not abIe to obtain a positive
response. Thus, he sustains, the obytea was
aware oI what was going on, and that ,the
park did everything possibIe Ior maintaining
the peace and providing necessary inIormation.
Hence, in his opinion, obytea was inIormed,
but maIevoIent towards the park.
93 Nature conservation, conIIict and discourses on Iorest management
Some inIormers Irom the community
provided me with two variants Ior this pro-
bIematic interaction. The Iirst story is that
the Iay members were against the estabIish-
ment oI the park and threatened the oIIiciaIs
that they wiII set their houses on Iire iI they
approve and sign the constitution oI the
protected area. The second story is a
conspiracy one, that somebody Irom inside
the committee wouId have hidden the
monthIy ,oIIiciaI monitor
16
at the obytea
centre, in which there were articIes about
the estabIishment oI the park, and thus, the
president was misinIormed and got angry
when he suddenIy Iound out that the park
was actuaIIy aIready constituted. At the core
oI the whoIe argument is in Iact the idea oI
participation and the symboIism oI property.
They IrequentIy use the expression oI
expropriation Ior the Iact that the park has
been estabIished. The proprietors IeeI that
they have IinaIIy gained their Iorest back
and thus, as proprietors, they cIaim to be
consuIted about any decision concerning
their Iand. In this case, property is Iinked
with the idea oI empowerment. By gaining
back their property rights, the community
beIieves it has power to contest decisions
made by the State
17
. The idea oI power is
important, as it wiII emerge in other
circumstances, described Iater in the paper.
Iurthermore, the committee considers that
the administration oI the park is guiIty Ior
vioIating their rights.
Competing power or hampering
illicit gains
Another argument is that the ruIing committee
contests the right oI the Park to controI and
approve the extraction oI damaged wood
Irom the speciaI conservation area and Ior
extraction oI timber Irom the buIIer zone.
In their words, they ask.
,Why do we need their rangers to approve
what our rangers have aIready approved" Why
do we need them to approve what is aIready
written in the Iorest Management PIan, that
we have paid so expensiveIy" (S., age 70).
This is a very important argument Ior
the Iorestry empIoyees oI the obytea, the
guard and the ranger, who see their power
diminished because they ,suddenIy owe
direct upward accountabiIity. This idea is
directIy Iinked to the one above, about
property and power. Privatisation and
property means Ireedom to administrate the
Iorest and this is seen as something that the
park is taking away at a symboIic IeveI.
ApparentIy, this argument might have a
,materiaIistic interpretation, in the sense
that the obytea and its empIoyees are
restricted in their attempt to extract (unrea-
sonabIy) as much as they want. There is
much taIk in the community about iIIegaI
Iogging (in the Iiterature on Romanian
Iorestry as weII, VasiIe, 2006 DorondeI,
2007 NicuIae, 2005), and thus one might
think that one more controI authority hampers
the obytea oIIiciaIs and their empIoyees to
make iIIicit proIit.
I. says that these approvaIs are mereIy a
IormaIity and obytea shouId not see it as a
hindrance. Moreover, he invokes the Iaws
and state reguIations. He describes onIy one
case in which obytea requested authorisation
and the park did not approve, based on the
Iact that the trees were not IegaIIy marked
Ior harvesting and the quantity was impor-
tant (700 trees). The case was investigated
by the TerritoriaI Inspectorate Ior Iorestry
and Hunting (in Romanian ITRSV) and they
decided that the park was right. Hence, the
park opposes to the obytea narrative oI over-
bureaucratisation and oI authority diminishing.
In response, they IormuIate an ,iIIicit Iogging
narrative, by insinuating that the reaI reason
Ior obytea compIaints is the interIerence in
their iIIicit business, a narrative that converges
with opinions expressed by certain community
Iay members, as presented above.
