Armenia

Prepared by Karen Ter-Gazarian

Forest cover

Forests cover 459 900 ha, about 11.2% of Armenia. The primary forested areas are in the north, northeast and south, while the central part of the country is almost treeless. An extensive area of heavily exploited, degraded beech and oak forests and bush lands in urban/peri-urban areas has become the main source of fuelwood during the current energy crisis. The overall misuse of natural resources, forests in particular, is mainly the result of the lack of an appropriate legal and economic framework.

Of the total forest area, 4 599 thousand ha, about 70% is high forest, 85% of which is beech, oak and hornbeam. The remainder are coppice forests and shrub forests, which are poorly stocked and degraded. The dominant species are Fagus orientalis, Quercus iberica, Q. macranthera, and Carpinus caucasica.

In 1992, the total standing volume was 38.81 million m³, 53% comprised of beech. Almost 80% of the standing stock is located in high forests. Some nine million m³ of forest are located at high elevations, on steep slopes, without access roads. There is an uneven age distribution of the forest types. The youngest age class, 0-20 years occupies the smallest area.

Forest and resources and management

Armenia is the smallest of the former Soviet republics, 28 800 km², with a population of about 3.7 million people. The break up of the USSR left Armenia with an economic structure highly dependent on energy and raw material imports for its industries, as well as for food. Although suffering from the effects of an economy in transition, from central planning to a market orientation, Armenia has implemented one of the most comprehensive land reform programmes. Land reform, begun in 1991, has resulted in the privatization of most agricultural land and livestock; privatization of light industry and trade and services are underway.

For agriculture, erosion is a major problem, affecting 60% of agricultural land. It is mainly attributed to the uncontrolled overgrazing of pasturelands, which cover about 0.8 million ha, and improper agricultural practices. Grazing also takes place in forest lands. Farm lands and dams for hydropower or for irrigation also need to be protected.

Recently, the transportation system collapsed due to the scarcity of gasoline. This resulted in a break in the normal distribution of fuelwood and was the main cause of severe destruction of the tree cover along city roads and highways, including the devastation of the roadside poplars.

All forests are government owned. Forests belonging to state and collective farms, 'kolkhozes' and 'sovkhozes', have been given to the state. Private forestry will be developed on recently privatized land.

Forest management is still centrally planned and is based on a ten-year plan, with a breakdown of annual tasks. Before independence, the plan was established by committees in Moscow. The present management policy is very conservative and emphasizes the ecological role of forests, while the potential for economic development has not yet been fully considered.

Until 1992, all state forests were surveyed, every ten years, by the Forest Project Institution of Georgia, under the Department of Forests of the Republic of Georgia. Inventories were carried out based on visual judgment supported by some measurements on the standing stock. The compartment description and such inventory formed the basis for designing the forest management plans.

For years wood industry and manufacturing was based on imported wood. In 1988 total imports accounted for about one million cubic meters. Most of the timber and lumber was transported by rail from Russia. The wood industry produced mainly sawn timber, furniture, particle-board, and other products. The large sawmills are mechanized, and nearly all drying is done in kilns. The technology and equipment of the wood industry are out-dated and environmentally unsound. Yet, labour is skilled, cheap and available.

Despite the fact that internal wood demands remain unsatisfied Armenia produces very high quality beech and oak hardwood. Many domestic needs could be satisfied with lower quality, less expensive lumber. Opportunities for exporting high-quality finished products, such as furniture, veneers and parquet, should be explored to produce foreign currency revenues.

Since August 1995, the responsibility for forest policy has been vested in the Ministry of Nature Protection. Forest management is the responsibility of the 'Armforest', State Forest Enterprise (Hayantar), headed by a General Director assisted by four vice-directors, its headquarters are located in Yerevan. The central office has eight divisions:

· forest protection;
· silviculture, forest research and external relations;
· planning and accounting;
· supplies and maintenance;
· forest resources utilization;
· forest products;
· personnel; and
· information.

Hayantar coordinates the activities of 30 forest enterprises at the district level.

Legal framework

The initial Forest Code, adopted in 1978, was not adapted to the ongoing changes in the Armenian economy regarding, in particular, the shift from a centrally planned system to market economy and the emergence of private property. Therefore, a new forest code was adopted in May 1994 by Parliament, and was signed by the President on the 1st of November, 1994. This law was largely inspired by the former Forest Code.

