Lithuania

Prepared by T. Marghescu

Forest cover

Lithuania is the largest Baltic state, with an area of 65 300 km² and a population of about 3.8 million. Before World War II, 85% of all forests were managed by the state and about 15% were privately owned. After the war, when Lithuania became fully integrated into the economy of the former USSR, Lithuanian forests were generally in poor condition. In terms of forest composition the main tree species are pine (Pinus) 37%, spruce (Picea) 24%, birch (Betula) 19% and alder (Alnus) 12%. In 1948, the agricultural cooperatives were established and private forest ownership abolished. Until 1990, Lithuania's forests were almost exclusively managed by the state (state forest enterprises) and the collective farm system.

Forest resources and management

The restoration of independence, on 11 March 1990, began a drastic process of political, social and economic transformation, which has profoundly affected the forestry sector. All forest land was first transferred to the country-wide network of 43 state forest enterprises under the Ministry of Forestry. No clear policy has been outlined in terms of privatization and restitution (the return of state property to former private owners) of forest property. Two acts constitute the legal basis for land restitution and privatization - the Law on Land Reform, adopted 25 July 1991, and the Law on the Conditions of Citizens Rights to Real Estate Property Restitution, adopted 9 July 1991.

In 1991, the policy was to restrict the size of private forest estates to a maximum of 10 ha per individual owner. Private forest property was to be granted only in production forest areas, meaning that all protected forest areas would have remained under state management. This solution would have left, overall, about 95% of forests in Lithuania under the management of the State Forest Administration.

In the space of a year the maximum size of forest estates per individual owner was raised from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of 25 ha. In the southeast of the country, there were, however, no limits provided as to size of individual private forest estates. The government is considering the possibility of raising the private forest estate size maximum of 50 ha per individual.

Confusion in the restitution process is created by changing maximum size limits of individual private forest estates and through regulations enabling individuals, entitled to receive agricultural land through the restitution process, to claim forest land instead. Furthermore, individuals, with the right to claim forest land, are able to choose monetary compensation instead. At present, the outcome of the privatization and restitution process is unclear.

The Government of Lithuania has designated 450 000 ha of forests, formerly managed by the collective farm system, and 288 000 ha of forests, managed by state forest enterprises, for restitution and privatization purposes, of this an approximate 600 000 ha will be restituted or privatized. Private forests, amounting to 600 000 ha would account for 30% of all Lithuanian forests. It is now a government policy that 70%, and not less than 60%, of forests remain under the management of the State Forest Administration. Forests designated for restitution and privatization are not all production forests, and about 50 000 ha are situated in protected areas and are restricted in their use.

Responsibility for surveying, evaluation and land demarcation of new private forest estates is divided between two organizations. The Forest Management Institute in Kaunas, under the Ministry of Forestry, is responsible for private forest property in the areas of state forest enterprises. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for formerly cooperative farm forest property. The institutions combine the process of restitution with compensation, in order to improve the negative structure of private forest property at the base year of restitution in 1940.

Forest Managers in Lithuania as of January 1980

Forest managers	Forest area (1000 ha)	Forest area (%)
State Forest Enterprises	12 224	67
Collective Farms	5 288	29
Others	79	4
Total	18 231	100

Ownership structure

Up until February 1995, the Forest Management Institute surveyed and demarcated about 45 000 ha of forest for approximately 7 000 individual owners. The average size of the individual estate was reported to be six hectares. Some 110 000 former agricultural cooperative forests have been surveyed and demarcated for about 15 500 individual owners with an average property size of 7 ha. Therefore, as of February 1995, there are approximately 155 000 ha of private forests, about 9% of the total forest area owned by 22 500 individuals whose average property size falls between six and seven hectares.

The present forest land value, formerly managed by state forest enterprises is, on average, 450 Litas/ha, the average stand value is 900 Litas/ha, resulting in an average market price of 1 350 Litas/ha. Forests belonging to former collective farms are valued at a somewhat lower price.

The relatively small size, and scattered distribution of individual forest properties, makes for a difficult starting position for sustainable forest management. This could be equalized through the establishment of cooperative structures in private forestry. This concept is opposed after living with 50 years of forced 'cooperation'. Furthermore, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the Constitution of Lithuania forbids cooperative properties. Small properties will be further divided through inheritance. The knowledge of private forest owners of forest management is low. Many new private forest owners do not live near their forests, but in distant cities or even abroad.