Struggle over resources
The most prevaIent argument oI the obytea
oIIiciaIs is that the pIacement oI the park
hampers the economic activity oI the obytea,
by severaI mechanisms. (1) the incIusion oI
94 Monica VasiIe
the aIpine pastures in the speciaI
conservation areas, ,taking the food of our
sheep (2) an unjustiIied extension oI the
buIIer zone, which, they think, necessariIy
reduces the approved quantity oI timber to
harvest (3) interdiction to expand the roads
inside the speciaI area and the buIIer zone,
thus hampering harvesting activities and
potentiaI tourism, seen as mass tourism (4)
the inIestation mechanism Ietting IaIIen
trees rotten in the name oI preserving pure
state oI nature and deveIoping ecosystems
means a threat to heaIthy standing trees.
The Iirst argument against the Park is a
very strong ,weapon in the hands oI obytea
oIIiciaIs, because to this argument are
sensibIe most oI the Iay peopIe, sheep
owners or Iormer shepherds. However, the
park representatives sustain that this is not
true, that actuaIIy the shepherds and their
IIocks (except Ior the goats, which are very
destructive) do have access in the park.
Moreover, he says that pasturing enhances
biodiversity, thus, Irom a scientiIic point oI
view it wouId be wrong to prohibit this activity.
Thus, the idea oI grazing prohibition is onIy
a weapon, used by obytea oIIiciaIs to
manipuIate Iay-peopIe.
The second argument IIows Iike this.
,We understand what conservation
means and we agree to preserve the nature,
but creating such a Iarge buIIer zone is a
prooI oI maIevoIence towards the communities
that want to harvest something Ior their
Iiving. (L., age 75)
They add the Iact that the surIaces that
were state property were not incIuded in the
buIIer area, whiIe those in private property
were incIuded and they perceive that as an
oIIence towards private owners
18
.
I. (age 32) responds to this with a scientiIic
argument and says that the percentage and
surIace is determined on scientiIic criteria,
depending on the species to be protected and,
moreover, there exist even preserved areas
with 90 buIIer zone.
The third argument, about the roads and
interdiction oI mass tourism, is the onIy one
that might hamper the economic beneIits oI
obytea on the Iong run. However, on the
short run, even though the obytea compIains
about the theoreticaI Iimitations oI deve-
Ioping tourism, practicaIIy their pIans Ior
tourism activity are non-existent and their
management strategy
19
is based aImost
excIusiveIy on timber extraction.
I. answers by saying that the park
administration does not intend to Iimit
tourism activities, quite on the contrary, to
deveIop certain kind oI activities in
coIIaboration with IocaI communities to
attract tourists and to protect nature in the
same time, to deveIop ecotourism in the
sense oI sustainabIe deveIopment.
,I wouId not agree to buiId a huge hoteI
with a huge parking here. There are other
kinds oI tourism as weII I wouId rather
encourage deveIoping more sophisticated
tourist attractions, Iike a circuit oI ecoIogicaI
pastoraIism, Ior peopIe to see how cheese is
made. (I., age 32)
Ecological versus economical image
of the forest
The Iourth idea, about the damages that IaIIen
trees might cause, expresses empiricaIIy
very weII two ,competingperspectives in
Iorestry. the ,economic discourse against
the ,ecoIogicaI one (the core dichotomy in
aImost every study and discourse on envi-
ronmentaI issues, e.g. Brosius, 1999a
Boonzaier, 1996). The economic perspective
is based on the idea that the Iorest shouId be
cIean, everything that is IaIIen down,
branches, trees, shouId be cIeaned up,
because otherwise it appears the danger oI
deveIoping unwanted insects that wiII inIect
the heaIthy trees. This perspective is aIso
Ior the best oI the users, as they make a use
oI the damaged wood. This kind oI narrative
is expressed aImost by aII members oI the
community that I have spoken with.
Nonetheless, it is not to say that their viev is
in black and vhite and I do not vant to force
the interpretation into a black and vhite
picture. I do not want to suggest that viIIagers
prize onIy economic advantages in the Iight
95 Nature conservation, conIIict and discourses on Iorest management
oI their immediate interests and thereIore
they negIect more ,ecoIogicaI vaIues, such
as beauty oI nature or biodiversity.