Recent progress in forestry development

A national workshop took place in Yerevan, 15-17 May 1995, where several aspects of forest sector policy were debated. Workshop participants involved concerned parties, public, private, international, and the minister and deputy minister from the Ministry of Agriculture. During the workshop a forestry policy declaration was adopted as a guideline for government forest policy.

This forest policy aims to satisfy objectives related to environmental protection, economic and rural development, and land use. The principles upon which this policy is based are conservation, forestation and regeneration, sustainable multiple-use of forest resources, and maximum participation of private and other non-governmental organizations in forestry development.

Main objectives of the forestry policy outlined in the declaration are to:

· create conditions which lead to proper economic utilization;

· create consistency with other national policies, especially those concerning the environment, agriculture, forest industries, and rural development;

· take account of recent developments in the forest policies of developed countries;

· strengthen the institutional capacity for forest policy formulation, monitoring and execution; and

· enhance forest regeneration, forestation, and rural forestry.

Forest sector development in the medium and long term should be towards self-reliance in this sector.

The forest strategy will:

· integrate Armenian forests into the national economy;
· promote forestation, regeneration and rural forestry; and
· improve forest management, conservation and environmental protection.

Forestry extension goals and examples

Although forestry extension has been in existence for a long time in industrialized countries, where private and communal forests are widespread, it is inadequate in Armenia where state forests predominate. In general, individuals targeted for forest extension are not forest owners and their concerns are mainly agricultural or pastoral. Extension should, therefore, deal with trees outside forests and problems such as watershed protection and rehabilitation and erosion control.

Forestry extension has still not received the governmental attention it deserves. Yet extension would promote the importance of the rational management of forests, woodlands and sustainable use of resources. It would familiarize local people with the advantages of forestry activities outside wooded land, both to meet their needs (fuelwood, non-wood forest products) and to protect the land against water and wind erosion.

Non-governmental organizations could be involved and contribute to field actions, prolonging and diversifying public service action. Moreover, use of modern communication resources (media) should be used more so as to raise awareness and inform the general public of the need for forestry action.

The strategy for the Development of the Armenian Forest sector adopted in the National Workshop underlines the promotion of rural forestry in non-state controlled lands with the help of state forest enterprises.

A serious constraint to this effort is the vagueness of the current legal Forest Code, which does not specify whether forests grown on non-Hayantar land will belong to the state or continue to belong to the entity that owns or controls the afforested land.

Forestry and agroforestry will be promoted by the following means:

· revision of the legal Forest Code and regulations concerning forest land use, especially grazing;

· organization of an official land use arbitration body;

· organization of a forest extension service;

· promotion of private forest nurseries;

· research into appropriate and fast growing trees; and

· promotion of community awareness and knowledge concerning forest growth and use, the destructive effect of uncontrolled grazing, and the environmental implications of forest development.

Proposal for promoting extension

Without ignoring their responsibilities in forest management and law enforcement, forest administrative agents should place more stress on information, persuasion and advice. This entails:

· initiating extension activities to explain policies implemented (also needed for high officials, who have no training in forestry) and promote development;

· assessing requirements and determining the structures available for rural extension; and

· formulating teaching materials (forms, boards, posters, video), disseminating information bulletins and increased cooperation with the media.

Armenia previously had no formal organization responsible for transferring technology and information to farmers, except for 10-20 technical staff members, agronomists, livestock advisors, machinery and plant protection specialists in the Ministry of Agriculture. Although these specialists have mainly administrative and supply-driven functions, they nevertheless can provide information to farmers.

University-level training in forestry is the responsibility of the Forestry Chair of the faculty of agriculture of the Armenian Agricultural Institute, founded in 1992. The course lasts five years. The present target is to have 20-25 graduate forestry generalists with a sub-specialization in silviculture and forestry.

However, theoretical, as well as professional training is poor. The department is in need of field training facilities, laboratory and office equipment. There is no institution where forest technicians can be trained. Isolation from the outside world is also a problem.

There is no forestry school or forestry institute in Armenia. Forestry education must be provided for the forests to be wisely managed. Two options are:

· provision of a government fund to support the education of foresters outside Armenia; and

· establishment of a regional higher education forestry institute in cooperation with neighbouring nations with similar forest conditions and issues.

