- Email: [email protected]
A historical analysis of traditional common forest planning and management in Seneghe, Sardinia—Lessons for sustainable development
Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124 www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
A historical analysis of traditional common forest planning and management in Seneghe, Sardinia—Lessons for sustainable development Roberto Scotti *, Marisa Cadoni Universita` di Sassari, Forestry School of Nuoro, Via Cristoforo Colombo 1, 08100 Nuoro, Italy Received 11 December 2006; received in revised form 9 May 2007; accepted 21 May 2007
Abstract Common lands are known for the management problems they experience as well for their unique contributions to local communities cultural heritage. Forest knowledge and management of the commons represents a relevant component of this heritage that is being progressively lost when critical management problems are not solved. Sustainable development actions that, through participatory processes, involve the community in strategy design and implementation, offer a great opportunity to preserve commons cultural heritage and take best advantage of available knowledge. ForEnCarb is a pilot project financed by the Sustainable Development Service of Sardinia’s regional administration, with scientific support of Sassari University. The project goal is to promote sustainable development of Seneghe, a local community of inner Sardinia, by effectively implementing provisions of the international agreements to combat climate change through forest planning programs. Most of Seneghe’s forest area is in common land. For countless generations its residents have been entitled to collect wood, to hunt and to graze their cattle and sheep on these lands. In support of a process towards sustainable forest management, our study focused on the social and cultural heritage of the local community and the historical development of its territorial identity, with specific reference to forest-related knowledge. The paper presents the first results of an analysis of forest service archive documents and town council deliberations found in municipal and state archives. The sources used include the documentation from the 19th and 20th centuries, but enlighten only fragments of history since a large number of potentially useful documents have been lost or destroyed. Results include a time series analysis of allowances for cattle access, wood withdrawal and occurrence of forest fires. We conclude that woodlands subject to common rights carry a high symbolic value for this community, but social sensitivity concerning forest management practices, while necessary, is not sufficient to encourage sustainable practices. Integration in sustainable development processes, such as this climate change mitigation project, offers hope to reverse such a cultural decline. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Common rights reclamation; Estovers; Fire; ForEnCarb; Forest history; Forest management planning; Land-use rights; Grazing; Wood energy
1. Introduction 1.1. A brief history of common lands and their management in Sardinia The centuries-old uses of the forest commons comprise a significant part of what remains of the traditional forest knowledge and management practices in Italy. However, while common lands make important contributions to local communities and their cultural heritage, their effective and sustainable
* Corresponding author at: Via Trecento, 146/A, 50025 Montespertoli (FI), Italy. Tel.: +39 0328 4921759; fax: +39 0623 3204598. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Scotti). 0378-1127/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.027
management presents many challenges. The problem of commons management is extensively quoted using the title of Hardin’s paper ‘‘The tragedy of the commons’’ (Hardin, 1968). However, as Thompson (2000) pointed out, ‘‘Most of the recent academic literature on the tragedy of the commons has examined why some commons do not lead to tragic consequences. Ostrom (1990) and others have shown that local communities throughout the world sometimes have been able to avoid ‘tragedy’ through the development of local management institutions’’. Similar cases have been documented for northern Italy (Merlo, 1995). The commons include many forms of collective rights that do not necessarily correspond to modern classification as either private or public property ownership. The Italian expression ‘‘usi civici’’, equivalent to the older usage of the word
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
‘‘common’’, denotes rights traditionally exercised by a community in its use of land or particular natural resource for defined purposes such as grazing or wood collection. More recent documents extend this meaning to cover a much wider range of tangible and intangible goods (Bollier, 2002). Although the heterogeneous nature of commons ownership makes it difficult to quantify the extent of common lands in Italy,1 we estimate that the country’s common lands area is in the range of 50,000–100,000 km2. In Sardinia, the total area of common woods is estimated at 1200 km2 (De Martini et al., 2007). Traditional rights, still exercised in many places, include common pasture (right to pasture cattle, sheep or other animals on the common land) and estovers or ‘‘legnatico’’ in Italian, i.e., the right to take sufficient wood for the commoner’s household or agricultural needs. During the last centuries, in Italy and elsewhere in the world, commons have been privatized or are under threat of privatization, a process often promoted or justified as a solution to land mismanagement problems. In 1882, the dean of the Faculty of Economy of Cagliari published a very extensive research report documenting the evolution of common rights known as ‘‘ademprivio’’ (Todde, 2003). In his work, he refers to the norms established through the ‘‘Prammatiche’’, a collection of laws compiled and ordered by the authoritative jurisprudent Don Francesco Vito and adopted by king Filippo IV in 1633, which established the limitations to which common land rights are subject. These concerned direct satisfaction of basic needs of the commoners, beyond which were the landlord’s rights, so that commoners do not have a right to sell or alienate goods or benefits from the common. In those times a portion of land subject to external rights was called ‘‘imperfect property’’ while free private property was considered ‘‘perfect’’. The history of common lands in Sardinia is documented in some detail in Beccu’s work on the island’s forest chronicle (Beccu, 2000). He notes that, the words ‘‘ademprivio’’ and ‘‘cussorgia’’, still used today to denote common rights, are used in the same ways as they were in documents as early as the 14th century during the Aragon period. In 1800, during the Savoy era, the ‘‘Description of historical, political and legal status of woodland of Sardinia Reign’’,2 recognized and detailed the characteristics of common rights in terms equivalent to those of the 1633 ‘‘Prammatiche’’. During the 19th century the ‘‘suppression’’ of common rights was promoted in Sardinia as a positive and necessary step towards modern development. The 1839 regulation (after the ‘‘Carta Reale’’ of 26 February 1839) moved in this direction by setting the terms for abolishment of common rights that exceeded current needs and uses, and promoted the establishment of modern basis for private property. One 1863 law ceded the rights of over 2000 km2 of common lands (‘‘ademprivi’’) to the railway 1 http://www.legambientetoscana.it/news/comst.asp?idnews=60 (14 July 2003), http://www.italia.attac.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=711 (27 June 2005), http://www.jus.unitn.it/usi_civici/convegni/12rs/comunicazioni.html (16–17 November 2006, see dr. Macrı` A.). 2 ‘‘Discorso istorico politico legale dei boschi e selve del Regno di Sardegna’’ (anonymous) dated 15 March 1800 (Beccu, 2000).