Very oIten, Iorest-dweIIers or ,indige-
nous peopIe are seen to be the causing
agents oI ecoIogicaI probIems, as environ-
mentaIIy benign (Iairhead, Leach 1994)
both by environmentaIist theories (Scoones,
1999. 489) and Ioresters or Iorestry
speciaIists (Lawrence and Szabo, 2005. 6).
Private owners are seen by Iorestry peopIe
to conceive the Iorest mereIy as an economicaI
vaIue. ,they see it as an immediate source
oI money and ,they don`t see the Iorest,
they see the wood (ibidem). Irom what I
have seen, I reject the IaIse dichotomy
between greedy, rationaI-oriented viIIagers
and ecoIogists. I wouId rather say that the
perspective oI the viIIagers is nuanced
20
.
They reject the ecoIogists, but sometimes
they come with the argument that they know
more about nature and know better the species
and the mountain than the ecoIogists them-
seIves.
21
They do have ambivaIent opinions,
Iike.
,Protecting nature and a beautiIuI
Iandscape is a good thing, but I do not agree
with Ietting wood rotten on the ground. it
does not heIp anyone. (G.P., age 42)
Irom what I observed, their attitude is
oI respect towards the Iorest, saying that
,I beIieve it is O.K. to conserve IIowers and
animaIs and not to Iet anyone come into the
Iorest as in a bar. (G.P., age 42)
However, wiIderness and ,cIimax,
equiIibrium state oI the Iorest, are not in
their dictionary about a ,good Iorest.
Ior them, ,pure nature is not a state oI
equiIibrium in itseII and nature is not aIways
,Iair. Besides trees, ozone and pastures,
nature means dangerous animaIs, unwanted
damaging insects. These parts oI nature shouId
be ,corrected by humans. In the Iight oI
these beIieIs, Ioresters and those who
intervene in nature to ,cIean it are seen as
guardians oI the ,good nature, as agents
against inIestation.
BeIieving that ecoIogy and protection
means totaI ,conservation, non-intervention
oI humans in nature, even is the nature is
,eviI, they appreciate the pure ecoIogicaI
perspective as against their interests and,
moreover, as against their beIieIs about
nature and humans-nature interaction.
Interpretation of narratives
in the light of conflict perspectives
In the above sections oI the paper, I have
depIoyed a range oI diIIerent narratives oI
this conIIict. At a Iirst gIance, it is possibIe
to understand the conflict as a struggle for
resources. Every part is suspected by the
counterpart to derive some economicaI beneIit
out oI the Iorest in cause, be it the direct or
iIIicit gain Irom Iorest overexpIoitation and
grazing on the part oI the community, be it
a secure job, returns Irom Iunding or iIIicit
advantages on the part oI the state and the
NGO. As Iong as we take into consideration
the ,inIormation about the case in which
the park stopped the iIIegaI IeIIing oI an
important quantity oI wood Irom the buIIer-
-zone and we beIieve other inIormation Irom
IocaI gossip about iIIicit business oI obytea
oIIiciaIs, we might accept that the conIIict is
partIy based on the economic interest oI a
Iew community actors. This type oI interest
is not the interest Ior community deveIopment
out oI resource revenues, but the seIIish
interest oI the eIites that pursue their
personaI gains through corrupt practices.
Despite Ior one or two obytea oIIiciaIs,
Ior the other members oI the community this
conIIict appears as having at its core the
idea of identity. The community identiIies
itseII as ,proprietors, masters oI the Iorest
and the pastures. This type oI identity is
very saIient at present because it was recentIy
achieved. The possession oI the Iorest has
shiIted Irom the hands oI the state to those
oI the ,peopIe and, suddenIy, the Iorest
,goes back to the state, thus excIuding
again the community Irom major decisions
concerning the protected areas. Moreover,
the community does not identiIy itseII with
the ecoIogicaI discourse on the Iorest. Their
96 Monica VasiIe
image oI nature is not an essentiaIist one
(Escobar, 1999 Brosius, 1999b) or a roman-
ticized one, rather a practicaI and hetero-
geneous one.