A central-level organization

A forestry extension programme/service requires a central policy-formulating and coordinating unit, headed by a Director/Chief Officer. The unit would be under the supervision of the Ministry of Nature Protection and Subsoil Wealth. The Director of the Forestry Extension Service would report directly to the minister or deputy minister, on an equal basis with the chief of forestry. The higher the rank of the chief officer responsible for forestry extension, the better the officer's access to top policy-makers, and the importance of extension will be more evident. The main responsibility of the central office, having a limited personnel of four or five people empowered with good communication skills, would be to provide conceptual leadership, coordinate field offices and control financial resources allocated to the field offices for specific forestry extension activities.

A policy on forestry extension, in Armenia, may lead to legal complications. New laws, regulations and by-laws concerning ownership, land-use rights, and the sharing of proceeds from forestry activities may have to be passed to interest the rural population to 'act' as forest managers. Legislation may be required to define what is expected from managers of different types of land and to protect their rights. Therefore, it is advised that legal work should be included as one of the primary functions of a central office for forestry extension.

Forest extension will be implemented mostly by the field staff of the Forest Enterprises (30 people). Provision of forestry extension advice to communes and farmers is an activity Hayantar has not yet performed. This would, therefore, need initial work at the central office, with support from academic and research institutions. Technical assistance would be required to develop suitable technical extension packages and the means for conveying these messages to client groups.

Direct contact with the communes, which will play a major role in agroforestry and the silvo-pastoral development component, will be through forest engineers and technicians stationed at Forest Enterprises. They will receive technical advice from the research institutions via the concerned technical staff at central and field offices. This network should allow for a two-way information flow, so that relevant packages are developed for the end-users. This would involve frequent field work by concerned staff.

At the initial stage, priority will be given to assign both forest engineers and technicians with direct responsibility to give technical advice to those communes selected to take up silvo-pastoral and agroforestry work. At later stages, it is envisaged that each commune will have access to forest technical staff. There would be one engineer in each forest enterprise responsible for extension work.

The duties of the forestry extension worker at the Forest Enterprise will be: to manage the state coppice and shrub forest; to be at the service of the commune to assist and advise on management of communal forests; to advise and supervise nursery workers, and assist private farmers in their tree plantating and forestry activities.

The forest extension worker must give priority to the needs of the commune, has to organize village forestry meetings, and be able to explain the objectives, advantages and implications of forest management.

In some cases, a commune would prefer to contract its own forest engineer to carry out and supervise the work; this communal forester is likely to work for one or two communes. At the village level, small organizations such as NGOs, or technical assistance on a volunteer basis could be involved to help the village organization, or to help develop a participatory approach.

Field-level organizations

The tasks of the field-level organizations in forestry extension are to persuade the rural population to take on the responsibility for forest management and conservation practices, and to provide the required assistance. Some of the responsibilities of a field-level organization in Armenia could be:

· collecting information on land use patterns and problems in the area, and estimating the need for and the production of fuelwood and other primary wood products;

· preparing strategies and plans for improving both land use and resource consumption patterns;

· managing and coordinating programmes, and ensuring that funds received from the central office and other sources are utilized correctly;

· convincing and providing advice to local leaders, farmers, and other land managers of the need for improved forestry practices and, when feasible, forestry initiatives;

· identifying and operating nurseries, organizing planting efforts and creating demonstration plots; and

· providing assistance in the marketing of forest-based products.

It is not necessary that all of the above responsibilities be carried out by the same field organization, or that one particular type of field organization specialize in one or more of the tasks. Actually, there are several means of establishing an organizational structure at the field level, including:

· working through existing agencies or local groups of interested people;
· adding personnel to existing agencies;
· becoming involved in joint extension programmes with different sponsoring agencies; and
· initiating special forestry extension activities;
· establishing a more 'self-contained' field-level organization for forestry extension.

An important consideration in choosing an appropriate organizational structure should be that an adequate field organization is created to have an impact in the area and that use of limited personnel and imported materials is optimized. Importantly, duplication of resources and efforts should be avoided.