117
company to pay for railway construction. A 1865 law declared common rights suppressed and attempted to obligate the communes to sell (in three years time!) all land subject to ‘‘ademprivio’’ or ‘‘cussorgia’’. Later, as the failure of this law caused serious problems, the 1897 law under the heading ‘‘Diverse measures in favor of Sardinia’’, took a different approach: all unsold areas were given over to the newly created bank ‘‘Cassa Ademprivile’’, today known as the ‘‘Cassa di Credito Agrario’’. Despite these measures, ancient common rights are still exercised today and the local people continue to enjoy woodcutting and grazing rights. In Sardinia, as in many other countries, the actual exercise of common rights (beyond the institutional level) has, for several decades, been very controversial. On one hand, ‘‘traditional’’ common land management practices are quite often tragically unsustainable. On the other hand, common lands represent a remarkable heritage of environmental wealth, economic relations and sociocultural values. Landscape and environment protection laws in Italy, since 1939, have established specific conservation regimes for ‘‘usi civici’’. The recent innovative Regional Landscape Management Plan of Sardinia,3 setting the framework for sustainable development of the island, has also recognized ‘‘usi civici’’ lands as historical memory, a living connection with landscape meaning as an element of local cultural identity. 1.2. Project background At the international level as well as in Italy, many formal bodies and less formal groups are making efforts to preserve collective ownership traditions and prevent the loss of what they consider an important cultural heritage (Ray and Anderson, 2000).4 Along the lines discussed by Ostrom (1990), the Forest, Energy and Carbon (ForEnCarb) project is searching for a solution to forest commons management problems that, unlike privatization or authoritarian centralized governmental control, is based on small-scale collective institutions, and aims to preserve, develop and transfer commons cultural heritage to future generations. ForEnCarb is a pilot project of the Sardinia regional administration’s Sustainable Development Service arising from the ‘‘Intelligent Energy Europe’’ action proposal issued in 2003 by the regional administration’s Environmental Defense Department. The project’s long-term objective is to enhance the value of trees and woody agricultural residues as substitutes for fossil fuels, and that of forests as long-term carbon sinks, thereby exploiting forests carbon-credits under the Kyoto 3 Decree of the President of the Regione, 7 settembre 2006, n. 82. ‘‘Approvazione del Piano Paesaggistico Regionale . . .’’ (BURAS n.30, 8 set 2006), http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_22_20060911101100.pdf. 4 See, for example, The Commons Institute (http://www.mercury.org.au/tci home.htm); Associazione nazionale usi civici e proprieta` collettive (http:// www.usicivici.it/index.htm); Consulta nazionale della proprieta` collettiva (http://www.jus.unitn.it/usi_civici/consulta/presentazione.html); Appello contro la privatizzazione degli usi civici (27 June 2005, www.italia.attac.org/spip/ article.php3?id_article=711).
118
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Protocol. An essential prerequisite to achieving this long-term goal is the development and implementation of an effective forest planning and management system, currently lacking in this and many other Italian regions. The Sardinian regional administration chose Seneghe township, in the province of Oristano, as the pilot project location since a forest management plan for Seneghe’s common woodlands was already in the process of development. Seneghe families are heavily involved in the exploitation of their common rights to collect firewood and to graze their herds (cows and sheep) in the ‘‘non-private’’ woods of the township. Without a management plan, overexploitation problems have arisen which have not been adequately addressed, and have jeopardized future prospects for the preservation, development and sound utilization of the community’s common rights and cultural heritage. The sustainability5 of such activities is undermined from several perspectives. Ecologically, without appropriate management support tools, exploitation interventions negatively affect forest stand growth and reduce ecosystem complexity. Economically, the only significant contribution of current practices are the work and commerce opportunities that common firewood collection provides, but these activities often conflict with the spirit of common rights exploitation and are, in fact, illegal. From the socio-cultural point of view, firewood gathering is potentially a highly relevant activity that provides an opportunity for a great part of the township to meet and share time together in the woods although, as currently practiced, this is becoming more of a private occupation and the sense of its being a civic right is being progressively lost. To design a robust sustainability planning framework, consolidated Rio92 criteria (as they are implemented through, for example, the UN conventions on biodiversity, climate change and desertification) are not sufficient; landscape characterization and future development requires much more careful consideration (Agnoletti and Scotti, 2004). In the process of ForEnCarb project development, historical analysis of local events that have shaped the institutional, social and ecological structure of Seneghe’s forests can provide essential support to guide future actions. Such an analysis requires careful review of documented information in order to distinguish widely held views and beliefs from erroneous convictions, probable or just possible events, unverified stories or even meaningful myths. Although the citizens of Seneghe are generally aware that current practices are not ecologically, economically and/or socio-culturally sustainable, the problem as a whole is not perceived to be so severe as to require a civic action. Without effective input from outside the community, the tight culturally significant relationship that presently characterizes the inter-
5
In this paper, we follow the ‘‘Rio Declaration’’ meaning of sustainability as it relates to intergenerational equity and on the three basic elements of sustainability – ecological, economic and social – to be satisfied simultaneously, the latter being of particular relevance in the context of our project (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/confl51/aconfl5126-1 annex1.htm).