On the other side, I. and the Kagayon
association identiIy with the ecoIogists.
Their environmentaIist discourse is onIy
brieIIy touched by moraI imperatives and
currentIy more based upon ,Iaw and science
narratives, as I suggested above in the
description.
The Iiterature on environmentaI anthro-
poIogy suggests that interests and repre-
sentations may be subject to reIormuIation
and that environmentaI discourse evoIve and
thus researchers shouId address discourses
in their context, in their temporaIity and
dynamic (Brosius, 1999b). IoIIowing the
temporaIity oI I.`s discourse, I can draw
two distinct phases. the Iirst one (about
three years ago), when the park was in the
process oI estabIishment
22
, he depIoyed a
moraI discourse ,look vhat is done in the
park, the community and the uneducated
tourists destroy protected species" the second
phase, when the park is aIready estabIished,
the interaction with the communities is
institutionaIized and the Kogayon association
is deveIoping, is characterized by a discourse
that shiIted Irom moraI imperatives to the
,Iaw and science arguments. In other words,
oI identiIication, we might say that I. identiIies
himseII more with the environmentaI
institution, with the administrator that he
represents.
The RNP representatives (M., age 40)
identiIy themseIves with the Iorestry
institution, with those who protect the Iorest
by itseII as mere technicaI operation, and
do not dispIay a conservation discourse
based upon moraIity or universaI ecoIogist
vaIues. Moreover, they identiIy with the
state and thus, they IeeI Iegitimate about
managing the protected area as they
consider best.
However, I beIieve that the best way to
understand the conIIict Iies in anaIysing
pover relations and means to gain symbolic
pover through discursive practices. Iirst,
we have to think about the direct accusations
that the parts depIoy. The ,park beIieves
that certain actors in the community had the
reIationaI power (meaning that they are
cIients oI certain poIiticaI persons) to obtain
IegaI approvaI Ior Iogging in areas that were
scientiIicaIIy important. On the other hand,
the community oIIiciaIs beIieve that behind
the idea oI the park Iies the interest oI the
state in controIIing (in other words, to hoId
power over) naturaI areas.
The underIying concepts in each oI the
narratives reIer to power. The obytea oIIiciaIs
depIoy the rhetoric oI the ,master and, as I
have shown above, underneath the idea oI
property Iays the idea oI empowerment.
Moreover, these oIIiciaIs and the obytea
rangers are unsatisIied about the transIer oI
authority that occurred with the estabIishment
oI the park, in the Iorm oI the vouchers Ior
Iogging in the buIIer zone.
On the other side, I.`s narrative is based
upon the idea oI power given by Iaw and
scientiIic arguments, in other words he uses
a rhetoric based upon the institutionaI type
oI power.
IinaIIy, the discourse oI RNP oIIiciaIs
(M.) seems to be based on the idea oI con-
tinuity, tradition and Iegitimacy oI the state
administration and protection oI the Iorest.
Ior them, the Iorest is not a scientiIicaIIy
vaIuabIe area Ior rare species, but an asset
oI gIobaI interest. Thus, the state shouId
take the responsibiIity to govern the Iorests,
in a technicaI manner and Ior preventing
iIIegaI Iogging, and the communities shouId
not have a roIe in the decision-making
process.
Conclusions. Recommendations
The conIIict presented is very common aII
around the worId where protected areas have
been estabIished. The ,stake and the
arguments are common as weII. I wouId say
that the conIIict between proprietors and
parks, based upon the ,economist arguments
depIoyed by ,the community that is
97 Nature conservation, conIIict and discourses on Iorest management
dependent oI the resource is a cIassicaI
theme in environmentaI and deveIopment
studies. However, the schoIarIy studies to
depIoy this kind oI conIIicts Irom Eastern
Europe are quite rare
23
.
What is particuIarIy reIevant to this case
and, I beIieve, what distinguishes the post-
sociaIist context Irom others, is the strong
concentration oI decisions concerning
protected areas in the hands oI the state,
meaning Iack oI autonomy Ior the commu-
nities (as Ior exampIe in the AIrican
context, where the state is very IooseIy
deIined and communities devise their own
ruIes) and the non-existence (yet) oI
internationaI environmentaI agencies in the
arena oI negotiations.