Two general approaches to forestry extension work by field organizations towards the rural population are:

· To implement a preconceived extension programme, such as, introducing an agroforestry practice, planting trees on public land, establishing village forests or woodlands, restoring watersheds, or planting deforested areas. Applying the programme implementation approach, a field-level organization, uniform in each, could be established. The form that such an organization would take depends largely upon the tasks to be accomplished. It should have enough qualified people, technical and financial resources, and administrative powers to do the work itself.

· To strengthen the specific capacity of an area or communities for development, such as programmes for integrated rural development. If this approach is taken, the field organization cannot be uniform, but instead must be adaptable to respond to local needs and opportunities for development.

It is advisable to establish a link between the field and the unit responsible for forestry extension programmes at the central-level. When a programme is to be implemented at the local level, this link can consist of instructions and budget provisions from 'above'. There are organizations at the local level, which need to be informed to direct their efforts to supporting the most promising developments. The most effective manner of getting information is to have an employee working in the central unit involved in field activities. Field tours and inspections are other possibilities.

It is not necessary to create new field-level organizations. These can be 'fit in' as new components in an existing network. Any forestry extension activity contemplated must be preceded by careful analysis of the developmental network. One outcome of such an analysis might be that money for forestry extension programmes is given to a voluntary organization working in the area, rather than spending the money on creating a new agency. Another outcome might be that the 'best' use of resources for improving forestry practices in particular area is to offer training courses on specific topics to extension workers.

Especially at the field-level, the choice of organizational structure is a matter relating more to outside forces than to meeting the requirements within the organization itself.

Forestry extension activities

Possible forestry extension programmes include educational campaigns, educational tours, result demonstrations, employment of volunteer leaders, and services relating to information and documentation. Activities include:

· educational campaigns to encourage the adoption of a particular forestry practice;

· educational tours for groups, to observe the situations related to specific forestry problems;

· demonstrations to promote the advantage of improved forestry practices, show the advantage of applying 'scientific methods' to daily situations, and arouse interest by displaying 'old' and 'new' forestry practices side by side; and

· employing volunteer leaders with knowledge and experience.

Leaders generally fall into two groups. The first group being formal leaders, such as a local authority, religious leader, extension worker, or teacher. The second group includes many who may not consider themselves leaders. These people often are called volunteer leaders, unpaid leaders, or informal leaders. An educational programme, such as a forestry extension activity, needs local people who are willing to devote time and effort to plan and carry out a programme. With the help of volunteer leaders, a forestry extension worker can reach more people. In one-half of a day, an extension worker can teach the members of one youth club who, in turn, can teach the members of 10 or 12 clubs. Therefore, in place of helping the members of one club, the extension worker has helped the members of 10 or 12 clubs.

Informational and documentary services

Available information for inclusion in a technical package includes which species can grow under different soil and climatic conditions and what establishment techniques are most efficient under varying conditions.

There is a need for distribution of the following information on:

· the socio-economic conditions of the potential agroforestry participants;

· the possible role of trees in the farming system, both in terms of income generation and the work profile of the farmer;

· the volume production of suggested tree species; and

· the likely utility or market value of produced wood and non-wood products at the end of the rotation period.

There should be very close two-way links between the extension service and forestry research. There is a whole wealth of experience in forestry extension packages and methods, which if utilized properly could avoid expensive mistakes or unnecessary research. There should also be a close link between forestry and agricultural extension. The latter already has an existing structure in Armenia.

Extension models

The most important choice of model is whether a concentrated or widespread approach should be used. In the concentrated approach staff and financial resources would be directed to a few areas. This has the advantage of high penetration in that area. However, simple support and messages over a larger area may reach more people and be more cost effective. In the case of Armenia it may be best to apply a combination of both, by providing seedlings and public information campaigns over a large area and providing a more intensive support to one or two selected areas on a pilot basis.

The concentrated approach includes all or some of the following:

· involvement of local NGOs in the extension and implementation of the agroforestry scheme;

· involvement of the community in agroforestry activities through a village community organization;

· involvement of womens' associations or clubs to provide extension information to the section of the rural population that is most likely to be involved and affected by agroforestry;

· selection of progressive farmers (forerunners) as the entry point in the rural community, to serve as examples for other farmers.

A pilot scheme would be most useful if it included several approaches that would be subject to close monitoring supported by socio-economic expertise.

