Poland

Prepared by T. Marghescu

Forest cover

Forests cover 8.6 million ha, almost 28% of Poland, and are dominated by coniferous stands of mainly Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris). The contribution of forestry to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is rather low (0.4%), but this does not include the value of the environmental and socio-economic contributions of forests. In 1993, the per capita forest area in Poland was 0.226 ha. The average standing timber volume is 172 cbm/ha.

Presently, only about 61% of the forest increment is harvested. The health condition of forests in southwest Poland is poor, due to industrial pollution. However, the situation has improved for the first time in a decade due, in part, to the shut down of polluting industries in Poland and Germany.

In the past, unsuitable spruce provenances were planted in the mountain areas resulting in low resistance of stands to environmental stress. Forests in northeast Poland are in better health. These forest stands show Close to Nature Composition (CNC). In 1993, protected forests constituted 47% of the total state forest area. There were 20 national parks, 100 natural reserves, 100 landscape parks and 263 protected landscape areas forming an impressive network of protected forest areas.

Forest resources and management

In 1995, a programme for nature protection was formulated. Forestry is under the auspices of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources and Forestry, proof of Poland's attempt to fulfill its commitments arising from the international process following UNCED. Seven forest-promotional complexes were established in 1994 and 1995. These complexes serve professional foresters as experimental, demonstration, research and promotional centers.

A new forest policy, which takes into consideration interaction with other sectors and their policies, was under preparation and submitted for approval by Parliament in the second half of 1996.

Ownership structure

Central and eastern Europe, including Poland, has recently undergone dramatic political, social and economic transformation. In comparison to other countries in the region, changes in forest ownership patterns were not as drastic in Poland. Large and medium-sized, private forest estates (mostly 25 ha) were nationalized after World War II. Small, private forest property, however, survived (16% of total forest area).

Forest ownership pattern before 1985

Owner	Forest area (ha)	% of total forest
State Forest	7 117 976	82
Cooperative Farms	28 269	0.3
Community	44 252	0.5
Private	1 389 519	16
Private Groups	73 827	0.9
Private Business	-	-
Others
Total	8 653 843	100.0

Today, there are approximately 1.4 million forest owners, owning a total of 1.4 million ha of forest (16% of the total forest area), an average private forest holding of only 1 ha/owner.

Forest ownership pattern in 1995

Owner	Forest area (ha)	% of total forest
State Forest	7 163 987	82
Cooperative Farms	17 060	0.2
Community	75 644	0.9
Private	1 394 263	16
Private Groups	68 228	0.8
Others	12 980	0.1
Total	8 653 843	100

Private forest holdings are concentrated in southern Poland, a distribution of close to 50:50% share between private and state forest ownership. There is hardly any private forest ownership in western Poland, where all forests were nationalized after the war. There are substantial quality and quantity differences between state and private forests. In respect of state forests growing stock is 200 cbm/ha with an average age of 55 years and an annual increment of 3.6 cbm/ha/year. Private forests have a growing stock of 107 cbm/ha with an average age of 37 years and an annual increment of 2.7 cbm/ha/year.

One reason for low quality private forests is that farmers used to reforest farmland with low quality soils in order to save taxes.

The law states that forest areas must be reforested not later than two years after logging. However, presently, 6% of private forests have not been reforested. With the restitution of nationalized property to former owners it is expected that not much more than 20% of forests will become private property.

Planned forest ownership pattern

According to the policy statement for planned forest ownership the state will own 7 470 000 ha (76%); the community 120 000 ha (1%); private 2 104 000 ha (21%); private groups 70 000 ha (0.7%); private business 100 000 ha (1.0%); others 16 000 ha (0.2%) for a total of 9 880 000 ha by the year 2015.

However, this figure might change through privatization, not restitution, of former cooperative farms. Substantial areas of former cooperative farmland has not been cultivated for years. Natural succession will turn these lands slowly into low quality forest.

The National Forestation Programme, was adopted by the government in 1995. It was implemented in 1996 with the objective of increasing the present forest cover of 28% to 30% by the year 2020, in other words to afforest 700 000 ha of mainly marginal agricultural land, 60% of which is to be carried out on private land.

Institutional arrangements

The Act Concerning Forests, which came into effect on 1 January 1992, contains provisions both for state owned and private forests. Previously, there were separate laws and regulations for private and state owned forests.

State owned forests

Under the 1992 Act, state owned forest is the property of the State Treasury. Management of state owned forest is performed by the State Forest Enterprise which is organized into three administrative levels:

· General Directorate of Forests headed by the Director General and 120 staff members;

· 17 Regional Directorates of State Forests with 12-30 forest districts each; and

· 437 forest districts of 18 000-20 000 ha each.