action between Seneghe’s people and their non-private woodlands is in danger of weakening, and disappearing altogether in the future. The paper reports the results of our initial work to identify, through an analysis of documented sources, relevant aspects of Seneghe’s local forestry history. Through this analysis we attempt to determine which elements of current knowledge perceived as ‘‘traditional’’ have been acquired through historic experience and which are actually too recent to be validated by experience or valued as a positive acquisition. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Geographical setting of Seneghe territory Seneghe, a village north of Oristano with a population of approximately 2000 (fewer than 700 families), is located on the southern lower slope of Montiferru, a large hilly range of volcanic origin in the central-west of Sardinia. At 350 m above sea level, the township overlooks the Campidano plain and the gulf of Oristano, and faces Mounts Arci and Grighini with a further view to the Gennargentu mountain summits. The communal territory of 5782 ha extends on the mountain slopes below and above the village. It is mostly used for pasture (2300 ha), but includes some nearly 300 ha of olive groves, 42 ha of vines, and approximately 500 ha of arable fields, of which only a part are regularly cultivated. The upper slopes, called ‘‘su Monte’’, reach a maximum elevation of 800 m, and include approximately 1800 ha of woods that are rich in holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) and cork oak (Q. suber L.). These woodlands are renowned in Sardinia as an amenity site.6 Approximately 900 ha of this forest is traditionally used as common land. The current land-uses and their distribution roughly correspond to that reported in the mid-19th century ‘‘Historical Statistical and Geographical Dictionary of the states of H.M. the King of Sardinia’’ (Angius-Casalis, 1833). Cadenneghe, Sos Paris, Funtanas and Biarzu, ancient local names of the main land sub-compartments (‘‘ademprivio’’) of Seneghe’s mountainous territory, correspond to common lands. These are still actively used by local residents, with the exception of Biarzu, which was privatized in 1863 to finance Sardinian railway construction (Pili Deriu, 1993). 2.2. Common rights tradition in Seneghe Woodcutting and grazing are practiced today over most (900 ha) of the mountain territory, a tradition that can be traced back to the Giudicati era (900–1400 A.D.). The ‘‘Carta de Logu’’ (D’Arborea, 2003), a collection of written laws published around 1392 by Eleonora D’Arborea, head (Giudice) of the ‘‘Giudicato di Arborea’’ (today’s Oristano province), documents collective land use rights that were well established at the time. Seneghe was part of this Giudicato; on the ‘‘Monte’’ 6
http://www.sardegnaforeste.it/documentazione/immagini/seneghe.html.
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
horses and cattle belonging to the Giudice were foddered, while the people of Seneghe could exercise their rights of grazing, fire wood cutting, wood gathering and hunting. These rights, exercised through the centuries to the present days, are deeply rooted in the culture of the people of Seneghe. The strong feelings connecting the village with the woodland are expressed by the popular saying ‘‘su Monte est su nostru’’: ‘‘Lands and woods in the upper part of the mountain are our (common) possession’’.
119
the cadastral land-use classifications in the Old and in the New Land Registry (i.e., from 1866 to the present) we found an increase in the forest area from 953 to 996 ha. However, it is difficult to distinguish between the effects of two different processes on this increase. Following the suspension of grazing, natural re-colonization of trees (i.e., forest succession) has occurred in some areas. At the same time there is circumstantial evidence that, through careful management of grazing, part of today’s forest has developed on sites where earlier there were only sparse isolated trees.
2.3. Archival research 3.2. The right to gather firewood The survey used in this study was developed by analyzing all relevant, accessible, public archives, including those of the Seneghe commune (town council documents dating from 1885 to 1996), of the forest and environment rangers service (i.e., archives of Seneghe forest service ‘‘CFVA—Corpo Forestale e di Vigilanza Ambientale’’, dating from 1950 to 2000), and the state archives of Oristano and Cagliari (Cadoni, 2004). This analysis was integrated with information from local and regional research. The collected archival data covered both the social– cultural aspects of the Seneghe area, and focused on local traditions related to the norms of different historical periods. The archival data, consisting mostly of town council deliberations dealing principally with conservation problems, was fragmented and discontinuous through time for several reasons. First, Oristano territory was part of Cagliari province until 1974, and due to this relatively recent local administrative reorganization, our study was complicated by the need to locate relevant documents in the state and forest service archives of Oristano and Cagliari. Research in the Seneghe town council archives was also complicated by the loss of many relevant documents that occurred when they were moved and temporarily stored with inadequate protection during the 1950s. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the collected material was analyzed and classified with particular reference to firewood, pasture, production of charcoal and the problem of wildfires. Finally our research was complemented by interviews with available privileged witnesses which permitted us, in some cases, to fill in some of the gaps in the data and in others to document specific uses such as the use of the woodlands for charcoal production. For this study, we interviewed many residents who had been directly involved in forestry, including three specifically involved in charcoal production: the son of one of the charcoal production concessionaires of Seneghe, a former mayor of the town (from 1965 to 1985) who, as young man, worked for local charcoal producers, and a member of an important land-owing family who was also involved as young man in local charcoal production. 3. Results 3.1. Changes in forest area since the mid-19th century One of the documents found in the Oristano state archive was the Old Land Registry of Seneghe commune, which covered the period up to 1866. Comparing the distribution of
The study documents dealing with the right to gather firewood showed the earliest deliberations on this issue dating back to 1909. Until 1950, mentions of the common right to gather or cut firewood are only sporadic. During the period 1950–1960 there was a substantial change in practices, and only since the end of the 1960s was the current biennial right of woodcutting regularly exercised and documented. The few references to the sale of single trees from the early 20th century referred to the satisfaction of the immediate necessities of the population. The town council deliberation of 7 February 1909, for example, directs the exercise of these rights towards improving the condition of the forest by ‘‘thinning’’. Archival documents include the first known general regulation of common rights issued by Seneghe town council, dating back to 1912, and refer explicitly to the connection between forest cutting and the production of charcoal. The text of this deliberation affirms that ‘‘the practice confirmed the general opinion, that the charcoal-burners are the ruination of the mountain because, while taking advantage of the permits accorded to them, they acted as real vandals’’. Later (in a deliberation issued 20 December 1941 by the national commissioner ruling the town because no mayor could be appointed at that time in Seneghe) the practice of charcoalmaking is referred to differently; it is considered necessary for ‘‘tackling the problem of scarcity of coal in the whole region’’. Given the document preservation problems noted above, the lack of information concerning this period cannot be interpreted as an indication that common rights were not exercised throughout this period. Furthermore these practices were not always subject to registration, and therefore not necessarily documented in official archives. Between 1950 and 1960, the aims and methods of utilization changed radically: charcoal production declined rapidly as charcoal businesses disappeared, and the citizens of Seneghe once more availed themselves of the right to gather firewood for family use. During this period new sources of domestic energy, like gas, became more widely available, reducing the demand for charcoal and firewood. The exercise of common right for all the residents to collect wood is now perceived as a well-established tradition. Every two years, through personal contacts and (often cryptic) formal letters, the town administration and the forest service agree to coordinate woodcutting in a portion of the forest, setting out
120
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Fig. 1. Wood cutting areas within Seneghe commons from 1980 to 2002. (Source: Forest Service ‘‘CFVA’’, 2003.)