Training

There is an obvious need for training of forestry staff at all levels in matters concerning agroforestry. This training should be short and practical. One day training sessions in the farmers own location can be very effective. Longer courses would be required for farm nursery operators.

Participation

Traditional foresters, not only in Armenia, have little experience and understanding of how to work with the farming community. One of their most important tasks has always been to prevent people from exploiting trees. For that reason the farmers often have a negative attitude towards foresters. Furthermore, foresters are accustomed to implement a centrally planned programme - a top-down approach. If tree planting should be successful, it has to be perceived as being in the farmers own interest. This means that a bottom-up approach is most likely to succeed. This requires a fundamental change of the forester's attitude.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) was developed to overcome the communication problems between foresters and local farmers. Ideas are exchanged through systematized interaction. PRA can substantially increase the foresters knowledge of socio-economic problems and at the same time increase the farmers knowledge and trust of foresters.

Evaluation of forestry extension programmes

There are no established criteria to employ in meeting this important evaluative requirement. However, a number of critical questions can be asked to evaluate the possibilities of success or failure of forestry extension programmes.

Among these questions are:

· Are the extension 'delivery techniques' appropriate for the local community and the intended audience?

· Is extension working in cooperation with related organizations and agencies?

· Are local leaders and representatives involved in setting priorities and in planning activities?

· Is there a systematic method of rotating community members participating in the forestry extension programmes?

· Do extension staff and the community members appreciate and relate to their respective roles and responsibilities?

· Is local information collected and analyzed before setting priorities?

· Are volunteers being employed when possible to augment the effectiveness of the extension staff?

· Is the educational level of local extension agents reflective of the training of the clients?

· Are the extension field staff being updated on new knowledge and innovative techniques?

· Does the system of promotion in the forestry extension programme reward office work and neglect field work?

· Are appropriately trained extension staff being recruited and kept?

· Are funding agencies and the public being kept informed of the progress on major extension objectives?

Legal framework for forestry extension

The new Forest Code of Armenia, adopted in 1994, establishes that all forests are state owned and that the State prepares and implements forest management plans, requiring authorizations for exploitation, and generally controls the sector. The Code does not introduce any major obstacles towards the privatization of the forestry sector. Developments may be made through allowing forestry activities on private land, through allowing private entrepreneurs to utilize state forests, allowing access to the wood-processing industry and trade.

It is expected that forestry activities will develop on private land at some time. This is due to the recent privatization of agricultural lands, which will bring about a need to delimit properties and protect them from wind and water erosion. Private owners will also seek to obtain fuelwood, as well as fruit or other produce, from trees planted on their properties, for domestic consumption or even commercial purposes. On the other hand, given the current extreme need for fuelwood and the frequency of illegal cuttings, owners of land may avoid planting trees considering the difficulties of controlling possible thefts of the wood.

The Forestry Code needs to be clarified to encourage private owners to reforest their own land. It could be stated that forests developed on private land do not become part of the state forest estate. As it stands the Code does not prohibit the creation of private forests. Appropriate provisions could specify that the system of planning and controlling the forest sector as it results from the Code and the regulations could be adopted if necessary. These provisions would be useful in light of the land legislation, which requires economic and environmentally sound use of private land.

Under such legislation, private owners would encounter the risk of having their land expropriated if cutting trees was considered environmentally unsound. Even if land legislation is not revised, the Forest Code or regulations could help by legalizing (without excessive formalities) the harvesting of planted trees.

Private forests

The development of private forestry activities would also be facilitated by granting all possible technical assistance from the Government to people who undertake planting of trees on their land. For these purposes, it is suggested to add to the law one article. The article suggested is:

"Trees or forests planted on private land are the property of the owner of the land or of any person to whom the owner of the land has granted a right of ownership of such trees.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this Code do not apply to trees or forests planted on private land. The Ministry responsible for forestry may make regulations for the encouragement of trees and forests planted on private land.

The Government department responsible for forestry shall provide technical assistance to forestry activities undertaken on private land."

As to private forestry activities, which may be undertaken on state lands, the law already provides a framework by regulating access to state forests through various kinds of authorizations. Experience in many countries, however, shows that to meet the needs of local communities for forest produce, it is useful to encourage initiatives which may be carried out by the community itself in this regard. In the case of rural populations working in agricultural and grazing, it would be useful if they considered jointly their needs and, with the help of the forestry administration, undertook necessary forestry activities in nearby forests to obtain the necessary produce on the basis of an appropriate plan.