Financial arrangements

Under the 1994 Forest Act, a forest management plan is prepared for every forest estate of more than three hectares. These plans are also prepared for estates smaller than three hectares, if the estate is situated within a larger forest tract. The Forest Management Institute in Kaunas used to be in charge of national forest inventories and forest management plans of state forest enterprises. However, at present, the institute is forced to give inventories a lower priority, as management plans are also being prepared for private forest owners.

Field surveillance accounts for about 75% of the cost of a management plan, which is paid by the state. However, the private forest owner pays for the preparation of the plan, or project itself, about 25% of total costs. Management plan preparation is very slow. The process needs to be evaluated and speeded up. To this end, utilization of the services of independent, certified surveyors is under discussion.

The Lithuanian Private Forest Owners' Association was founded 27 April 1993 by forestry professionals from the Forest Research Institute, some of whom became private forest owners. The Association subsequently was registered with the Ministry of Justice as a public organization. The Association is lead by a Board, having 11 members, elected for a period of three years. In February 1995 the Association had about 200 members.

Private forest owners, wishing to join the Association, have to submit an application form. The Association is a member of the Lithuanian Chamber of Agriculture and is on good terms with the Union of Land Owners of Lithuania and the Union of Farmers. The objectives of the Association are to:

· assist former private forest owners in the restitution of their property rights;

· influence the formulation of legislation to the advantage of private forest owners;

· provide professional advice to the members of the Association;

· organize the formation of cooperation between owners of small private forest estates in order to facilitate management and utilization of forest resources;

· collaborate with other farmers' and land owners' organizations; and

· collaborate with associations of forest owners from other countries.

The Association was not formally consulted when the Forest Act was formulated. However, the Association provided unsolicited comments on drafts of the Act and received a response from the highest level. The Forest Act was passed by Parliament in December 1994 and contains the intention of the government to support the activities of the Association. Up until February 1995, however, government support had not materialized.

The Association is now formally consulted in the process of formulating regulations following the enactment of the Forest Act in December 1995. Four consultative meetings have already been held in this respect with the participation of the Association as representative of private forest owners.

The Association is presently active in enlarging its membership numbers and in establishing a country-wide network of small cooperatives of private forest owners. A leaflet, prepared by the Association, contains a list of specialists addresses and telephone numbers, prepared to give advice, presently still free-of-charge, to private forest owners. The Association has published and distributed a calendar for 1995 with useful tips and information for private forest owners. Close links have been established with a Danish Forest Owners' Association. Plans have been made for exchange visits and for closer cooperation between the two associations with financing received from the European Union.

The Private Forest Owners' Association has made a list of the main problems facing private forest owners:

· the present maximum limit of estate size (25 ha);

· restrictions faced by private forest owners in protected forest areas (compensation);

· difficulties in obtaining forest cutting permission;

· lack of knowledge of private forest owners of forest management;

· lack of state administration advisory services, according to law these should exist. There are no appointed contacts in the state administration for private forest owners requesting assistance. Private forest owners, therefore, sometimes contact the Prime Minister of Lithuania directly to seek advice;

· private forest owners do not receive any incentives;

· in some cases, state forest enterprises have cut, and or utilized, forest areas earmarked for restitution one year before their actual restitution to former owners. These cleared areas were not replanted. This was declared the responsibility of the new owner;

· trespassing of state forest enterprise personnel game hunting on private forest land; and

· state forest enterprises charge high fees for services, such as marking trees for cutting (e.g., one Litas/km is charged for transport of officers to and from the private forest, in addition to seven Litas/hour for actual work in the forest. Representatives of the Association remarked that, with these fees, it is cheaper for private forest owners to buy timber from state forest enterprises, rather than harvesting their own trees).

Forestry extension goals and examples

The State Administration is presently unable to provide organized assistance and advice to the private forest sector. At present, state forest enterprise personnel try to carry out extension work, mainly restricted to law monitoring and enforcement activities. There is, at present, no forestry extension system, having objectives, institutional framework, tools (e.g., an incentive package) and trained personnel. Thus, sustainable forest management of private forests can not be ensured.

The education curricula, at the higher- and mid-level for forestry professionals, do not contain forestry extension. The personnel of the state administration does not yet understand the concept of a participatory approach and the necessity of building a partnership with the private forest sector. The Ministry of Forestry is aware of the problem and has requested technical assistance.

The need to develop a more systematic and substantive approach to forestry extension is felt by the stake holders in forestry in Lithuania. There is also a willingness to share information and experience on forestry extension with other colleagues in the region and beyond. With training of trainers and a good grasp of extension principles, an extension system for sustainable forestry, appropriate to Lithuanian conditions, could be developed.