regulations that determine the amount that each family can collect and the corresponding payments. This kind of biennial ritual has created, in a relatively short time, a strong sense of socio-cultural unity and identity within the community. These wood harvests can be evaluated only partly by examining the sequence of deliberations related to its regulation. Between 1974 and 1994 only eight documents are available, with two years probably missing from the available records. Moreover, brushwood (assortments with diameter of less than 5 cm) were not registered, nor were the smaller withdrawals of larger diameter wood. After 2000, as part of one of the last efforts of the forest service to persuade the town administration to develop a forest management plan, woodcutting areas have been reconstructed, a posteriori, creating a map of the spatial distribution of the interventions between 1980 and 2002 (Fig. 1). This analysis shows a steady increase through this period in the area where these harvests have occurred. The forest service, both as its institutional duty but also concerned about the consequences of this trend, has repeatedly urged the town administration to develop a forest management plan that is compulsory for forests under public administration under the general forest law (Law no. 3247/1923).
specifications that dictate starting and closing dates, the locality, type of livestock permitted, the fee to be paid per animal and, in some cases, the maximum number of animals per unit land area, and specifying areas of exclusion which had been recently utilized for woodcutting. The number of documents present in the archives related to common right of grazing is much greater than those related to woodcutting rights. The homogeneity and consistency of the data permitted an analysis of grazing based on the registrations for the period 1982–2003 (Fig. 2). During this period it can be observed that, in addition to a marked inter-annual variability from 300 to 600 UBA (adult bovine equivalent units, including both sheep and cattle), there is also a strong variation in the overall density of grazing animals. Considering 0.5 UBA/ha as an approximate threshold for prudent livestock loading (Scotti et al., 2005), the lower values registered in Seneghe (0.3–0.5 UBA/ha) are roughly within the limits of sustainability while upper values (1.3 UBA/ha) can be excessive, depending on grazing duration and season.
3.3. The common right of grazing The common right to use the forest for grazing has been documented since 1883, the year the first deliberation of livestock capitulation was registered by the Seneghe town council. At this time, the permission to graze on the common lands was explicitly motivated by the need to ‘‘get rid of all the existing grass in the forest before the summer in order to avoid, as much as possible, the fires when the grass dries up’’. Access of livestock to the forest is allowed for two brief periods, one in summer and one in winter, with certain
Fig. 2. Registered cattle and sheep access to Seneghe commons from 1982 to 2002. (Source: Seneghe Commune Archives, 2003.)
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Through a specific survey (Salaris and Obinu, 2004) livestock density in the forest has been mapped for the period 2000–2004 (Fig. 3). It can bee seen that areas of high concentration are rather limited, whereas the areas classified as expansion areas, sporadically used, are extensive. From an economic point of view grazing in the forest is perhaps of limited interest, but its relevance is probably greater from the socio-cultural point of view. Since farmers in Seneghe represent an extensive and influential sector of the local society, the issues related to common grazing rights are of great social sensitivity, much more so than questions related to the common right of woodcutting. Nonetheless, the perpetuation of this tradition in both the short and long term is jeopardized by weaknesses in the general socio-economic and cultural framework of the territory. 3.4. Charcoal production Charcoal production in Seneghe may have been carried out as early or earlier than the middle of the 19th century. Beccu (2000) reports that, in Sardinia, ‘‘. . . in the second half of the past century the production and exportation of charcoal grew enormously, using rather big trees instead of relying on shoots as was used in the past’’. However, our archival research yielded few specific data concerning the production of charcoal, despite the historical importance of this activity. This may have been due to the fact that cutting requests for fuel wood and charcoal are not easily distinguished in the documents reviewed. We therefore rely on direct and indirect accounts collected through our interviews from which we conclude that production of charcoal was a significant activity in Seneghe from the 1940s to 1950s. Concessions for charcoal production were requested by two or three companies who utilized different forest areas in the territory.
121
The testimonials collected on how these forests were managed for charcoal production are sometimes contradictory, and may be a consequence of the complex (probably disordered) conditions of the woodlands themselves. In some parts the forest structure was characterized by larger trees, at varying densities, and therefore with variable understory tree and shrub composition, while in other parts coppice stands were the dominant structural component. Consequently, some of those we interviewed reported having witnessed the production of charcoal by selective cutting of large trees, while others remembered cutting more in a coppice clear-cut fashion. Important evidence of the extension and intensity of charcoal production is found in the distribution and features of the charcoal burning sites in the forest. Clearings due to this activity are extremely numerous, and are still evident today as many of them are reinforced by walls. Although the tight network of these clearings of various sizes is quite evident in the aerial photographs of 1956, we were unable to estimate either annual charcoal production levels or even peak production years. 3.5. Forest fires The available data on fires allows us to reconstruct a history of their frequency in the Seneghe territory over quite a long period from the end of the 19th century up to the present. These data go back to 1881 (Beccu, 2000), shortly after data on fires began to be systematically recorded as a result of the first forestry law (1877) of the recently united Italian State. This law placed all the lands above the chestnut line under protection, and it obliged the forest service departments to register all forest interventions. The law instituted a compulsory ‘‘register of all the territories that had suffered fires’’ in which the land area, the locality, the kind of cultivation and the owners of the burnt areas were to be recorded. Seneghe forest, lying above
Fig. 3. Average cattle and sheep concentrations: 2000–2004. (Source: Salaris and Obinu, 2004.)