Parcels of the state forest estate, which appear to be suitable for this purpose, would have to be identified by the forestry administration and made available on reasonably attractive terms. Except in the case of commercially viable forests, the group entering into such an agreement should be exempted from the payments normally due for forest lease agreements.

For example, this arrangement might be considered for state forests formally within the domain of state and collective farms (kolkhozes and sovkhozes). These total approximately 50 000 ha and are reported to be mainly in degraded condition, so that such an arrangement should also facilitate their improvement.

Community forestry

The possibility of entering into such agreements is not presently given under the Code, although article 22 allows parcel leases of the forest estate. The law would not need to set out many rules in this regard, but should guide activities along the following lines:

"The Government department responsible for forestry may enter into an agreement under article 22 of this law with any groups of residents of an area, with respect to parcels of the forest estate situated in that area or a nearby area.

In addition to the requirements of article 22, an agreement under this article shall include a plan of the activities to be carried out, such as silvicultural and any other forestry activities.

The duration of an agreement under this article and any applicable conditions may be different from those otherwise provided for under this law. The agreement may be exempted from payments otherwise required under this law. The Ministry responsible for forestry may make regulations for the encouragement of agreements under this article.

Throughout the implementation of an agreement under this article, the parties thereto shall be eligible for technical assistance from the Government Department responsible for forests."

Proposed financial arrangements

Incentives may be required to encourage land-owners to become part of a forestry-related development process and to halt the misuse of natural resources. Where forest management and conservation measures directly benefit society these costs should not be absorbed exclusively by farmers.

The most commonly applied incentives in forestry-related developmental projects are:

· direct cash incentives - subsidies, wage subventions, credit, revolving funds, and cost-sharing arrangements;

· direct incentives in kind - food, production inputs, tools and equipment, domestic animals and wildlife species, animal feed, irrigation systems, use of water, technical advice, and transportation services; and

· indirect incentives - fiscal, provision of services; and social incentives.

An incentive programme should be well articulated with other support elements in rural development framework, or have a temporary 'catalytic' role.

Organization of expected forest owners

Future private forest owners in Armenia could be organized into Community Based Groups (CBGs). These are formal and informal groups of local people.

The main activities of CBGs would be:

· preparation and management of wood and non-wood forest product sales;
· management of thinning, sanitation, regeneration and tree-planting;
· wood and non-wood forest product processing; and
· provision of information and further education to their members.

Summary

In order to encourage private forest enterprises, Armenia should also consider development of a forestry extension service. More than 65% of farmers created by the recent agricultural privatization policy have had no farming experience and cannot be expected to understand the opportunities inherent in agroforestry without training and assistance. The extension staff does not have to be large, but should be assigned to duty on a full time basis. If their job performance responsibilities are tied directly to the success rate of small forest endeavors, they will be more effectively focused on problems of the small operator.

Finally, the importance of forests and forest products should be introduced to the public school system in order to develop a strong constituency for forest interests over the long term. In the competitive market economy that is to evolve, public support will be of great assistance in acquiring government for forestry investments.

References

Anon. 1994. Forest Code of the Republic of Armenia.

Anon. September, 1993. Mediterranean Forest Action Programme, Silva Mediterrania, Rome.

Borrini, G. November 1994. Enhancing People Participation, FAO, Rome.

Cirelli, M.-T. October 1994. Armenia. Forestry Legislation, Interim Report to the Government of Armenia. FAO.

Folliott, P.F. 15 July - 5 August, 1991. Tree Establishment in Arid Areas for Fuelwood and Conservation. University of Arizona.

Ljungman, L. August 1995. FAO Investment Center Mission Aide-Memoire, Yerevan.

Ljungman, L. August 1995. Farm Forestry Discussion Paper (Armenia).

Ter-Gazarian K.A. Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: et al., Republic of Armenia, Paper no. 8, 1995.

FOREST OWNERSHIP PATTERNS BEFORE 1985 (ARMENIA)

FOREST OWNERSHIP PATTERNS 1995 (ARMENIA)