I suggest in this paper that, Ior Romania,
the top-down approach is strongIy contested
by communities, which begin to estabIish as
reIativeIy organised entities with smaII steps,
participation begins to Iunction. However,
one thing that might hamper eIIective parti-
cipation is the capture at the IocaI IeveI oI
the participatory process by IocaI corrupt
eIites, who pursue their own interests, despite
the one oI the other members oI the
community.
In the presented case, the top-down
approach oI the park administrators is based
on the ideas oI Iaw and science and on the
idea oI traditionaI, ,good state Iorestry
practice. The cIaims oI the community are
made in the name oI a competing, oIder
tradition oI autonomous organisation oI
resources, the obyte. Behind this idea oI
,community organisation, it was shown
that diIIerent categories maniIest diIIerent
attitudes. OIIiciaIs are oriented towards
contesting the park and towards emphasising
timber expIoitation, whiIe Iay members are
more ,peaceIuI and their discontent regards
pasturing, not Iogging.
What could be done
UsuaIIy, recommendations go in the direction
oI incIuding more the community in the parti-
cipatory management oI the protected areas,
and even to reach the stage oI ,commu-
nity-based conservation. However, my
anaIysis shows that the community is not a
uniIorm body, thus incIusion oI the commu-
nity might mean Iistening to the opinion oI
the Iew spokespersons, potentiaIIy ,corrupt
oIIiciaIs that express their own seIIish interest.
AdditionaIIy, Irom what I have observed,
the capacity
24
oI the community
25
is currentIy
at a Iow IeveI, thus I doubt its eIIective
potentiaI Ior participating in the deci-
sion-making process, this being aIso depicted
in Iiterature as one oI the ,biggest stumbIing
bIocks towards the success oI nationaI
parks (Reid 2001. 151). Thus, capacity
building is one oI the potentiaI soIutions.
But I do not beIieve that onIy the appropriate
agency oI actors is necessary. ProbabIy a
,puriIication oI the institutionaI miIieu is
equaIIy necessary to put an end to the
reciprocaI ,corruption accusations
26
.
On the short run, I propose a mediation
of conflict and a better flov of information
Ior the community. The mediation and the
inIormation shouId necessariIy be done by a
third part (NGOs or schoIars in the speciIic
IieId), because otherwise the community wiII
not trust the source
27
. The communication
and the inIormation shouId be prepared by a
proIessionaI in communication and adver-
tising, so that the members oI the community
access the inIormation and get the message,
regardIess their education IeveI. Moreover,
I recommend that the inIormation shouId be
aimed at touching the symbolic and the
affective side oI the Iorest dweIIing process.
Thus, the inIormation dispIayed shouId contain
certain cuIturaI and historicaI eIements
28
,
stories about the past, Iegends Irom the area
29
.
98 Monica VasiIe
Notes
1. Regia Na(ionaI a PduriIor, engI. the Romanian Forest Administration.
2. A compIaint that one oIten hears when interviewing and discussing with representatives oI
diIIerent centraI oIIices.
3. AIthough Ior other areas it is not new, Ior Romania it is onIy now beginning to take shape.
4. IieIdwork in the community Iasted Ior one week in August 2007 and was IoIIowed by
interviews with persons Irom the park administration interviews were pursued by Liviu
Mantescu together with the author oI this paper. In March 2008, I pursued another IieIdwork,
together with a team oI students, on the other side oI the NationaI Park, to gain a broader view
oI the comparative empiricaI eIements regarding conIIict incentives between communities and
the NationaI Park. Both empiricaI researches were undertaken IinanciaIIy independent, Ior the
pure academic beneIit oI the researchers themseIves.
5. Lay members were not aIways aware oI their property rights, nor were they knowIedgeabIe
about the NationaI Park reguIations and restrictions. However, I succeeded to obtain a number
oI 10 interviews with Iay members oI the community.