122
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Fig. 4. Registered fire events occurring in Seneghe commons (1946–1994). (Source: Forest Service ‘‘CFVA’’, 2003.)
chestnut line, was subject to the protection regime of this law shortly after 1877 and hence its register was initiated with the 1881 fires, when three fires were recorded, for unknown causes, affecting an overall area of 65 ha of communal territory. Using the data from this archived forest service registry, along with the other information from other archival and direct witnesses, some important reference dates and interpretations regarding forest fire origins and their development can be established. No fire is documented in the register until the middle of the 20th century, but since we found a testimonial of a fire in 1946 in a separate, less formal document, it is likely that record-keeping in the register might have been defective. Registrations of fires were more frequent between 1952 and 1993. For more recent fires, the extent of the affected area or at
least the localities where these fires originated has been mapped (Fig. 4). The analysis of these data, summarized in the fire distribution map, indicates that fire has been a recurring problem, but also that it has been largely limited to the outer areas of the forest. Seneghe is, in fact, proud of its forest protection ability; which is supported by the information from the registers, particularly those of recent decades. A European project (Brundu et al., 2004) produced a map (Fig. 5) using remote sensing data that reconstructs the sequence of fires occurring over the last 20 years on the Seneghe side of Montiferru. This map shows that forest fires affected Seneghe to a much lesser extent than neighboring communes.
Fig. 5. Fires occurring in and around Seneghe between 1995 and 2002. Total area of the Sengeghe commune is approximately 5800 ha (Source: Brundu et al., 2004.) Key—thick lines: commune administrative boundaries; grey patches: areas classified as burnt in different years through remote sensing processing procedures; the fine line denotes the southern limit of ‘‘su Monte’’ common forest in the Seneghe commune.
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
4. Discussion In support of the planning framework which the ForEnCarb project aims to develop, the historic–bibliographic analysis reported in this paper focuses on the local cultural heritage related to forests and wood in the Seneghe commune. Our results underlined contrasting features: while the community has historically cared for its forest and would significantly benefit from the adoption of sustainable management practices, it does not appear to be able to perceive the mid- to long-term benefits that would arise from the relatively low, short-term investments required to move in this direction. The severe fragmentation of documentary data makes it difficult to conclusively answer the basic questions which guided our study: what are the main natural and anthropogenic processes that have shaped the forest as we see it today? Were coppicing systems extensively used, and managed, for charcoal production? Or, considering the question from an operational standpoint: are existing coppices really traditional, used for charcoal production for more than a century, or are they simply the result of relatively recent management interventions, e.g., clear-cuts after fires? The attachment of the population to its territory can be considered an element of sustainability in the case of the use of the forest for grazing and as far as safeguarding the forest against fires is concerned. Forest grazing, in spite of the fact that small areas are overexploited, creates only limited problems which could be easily resolved through rational management of this activity. The low frequency of fires, compared to neighboring communes and other regions of Sardinia, is an indication of a strong sense of property and attachment of the population to their ‘‘su Monte’’. Finally, despite the documentation difficulties discussed earlier, it seems clear that the traditional know-how related to silvicultural management have in part died out and in part been distorted as commonly accepted hearsay. Today’s forest woodcutting customs do not stem from a traditional silvicultural activity. Rather, they represent an irrational exploitation of a fragile resource instead of a forest renovation based system aimed at maintaining the highest possible ecological standards. 5. Conclusions Despite the challenges and difficulties involved in our analysis of forest management history at the local level, we maintain that such historical analyses are worthwhile, and should be considered a required step in the preparation of sustainable development actions (Agnoletti and Scotti, 2004). Sustainable development projects that concern common forests need to pay very specific attention to local historical analyses since all main components of sustainability – ecological, economic and socio-cultural – are affected. From an economic standpoint, common forests management requirements can be relatively easily met if the community can afford the costs, while the attainment of ecological and socio-cultural components of sustainability are much more demanding. Evaluation of the impacts of forest management on the ecological system
123
requires an analysis of resource conditions over time, supported by historical records. The socio-cultural dimension is more than just an aspect of common forests, it is part of the essence of this resource, and the preservation and enhancement of its sociocultural values should be based on, and shaped by, historical analysis. Moreover, participatory approaches to the design and implementation of development activities are essential methodological keys to sustainable development and sound historical analyses are fundamental inputs for such processes. These processes need to resolve conflicting requests, based on diverging opinions that are frequently rooted in different perceptions of local history. If, for a given question, the historical analyses do not provide clear answers, only compromise solutions can be sought. If, however, welldocumented answers to controversial local historical questions can be produced, resolution of conflicting requests can yield benefits by development of more farsighted approaches. In addition, local myths often play a significant role shaping concepts and relationships. The participatory process needs to take these into consideration and possibly exploit them, while maintaining a clear distinction between history and its simplified popular representation. In the village of Seneghe, many believe the following, unconfirmed, historical origin of the right of common use of ‘‘su Monte’’: ‘‘it is the heritage of a medieval Spanish lady who owned the land; she loved children but had none of her own, so she passed the property over to the children of Seneghe’’. This belief helps to explain the roots of the strong feelings citizens have for their common lands: the property