The State Forest Enterprise is supervised by the Minister of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. The Minister is supported by the professional assistance of the Forest Department.

Private forests

Previously, private forest owners owned their forests while the state managed them. Private forest owners recently received the right to manage their own forest. The management of private forests is supervised by the 'Voivod', a political, administrative unit, or province, with governors appointed by the head of state. No forestry specialists work for the 'Voivod' governors. Therefore, the 1992 Act provides that governors may entrust the regional directorates of state forests, or the directors of forestry districts, to carry out elements of the supervision of private forests on their behalf.

The State Forest Enterprise is paid for its services by the 'Voivods' (state administration). However, in 1995, the amount received by the State Forest Enterprise to carry out the supervision of forest management on 1.3 million ha private forests covered only 70% of the actual cost.

The supervision of private forests is based on the forest management master plan, prepared at the request of the 'Voivod' governors, and at the expense of the state budget, by the State Forest Management Bureau (eight regional branches) or commissioned, independent forestry professionals. Presently, only 40% of non-state forests are provided with a management plan. An anticipated revision of the 1992 Act foresees only the preparation of forest management master plans for forest complexes larger than 10 ha.

The data contained in the forest management master plan also forms the basis for forest property taxation. Under the 1992 Act, tree stands up to the age of 40 years are exempt from forest tax. The average age of non-state forest is only 37 years as compared to the average age of state owned forests having 55 years.

Where the private forest is disbursed and there is no geographical connection to state forest property, supervision is carried out by about 500 specialists, who each look after an average of 1 800 ha of private forest. In cases where private forest property is part of a larger, mostly state owned forest tract, 2 700 district forestry officers supervise the management of an average of 210 ha of private forest concurrent with their task of managing the state owned forest itself.

Staff carry out specialized work (supervision of private forest owners) without having had specialized training, and without having been specially selected. This is also true for district officers, who supervise private forests as a side-line duty. There is only one forestry professional who deals with both the Forestry Department of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources and the General Directorate of Forest (State Forest Enterprise). Again, only one forestry professional is in charge of private forest supervision at each of the 17 Regional Directorates of State Forests and at each District Forest Office, one person coordinates private forest supervision activities of District Forest Office staff.

Several attempts have been made to stimulate the formation of forest owner associations, which is regarded as essential to efficiently supervise the management of the fragmented, small, private forest enterprises. So far, there is not a single private forest owners' association in Poland.

Private forest owners carry out management activities in their forests themselves and usually do not contract professional companies. In the majority of cases, private forest owners do not have specialized training to carry out forest management activities. There are no statistics available for accidents suffered by private forest owners, working in their forests.

State support to the private forest sector

The State Forest Enterprise does not make any distinction between state forest and private forest in relation to its forest fire and pest management activities, and thus provides services free of charge to private forest owners in the prevention, monitoring and combating of forest fires and pests.

Forest management plans are prepared for private forests with the approval, or based on, the initiative of 'Voivod' governors and with state budget funding. Tax exemptions are made for forests not older than 40 years. Occasional, non-obligatory or systematic marketing assistance is provided by State Forest District Offices in the sale of harvested timber. Seedlings are given free of charge for forestation, but not as yet for reforestation.

Forestry extension goals and examples

Education of forestry professionals on forestry extension

Formal forestry education in Poland is conducted at:

· the forestry faculties of the Warsaw Agricultural University and the Agricultural Universities of Poznan and Krakow;

· 17 secondary forest schools;

· 49 training and instructive establishments; and

· the Center of Forest Culture and Museum of Forestry in Goluchow.

Several elements of the curricula at these education and training institutions cover various aspects of forestry extension (e.g., economics and forest management), but there is no specific subject taught on forestry extension. The leadership of the forestry faculties, forestry research institutes and the directors of the Regional Directorates of State Forests recently identified the need for increased training of students in forestry extension. However, some officials do not assign much importance to specific training in forestry extension. Traditional knowledge and skills in forest management were thought to be sufficient to carry out the supervision of private forests.

Training of private forest owners

There is no systematic programme or scheme to train private forest owners in Poland. The 'Voivod' governors are responsible for this training. The State Forest Enterprise would be in the position to conduct training. However, there is no 'Voivod' governors with corresponding financial remuneration. Information brochures and management guidelines are not available for private forest owners.

Forestry research and private forest sector

Currently, there is no research programme on private forestry or forestry extension in the activity profile of the Forestry Research Institute in Warsaw. This is because the State Forest Enterprise only funds research connected to state forests. There is no funding available for forestry research on private forest and forestry extension. The personnel of the Forestry Research Institute in Warsaw was only vaguely aware that the University of Agriculture in Warsaw was conducting research on the economics of mixed (agriculture and forestry) private farm enterprises.