6. A number oI 3 interviews with key-actors, members oI the obytea committee (president,
vice-president and the Iargest sharehoIder, counceIor) and 2 with empIoyees oI obytea.
7. A number oI 2 interviews.
8. A number oI 2 interviews.
9. The research resuIts were presented to the Park administrators in a conIerence that took pIace in
Bistrita, in March 2008, Participating in Nature. Communities and Protected Areas in CentraI
and Eastern Europe, organizers. University oI OxIord and Romanian Iorest Administration.
10. In the Southern Carpathians, the Capa(nii Mountains, in the VIcea county.
11. The originaI sense oI the word is togetherness and underIines the participatory essence oI the
institution. AIthough they are named associations in the Iaws and in IormaI documents, these
types oI property can hardIy be described as associations oI proprietors, because the shares
that one has are not deIineated pIots oI Iorest that were put together, but a quantity oI products
that can be withdrawn Irom the Iorest and a number oI votes in the generaI assembIy.
12. The age characteristic does make a signiIicant diIIerence, because oI the recent changes
undergone by Romanian society oId members might encourage ,oId Iashioned ways oI
managing and deriving proIit Irom a Iorest, as weII as pastoraIist use oI the mountain and aIso
they might behave according to the patron-cIient type oI networks deveIoped during communism.
13. I wiII use Iurther in this articIe the term discourse interchangeabIy with narrative.
14. Based on a puzzIe oI inIormation Irom the interviews, my own scenario is that, in the Iirst
pIace, Iew members oI the community opposed the idea oI the park because they were aIraid
that they wouId not be aIIowed to bring their sheep to the aIpine pastures and expressed these
opinions in pubIic meetings in a threatening and convincing way starting Irom that point, the
committee oI the obytea deveIoped its own argumentation against the park and begun to Iind
more and more incentives Ior conIIict.
15. They cIear-IeIIed 150 hectares oI seminiIerous beech with genetic importance.
16. GovernmentaI monthIy issue on governmentaI decisions, ruIes and Iaws.
17. It is interesting how they made the switch very quickIy Irom the dominant attitude during
communism, where the State is sovereign and they usuaIIy couId not contest State decisions,
at Ieast not in court, but onIy on inIormaI channeIs.
18. This idea sustains their cIaim that behind the Park are important poIiticaI interest coming Irom
State actors.
19. AIthough it couId hardIy be considered Irom what they presented during the interview that
they have a management strategy at aII.
20. However, the ,viIIagers are diIIerent peopIe with diIIerent positions regarding the Iorest
Ior some actors, even Ior those being in oIIiciaI positions, the aIIegation about their immediate
economic interest might be true, as mentioned aIso by certain interviewees, mentioned above.
99 Nature conservation, conIIict and discourses on Iorest management
21. Here, we come across another dichotomy that has been debated Ior a Iong time in the
Iiterature, between IocaI knowIedge and expert knowIedge (Hobarth, 1997).
22. I can understand this phase oI the discourse based on articIes by I. on the www.aIpinet.org
website, more preciseIy http.llaIpinet.orglmainlcoIshow_ro_t_mediuinIormatii-dis-
pute-protectie_idcoI_3673_what_stiri_id_2565.htmI and Irom a severaI pubIic emaiI
discussions Irom http.llngo.rolpipermaiIlnatura2000_ngo.rol2005-Mayl000179.htmI,
websites dating back to 2005 and consuIted by me in Iebruary 2008.
23. Irom my knowIedge, studies are concentrated upon AIrica, South America and East Asia,
usuaIIy in areas that are inhabited by peopIe bearing the etiquette oI ,indigenous peopIe.
24. I mean by that skiIIs, knowIedge and inIormation in economic and manageriaI matters.
25. The current oIIiciaIs as weII as most oI the other members.
26. Something very easy to preach and very diIIicuIt to accompIish.
27. The current situation is that every Park has a department in charge with the reIations to the
neighboring communities.