cannot be sold because children cannot sign contracts, so these lands must be preserved and used for their benefit! Over the past 50 years, forest products and services – firewood, cattle grazing and sheltering (during harsh winter and summer periods) – have been continuously exploited with no protection from over-exploitation apart from the personal awareness of the forest guards and communal administrators. Previous attempts to produce a forest management plan, theoretically a legal obligation, have failed. Today, firewood resources are in a critical condition, as interventions during recent decades have resulted in the conversion of over half of the common woodlands: firewood-producing coppices have been slowly replaced by high forest and, in recent years, clearcutting has occurred over an extensive area. Since firewood harvesting is an unofficial (i.e. non-taxable) work opportunity for a limited though significant number of residents, there is strong resistance to limiting such privileges. As a result, whatever the technical advantages of planning may be, they are not sufficient to persuade the community to take actions needed to counteract the cultural decline of their common right. The contrast between the strong socio-cultural unity which the population experiences during the period of woodcutting and the claim of rights to withdraw unlimited wood supplies from a limited resource simply because the right exists, indicates the lack of awareness of the complexity of the forest system and of the benefits that it can provide on a sustainable basis through management planning. By facilitating LocalAgenda21-like participation processes, the ForEnCarb project
124
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
aims to recover and restore genuine traditional forest knowledge and management practices, integrating them into longterm climate change mitigation projects. Success will necessarily involve evaluating and comparing opportunities, and contrasting economic, environmental and socio-cultural implications of practicable climate change mitigation options. Historical analyses are essential to these ends. If successful, the project will help to inform sustainable recovery strategies in other forest and woodland commons. Acknowledgments The research was carried out as part of the pilot project ForEnCarb, financed by the Sustainable Development Service of the Regione Sardegna, through the Seneghe commune and the consortium for university development of Nuoro, with the scientific support of the University of Sassari and the ProgettoBosco-Riselvitalia national research program. Many thanks are due to the large number of students, young professionals, and public servants who contributed to the project. We would like to particularly acknowledge the assistance of the following co-workers: Dott. Arghittu Valentina, Dott. Fenu Giuseppe, Obinu Antonio, Salaris Marco and Pintus Martina for their research on woodcutting and grazing; Dott. Pallanza Simona, Camedda Paolo and Frau Ivano of the forest service (CFVA) for their logistical and technical support; Dott. Ibba Cristian, Dott. Marongiu Mauro and Dott. Cabiddu Angelo of the initial ForEnCarb implementation group. The institutional support of the forest service provided by Oristano (Dott. Mavuli Sebastiano and Dott. Giannasi Maria Piera), as well as that of Seneghe (com. Cadoni) and the Seneghe commune council (Dott. Cubeddu Salvatore and Dott. Diego Feurra) is recognized and appreciated. Finally, Mr. Gianmario Sgrignani, Mr. Sebastiano Uras, Mr. Tonino Salaris and all Seneghe residents deserve special thanks for the extremely kind way the community both promoted and participated in this project. References Agnoletti, M., Scotti, R., 2004. Pianificazione e risorse paesaggistiche in area mediterranea: verso una critica degli attuali modelli di sostenibilita`. In: Atti del convegno nazionale—Piante della macchia mediterranea: dagli usi
tradizionali alle nuove opportunita` agro-industriali. Italus Hortus 4 (11/ numero speciale), pp. 25–30. Angius-Casalis, G., 1833–1855. Dizionario geografico storico statistico commerciale degli stati di S. M. il re di Sardegna, vol. I–XXVII. Editrice Sardegna-Cagliari, Torino. Beccu, E., 2000. Tra cronaca e storia le vicende del patrimonio boschivo della Sardegna. Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari. Bollier, D., 2002. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. Routledge, New York. Brundu, G., Tsiourlis, G., Kemper, T., Delogu, G., Kazantzidis, S., Konstandinidis, P., Monaci, G., Pallanza, S., Papoulia, S., Sommer, S., Mehl, W., 2004. Reconciling agro-silvo-pastoral landuse systems with nature conservation and environmental protection issues: the Sardinia and Lagadas case studies. Georange Science Meeting, 11/12 March 2004, JRC Ispra, Italy, http:// www.georange.org/georange/concepts/g12_brundu_sardinia_lagadas.pdf. Cadoni, M., 2004. Pianificazione territoriale e forestale: gerarchie, complementarieta` e sovrapposizione degli strumenti che le norme prevedono. Tesi di laurea, Universita` degli studi di Sassari, Facolta` di Agraria, Nuoro. D’Arborea, E., 2003. La Carta de Logu. In: Brigaglia, M. (Ed.), La Biblioteca della Nuova Sardegna. Editoriale la Nuova Sardegna, Sassari, pp. 25–247. De Martini, A., Liori, A., Carta, E., Todde, S.A., Abis, A., d’Angelo, M., Careddu, M.B., 2007. Piano forestale ambientale regionale—Rapporto ambientale. Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Cagliari, http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_46_20070208100408.pdf. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248. Merlo, M., 1995. Common property forest management in northern Italy: a historical and socio-economic profile. In: Dembner, S.A. (Ed.), Common Property Forest Resource Management. Unasylva 180 (46), 58–63. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Pili Deriu, R., 1993. Seneghe, vita di un antico borgo rurale. Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari. Ray, P.H., Anderson, S.R., 2000. The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World. Harmony Books, New York. Salaris, M., Obinu, A., 2004. Indagine sulla fruizione del diritto di uso civico di pascolamento a su Monte di Seneghe (OR). Comune di Seneghe (rapporto conclusivo borsa di studio, relazione di tirocinio). Universita` degli studi di Sassari, Facolta` di Agraria, Nuoro. Scotti, R., Ruiu, P.A., Sitzia, M., 2005. Grazing cows in a forest restoration area in Sardinia: 25 years of experimental data. In: Georgoudis, A., Rosati, A., Mosconi, C. (Eds.), Animal Production and Natural Resources Utilization in the Mediterranean Mountain Areas. EAAP Publication 115, Iohannina, Greece, pp. 73–81. Thompson Jr., B.H., 2000. Tragically difficult: the obstacles to governing the commons. In: Olin, J.M. (Ed.), Program in Law and Economics. Working Paper 187. Stanford Law School, Stanford, pp. 1–54. Todde, G., 2003. Ademprivio. In: Maurandi, P., Deonette, T. (Eds.), Scritti economici sulla Sardegna. Centro di Studi Filologici Sardi/CUEC, Cagliari, pp. 36–345.
