IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v117y2020ics1389934118305136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why can a forest not be private? A post-socialist perspective on Polish forestry paradigms – an anthropological contribution

Author

Listed:
  • Konczal, Agata A.

Abstract

During the last few years (2016–2019) forestry in Poland has received special attention from domestic and international audiences. In particular, the conflict relating to the Bialowieza Forest in Eastern Poland has been widely covered by the media. Yet there reminds a lack of understanding relating to Polish forestry paradigms. There are only a few publications on the topic. Moreover, little empirical work on the current major conflicts in the Polish forest sector has been done. This paper uses an anthropological approach to analyse the main paradigm of forestry in Poland. It draws upon long-term research on Polish forestry and forest policy conducted 2012–2017. The aim of this paper is to analyse the developments in the paradigm of Polish forestry between 1989 and 2017 by applying a post-socialist perspective. The paper explores the main paradigm of contemporary forestry in Poland, particularly its element – the conviction that forests should be state owned – and interprets this conviction in the frame of the Transformation of 1989 and the consequent social circumstances. The social and cultural context of the Transformation is analysed as a historical period that triggered shifts in the values, targets and motivations of Polish foresters. By employing a post-socialist perspective to current developments related to forests, this research traces the (long-term) social consequences of this shift in the forestry paradigm in Poland. Conceptually, the research builds upon an environmental anthropology approach. It uses a combination of ethnographic methods (participant observation and 120 in-depth qualitative interviews) and a literature review of media sources, grey literature and legal documents. The analysis explores two levels of forestry: the institutional level of policies and politics, and the practical level of foresters in forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Konczal, Agata A., 2020. "Why can a forest not be private? A post-socialist perspective on Polish forestry paradigms – an anthropological contribution," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:117:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118305136
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118305136
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102206?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Logmani, Jacqueline & Krott, Max & Lecyk, Michal Tymoteusz & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 81-90.
    2. Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, 2015. "The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10581.
    3. Tassilo Herrschel & Timothy Forsyth, 2001. "Constructing a New Understanding of the Environment under Postsocialism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(4), pages 573-587, April.
    4. Buijs, Arjen & Lawrence, Anna, 2013. "Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 104-111.
    5. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Młynarski, Wojciech & Prędki, Artur & Kaliszewski, Adam, 2021. "Efficiency and factors influencing it in forest districts in southern Poland: Application of Data Envelopment Analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Radek Rinn & Vilém Jarský, 2022. "Analysis of Financial Support for Forestry in the Czech Republic from the Perspective of Forest Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-25, November.
    3. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr, 2023. "Challenging the dominant path of forest policy? Bottom-up, citizen forest management initiatives in a top-down governance context in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr, 2023. "Challenging the dominant path of forest policy? Bottom-up, citizen forest management initiatives in a top-down governance context in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    3. Jan van Duppen, 2021. "Book review: The Botanical City," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(8), pages 1746-1750, June.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    5. Strzelecka, Marianna & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Akhshik, Arash & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2021. "Environmental justice in Natura 2000 conservation conflicts: The case for resident empowerment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Katherine Farley, 2022. "“We ain't never stolen a plant”: Livelihoods, property, and illegal ginseng harvesting in the Appalachian forest commons," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 309-321, June.
    7. Dominic Piacentini, 2021. "Beside the berm: The convenience of roadside picking," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 208-218, June.
    8. Shkaruba, Anton & Skryhan, Hanna & Likhacheva, Olga & Kireyeu, Viktar & Katona, Attila & Shyrokostup, Sergey & Sepp, Kalev, 2021. "Environmental drivers and sustainable transition of dachas in Eastern Europe: An analytical overview," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Letizia Bindi & Angelo Belliggiano, 2023. "A Highly Condensed Social Fact: Food Citizenship, Individual Responsibility, and Social Commitment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-22, April.
    10. Janet McIntyre‐Mills, 2020. "The COVID‐19 era: No longer business as usual," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 827-838, September.
    11. The Re‐Arrangements Collective & Fabien Cante & Ajmal Hussain & Timo Makori & Surer Qassim Mohamed & Alana Osbourne & Francesca Pilo’ & Kavita Ramakrishnan & AbdouMaliq Simone & Rike Sitas & Adeem Suh, 2023. "MOVEMENT 2. FORMALIZING ARRANGEMENTS: Re‐signification and the Making of Governable Spaces," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 471-482, May.
    12. Katarina Haugen, 2016. "Contested Lands? Dissonance and Common Ground in Stakeholder Views on Forest Values," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 107(4), pages 421-434, September.
    13. Popan, Cosmin & Anaya-Boig, Esther, 2021. "The intersectional precarity of platform cycle delivery workers," SocArXiv tk6v8, Center for Open Science.
    14. Lisa Alvarado, 2019. "Institutional Change on a Conservationist Frontier: Local Responses to a Grabbing Process in the Name of Environmental Protection," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-17, November.
    15. Katharine Legun & Karly Ann Burch & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Can a robot be an expert? The social meaning of skill and its expression through the prospect of autonomous AgTech," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 501-517, June.
    16. Eriksson Madeleine & Tollefsen Aina, 2018. "The production of the rural landscape and its labour: The development of supply chain capitalism in the Swedish berry industry," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 40(40), pages 69-82, June.
    17. Grilli, Gianluca & Curtis, John & Hynes, Stephen & O'Reilly, Paul, 2017. "Anglers’ views on stock conservation: Sea Bass angling in Ireland," Papers WP578, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    18. Claudia Matus & Pascale Bussenius & Pablo Herraz & Valentina Riberi & Manuel Prieto, 2021. "Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-9, October.
    19. Mack, Philipp & Kremer, Jakob & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2023. "Forest dieback reframed and revisited? Forests (re)negotiated in the German media between forestry and nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:117:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118305136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.