Research needs have been identified connected with forestry extension focused on the economics of private forests and forestation. Experimentation, with and demonstration of, agroforestry models and the search for economically interesting non-wood forest products to add value and immediate income possibilities to private forest (and forestation area) owners were mentioned in this context.

Summary

Poland has a long-standing tradition in forestry. The state forest sector is well-managed by professionals with high standards. An extraordinary high proportion of state forests in Poland are nature protected and the state forest sector is responding to the international agreements and recommendations on the sustainable management of forest resources in an exemplary way.

The private forest sector, however, seems to be the 'orphan' of forestry in Poland. The existing framework for forestry extension is not functioning. The Forest Act of 1992 and the forestry profession uses the term 'supervision' of private forests. This term often reflects one-way communication and a top-down understanding of forestry extension, which may not contain the spirit of dialogue, participation, serving and assisting.

One of the main reasons private forest owners show no interest in collaborating could be connected to the distrust they have towards their supervisors. The history of past, forced collaboration between owners is too recent, and private forest owners, therefore, are not ready to form associations. Associations of forest owners are needed to overcome the structural disadvantages of private forests in terms of management and marketing possibilities and to intensify forestry extension activities with more effective outcome in a cost-effective manner.

The design of an attractive financial scheme supporting and encouraging owners to form forest owners' associations may be needed. Expenses of the government for this purpose will result in savings in the actual extension work.

The system of 'Voivod' governors being in charge of forestry extension, and the commissioning of the actual task to the State Forest Enterprise, is complicated. In addition, the remuneration of the State Forest Enterprise for carrying out the task is insufficient. Under these circumstances, the State Forest Enterprise is not motivated, or obliged, to 'do a good job'. Responsibility and financial means for the execution of forestry extension should possibly be more appropriately united.

The 'Voivod' governors could still hold a strong position in controlling the use of finances, through their participation in the design and formulation of annual forestry extension work plans for 'Voivods', and the monitoring of their implementation. The principle function of 'Voivod' governors should be the political mobilization of the state budget for the support of forestry extension.

Under the present circumstances, it appears that the State Forest Enterprise would be interested in dropping forestry extension from its activities. Then forestry extension could be merged with the existing system of agricultural extension, or the job of forestry extension given to independent, private forestry extension agents.

Regardless of whether the existing institutional framework of forestry extension is improved and strengthened, or whether other solutions are favoured and developed, the insufficient training of forestry extension personnel should be tackled. The problem has to be approached by differentiating between the training of present professional generations and the education of future generations of professionals through developing the curricula of training institutions.

Forestry research is in need of funding to carry out urgently required research. Poland is applying for European Union (EU) membership. The EU already overproduces in certain areas of agricultural and there will be no need for the continuing agricultural management of low productive farmland, which in many cases is already lying fallow. Forestation of low production farmland is certainly a solution. However, private owners of such low production farmland need regular incomes, year by year, from their land and not only in the long term. Agroforestry systems could fulfill the objectives of forestation in the medium- and long-term and regular, annual income generation in the first few years after forestation. Immediate establishment and monitoring of on-farm research trials is required to develop extendible results as soon as possible.

Silvicultural research and demonstration of forest management systems, suited to the individual needs of private forest owners, is required. Regular, annual income possibilities from small forest property can be developed through the transformation of even-aged stands into multi-layered, Close to Nature stands combined with selective felling methods. Income from forests could also be increased through the development of non-wood forest product research. Most of all, forestry research will have to carry out research on the economics of private forestry, including the establishment and management of a permanent monitoring system of the economic situation of private forests. Research could contribute toward the first step in the improvement of management skills of private forest owners through assessing their training needs.

On the basis of assessed training needs, a training programme for private forest owners should be developed, including required information, teaching and training materials.

A public relations programme could be used to promote the value of private forests, and the important role of private forest owners. Increased self-esteem of private forest owners might raise the level of interest shown in their forest property. Public relations would, at the same time, raise the expectations of society towards private forest ownership, which would then mobilize the necessary political and financial support. Increased self-esteem, and interest of private forest owners, expectations of society, and political and financial support will increase the motivation of private forest owners to participate in training programmes, collaborate with an extension service and to practice sustainable forest management.

It is felt that the present situation of forestry merits a review and the development of a complex, modern forestry extension system. The Forestry Department of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry is potentially interested in regional cooperation with its neighbours, to exchange experiences and ideas on forestry extension development and to receive training of trainers on forestry extension.

FOREST OWNERSHIP PATTERNS BEFORE 1985 (POLAND)

FOREST OWNERSHIP PATTERNS 1995 (POLAND)

PLANNED FOREST OWNERSHIP PATTERNS (POLAND)

NUMBER OF OWNERS PER FOREST SIZE CLASS (POLAND)