A historical analysis of traditional common forest planning and management in Seneghe, Sardinia—Lessons for sustainable development Roberto Scotti *, Marisa Cadoni Universita` di Sassari, Forestry School of Nuoro, Via Cristoforo Colombo 1, 08100 Nuoro, Italy Received 11 December 2006; received in revised form 9 May 2007; accepted 21 May 2007
Abstract Common lands are known for the management problems they experience as well for their unique contributions to local communities cultural heritage. Forest knowledge and management of the commons represents a relevant component of this heritage that is being progressively lost when critical management problems are not solved. Sustainable development actions that, through participatory processes, involve the community in strategy design and implementation, offer a great opportunity to preserve commons cultural heritage and take best advantage of available knowledge. ForEnCarb is a pilot project financed by the Sustainable Development Service of Sardinia’s regional administration, with scientific support of Sassari University. The project goal is to promote sustainable development of Seneghe, a local community of inner Sardinia, by effectively implementing provisions of the international agreements to combat climate change through forest planning programs. Most of Seneghe’s forest area is in common land. For countless generations its residents have been entitled to collect wood, to hunt and to graze their cattle and sheep on these lands. In support of a process towards sustainable forest management, our study focused on the social and cultural heritage of the local community and the historical development of its territorial identity, with specific reference to forest-related knowledge. The paper presents the first results of an analysis of forest service archive documents and town council deliberations found in municipal and state archives. The sources used include the documentation from the 19th and 20th centuries, but enlighten only fragments of history since a large number of potentially useful documents have been lost or destroyed. Results include a time series analysis of allowances for cattle access, wood withdrawal and occurrence of forest fires. We conclude that woodlands subject to common rights carry a high symbolic value for this community, but social sensitivity concerning forest management practices, while necessary, is not sufficient to encourage sustainable practices. Integration in sustainable development processes, such as this climate change mitigation project, offers hope to reverse such a cultural decline. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Common rights reclamation; Estovers; Fire; ForEnCarb; Forest history; Forest management planning; Land-use rights; Grazing; Wood energy
1. Introduction 1.1. A brief history of common lands and their management in Sardinia The centuries-old uses of the forest commons comprise a significant part of what remains of the traditional forest knowledge and management practices in Italy. However, while common lands make important contributions to local communities and their cultural heritage, their effective and sustainable
* Corresponding author at: Via Trecento, 146/A, 50025 Montespertoli (FI), Italy. Tel.: +39 0328 4921759; fax: +39 0623 3204598. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Scotti). 0378-1127/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.027
management presents many challenges. The problem of commons management is extensively quoted using the title of Hardin’s paper ‘‘The tragedy of the commons’’ (Hardin, 1968). However, as Thompson (2000) pointed out, ‘‘Most of the recent academic literature on the tragedy of the commons has examined why some commons do not lead to tragic consequences. Ostrom (1990) and others have shown that local communities throughout the world sometimes have been able to avoid ‘tragedy’ through the development of local management institutions’’. Similar cases have been documented for northern Italy (Merlo, 1995). The commons include many forms of collective rights that do not necessarily correspond to modern classification as either private or public property ownership. The Italian expression ‘‘usi civici’’, equivalent to the older usage of the word
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
‘‘common’’, denotes rights traditionally exercised by a community in its use of land or particular natural resource for defined purposes such as grazing or wood collection. More recent documents extend this meaning to cover a much wider range of tangible and intangible goods (Bollier, 2002). Although the heterogeneous nature of commons ownership makes it difficult to quantify the extent of common lands in Italy,1 we estimate that the country’s common lands area is in the range of 50,000–100,000 km2. In Sardinia, the total area of common woods is estimated at 1200 km2 (De Martini et al., 2007). Traditional rights, still exercised in many places, include common pasture (right to pasture cattle, sheep or other animals on the common land) and estovers or ‘‘legnatico’’ in Italian, i.e., the right to take sufficient wood for the commoner’s household or agricultural needs. During the last centuries, in Italy and elsewhere in the world, commons have been privatized or are under threat of privatization, a process often promoted or justified as a solution to land mismanagement problems. In 1882, the dean of the Faculty of Economy of Cagliari published a very extensive research report documenting the evolution of common rights known as ‘‘ademprivio’’ (Todde, 2003). In his work, he refers to the norms established through the ‘‘Prammatiche’’, a collection of laws compiled and ordered by the authoritative jurisprudent Don Francesco Vito and adopted by king Filippo IV in 1633, which established the limitations to which common land rights are subject. These concerned direct satisfaction of basic needs of the commoners, beyond which were the landlord’s rights, so that commoners do not have a right to sell or alienate goods or benefits from the common. In those times a portion of land subject to external rights was called ‘‘imperfect property’’ while free private property was considered ‘‘perfect’’. The history of common lands in Sardinia is documented in some detail in Beccu’s work on the island’s forest chronicle (Beccu, 2000). He notes that, the words ‘‘ademprivio’’ and ‘‘cussorgia’’, still used today to denote common rights, are used in the same ways as they were in documents as early as the 14th century during the Aragon period. In 1800, during the Savoy era, the ‘‘Description of historical, political and legal status of woodland of Sardinia Reign’’,2 recognized and detailed the characteristics of common rights in terms equivalent to those of the 1633 ‘‘Prammatiche’’. During the 19th century the ‘‘suppression’’ of common rights was promoted in Sardinia as a positive and necessary step towards modern development. The 1839 regulation (after the ‘‘Carta Reale’’ of 26 February 1839) moved in this direction by setting the terms for abolishment of common rights that exceeded current needs and uses, and promoted the establishment of modern basis for private property. One 1863 law ceded the rights of over 2000 km2 of common lands (‘‘ademprivi’’) to the railway 1 http://www.legambientetoscana.it/news/comst.asp?idnews=60 (14 July 2003), http://www.italia.attac.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=711 (27 June 2005), http://www.jus.unitn.it/usi_civici/convegni/12rs/comunicazioni.html (16–17 November 2006, see dr. Macrı` A.). 2 ‘‘Discorso istorico politico legale dei boschi e selve del Regno di Sardegna’’ (anonymous) dated 15 March 1800 (Beccu, 2000).