28. Issue mentioned aIso in the study oI Iairhead and Leach (1994. 483). They argue in the
beginning oI the articIe that ,overlooking such histories can undermine constructive dialogue
betveen local people and conservation agencies.
29. Irom my research experience in Vrancea, conscience about the past and reIerence to the
Iegend oI Stephen the Great were the eIements that kept peopIe invoIved, interested and caring
about the Iorest (VasiIe 2007).
Bibliography
Boonzaier, E. (1996). LocaI responses to conservation in the RichtersveId NationaI Park, South
AIrica. Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 307-314.
Brosius, J.P. (1999a). AnaIyses and Interventions. AnthropoIogicaI Engagements with Environ-
mentaIism. Current Anthropology, voI. 40, 3, 277-309.
Brosius, J.P. (1999b). Green Dots, Pink Hearts. DispIacing PoIitics Irom the MaIaysian Rain
Iorest. American Anthropologist, New Series, voI. 101, 1, 36-57.
DorondeI, S. (2007). Agrarian TransIormation, sociaI diIIerentiation and Land Use Change in
PostsociaIist Romania. DoctoraI Dissertation at HumboIdt-Universitat zu BerIin.
Escobar, A. (1999). AIter Nature. Steps to an AntiessentiaIist PoIiticaI EcoIogy and Comments
and RepIies. Current Anthropology, voI. 40, 1, 1-30.
Iairhead, J., Leach, M. (1994). Contested Iorests. Modern Conservation and HistoricaI Land
Use in Guinea`s Ziama Reserve. African Affairs, voI. 93, 373, 481-512.
Hobart, M. (1997). An Anthropological critique of development . the grovth of ignorance.
London u.a. . RoutIedge.
Lawrence, A. (2006). ,No PersonaI Motive" VoIunteers, Biodiversity, and the IaIse Dichotomies
oI Participation. Ethics, Place and Environment. voI. 9, 3, 279-298.
Lawrence, A., Szabo A. (2005). Iorest Restitution in Romania. ChaIIenging the vaIue Systems
oI Ioresters and Iarmers, Paper presented at the conIerence on European Iorests in EthicaI
Discourse, BerIin 18-19 January.
Mantescu, L. (2006). Ob,tea vrncean actuaI. DeIini(ia unei structuri. (The current obytea Irom
Vrancea. DeIinition oI a structure). Sociologie Romneasc, voI 4, 3, 130-144.
NicoIae, S. (2005). Pdurea ,i economia inIormaI ntr-o comun din Apuseni. n (eds.) Liviu CheIcea
,i Oana Mateescu, Economia informal n Romnia. Bucure,ti. Editura Paideia, 113-141.
Nuijten, M. (2005). Power in Practice. A Iorce IieId Approach to NaturaI Resource Management.
The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, voI. 4, 2, 1-13.
Reid, H. (2001). ContractuaI NationaI Parks and the MakuIeke Community. Human Ecology, 29,
2, 135-155.
SchIee, G. (2004). Taking Sides and Constructing Identities. ReIIections on ConIIict Theory.
Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, 135-156, BIackweII.
100 Monica VasiIe
Scoones, I. (1999). New EcoIogy and the SociaI Sciences. What Prospects Ior a IruitIuI
Engagement". Annual Reviev of Anthropology, voI. 28, 479-507.
Sikor, T. (2004). The commons in Transition. Agrarian and EnvironmentaI Change in CentraI
and Eastern Europe. Environmental Management, NY. Springer, 32, 2.
VasiIe, M. (2006). Property reIations and sociaIIy embedded institutions. Reopening the study oI
ob,tea in Vrancea. Romanian Journal of Sociology, voI. 17, 1-2, 98-122.
VasiIe, M. (2007). The sense oI property, deprivation and memory in the case oI Ob,tea
Vrnceana. Sociologie Romaneasc, voI 5, 2, 114-129.
West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and PeopIes. The SociaI Impact oI Protected
Areas. Annual Reviev of Anthropology, voI. 35, 14.114.27.
Primit Ia redac(ie. iunie 2008