117
company to pay for railway construction. A 1865 law declared common rights suppressed and attempted to obligate the communes to sell (in three years time!) all land subject to ‘‘ademprivio’’ or ‘‘cussorgia’’. Later, as the failure of this law caused serious problems, the 1897 law under the heading ‘‘Diverse measures in favor of Sardinia’’, took a different approach: all unsold areas were given over to the newly created bank ‘‘Cassa Ademprivile’’, today known as the ‘‘Cassa di Credito Agrario’’. Despite these measures, ancient common rights are still exercised today and the local people continue to enjoy woodcutting and grazing rights. In Sardinia, as in many other countries, the actual exercise of common rights (beyond the institutional level) has, for several decades, been very controversial. On one hand, ‘‘traditional’’ common land management practices are quite often tragically unsustainable. On the other hand, common lands represent a remarkable heritage of environmental wealth, economic relations and sociocultural values. Landscape and environment protection laws in Italy, since 1939, have established specific conservation regimes for ‘‘usi civici’’. The recent innovative Regional Landscape Management Plan of Sardinia,3 setting the framework for sustainable development of the island, has also recognized ‘‘usi civici’’ lands as historical memory, a living connection with landscape meaning as an element of local cultural identity. 1.2. Project background At the international level as well as in Italy, many formal bodies and less formal groups are making efforts to preserve collective ownership traditions and prevent the loss of what they consider an important cultural heritage (Ray and Anderson, 2000).4 Along the lines discussed by Ostrom (1990), the Forest, Energy and Carbon (ForEnCarb) project is searching for a solution to forest commons management problems that, unlike privatization or authoritarian centralized governmental control, is based on small-scale collective institutions, and aims to preserve, develop and transfer commons cultural heritage to future generations. ForEnCarb is a pilot project of the Sardinia regional administration’s Sustainable Development Service arising from the ‘‘Intelligent Energy Europe’’ action proposal issued in 2003 by the regional administration’s Environmental Defense Department. The project’s long-term objective is to enhance the value of trees and woody agricultural residues as substitutes for fossil fuels, and that of forests as long-term carbon sinks, thereby exploiting forests carbon-credits under the Kyoto 3 Decree of the President of the Regione, 7 settembre 2006, n. 82. ‘‘Approvazione del Piano Paesaggistico Regionale . . .’’ (BURAS n.30, 8 set 2006), http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_22_20060911101100.pdf. 4 See, for example, The Commons Institute (http://www.mercury.org.au/tci home.htm); Associazione nazionale usi civici e proprieta` collettive (http:// www.usicivici.it/index.htm); Consulta nazionale della proprieta` collettiva (http://www.jus.unitn.it/usi_civici/consulta/presentazione.html); Appello contro la privatizzazione degli usi civici (27 June 2005, www.italia.attac.org/spip/ article.php3?id_article=711).
118
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Protocol. An essential prerequisite to achieving this long-term goal is the development and implementation of an effective forest planning and management system, currently lacking in this and many other Italian regions. The Sardinian regional administration chose Seneghe township, in the province of Oristano, as the pilot project location since a forest management plan for Seneghe’s common woodlands was already in the process of development. Seneghe families are heavily involved in the exploitation of their common rights to collect firewood and to graze their herds (cows and sheep) in the ‘‘non-private’’ woods of the township. Without a management plan, overexploitation problems have arisen which have not been adequately addressed, and have jeopardized future prospects for the preservation, development and sound utilization of the community’s common rights and cultural heritage. The sustainability5 of such activities is undermined from several perspectives. Ecologically, without appropriate management support tools, exploitation interventions negatively affect forest stand growth and reduce ecosystem complexity. Economically, the only significant contribution of current practices are the work and commerce opportunities that common firewood collection provides, but these activities often conflict with the spirit of common rights exploitation and are, in fact, illegal. From the socio-cultural point of view, firewood gathering is potentially a highly relevant activity that provides an opportunity for a great part of the township to meet and share time together in the woods although, as currently practiced, this is becoming more of a private occupation and the sense of its being a civic right is being progressively lost. To design a robust sustainability planning framework, consolidated Rio92 criteria (as they are implemented through, for example, the UN conventions on biodiversity, climate change and desertification) are not sufficient; landscape characterization and future development requires much more careful consideration (Agnoletti and Scotti, 2004). In the process of ForEnCarb project development, historical analysis of local events that have shaped the institutional, social and ecological structure of Seneghe’s forests can provide essential support to guide future actions. Such an analysis requires careful review of documented information in order to distinguish widely held views and beliefs from erroneous convictions, probable or just possible events, unverified stories or even meaningful myths. Although the citizens of Seneghe are generally aware that current practices are not ecologically, economically and/or socio-culturally sustainable, the problem as a whole is not perceived to be so severe as to require a civic action. Without effective input from outside the community, the tight culturally significant relationship that presently characterizes the inter-
5
In this paper, we follow the ‘‘Rio Declaration’’ meaning of sustainability as it relates to intergenerational equity and on the three basic elements of sustainability – ecological, economic and social – to be satisfied simultaneously, the latter being of particular relevance in the context of our project (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/confl51/aconfl5126-1 annex1.htm).
action between Seneghe’s people and their non-private woodlands is in danger of weakening, and disappearing altogether in the future. The paper reports the results of our initial work to identify, through an analysis of documented sources, relevant aspects of Seneghe’s local forestry history. Through this analysis we attempt to determine which elements of current knowledge perceived as ‘‘traditional’’ have been acquired through historic experience and which are actually too recent to be validated by experience or valued as a positive acquisition. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Geographical setting of Seneghe territory Seneghe, a village north of Oristano with a population of approximately 2000 (fewer than 700 families), is located on the southern lower slope of Montiferru, a large hilly range of volcanic origin in the central-west of Sardinia. At 350 m above sea level, the township overlooks the Campidano plain and the gulf of Oristano, and faces Mounts Arci and Grighini with a further view to the Gennargentu mountain summits. The communal territory of 5782 ha extends on the mountain slopes below and above the village. It is mostly used for pasture (2300 ha), but includes some nearly 300 ha of olive groves, 42 ha of vines, and approximately 500 ha of arable fields, of which only a part are regularly cultivated. The upper slopes, called ‘‘su Monte’’, reach a maximum elevation of 800 m, and include approximately 1800 ha of woods that are rich in holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) and cork oak (Q. suber L.). These woodlands are renowned in Sardinia as an amenity site.6 Approximately 900 ha of this forest is traditionally used as common land. The current land-uses and their distribution roughly correspond to that reported in the mid-19th century ‘‘Historical Statistical and Geographical Dictionary of the states of H.M. the King of Sardinia’’ (Angius-Casalis, 1833). Cadenneghe, Sos Paris, Funtanas and Biarzu, ancient local names of the main land sub-compartments (‘‘ademprivio’’) of Seneghe’s mountainous territory, correspond to common lands. These are still actively used by local residents, with the exception of Biarzu, which was privatized in 1863 to finance Sardinian railway construction (Pili Deriu, 1993). 2.2. Common rights tradition in Seneghe Woodcutting and grazing are practiced today over most (900 ha) of the mountain territory, a tradition that can be traced back to the Giudicati era (900–1400 A.D.). The ‘‘Carta de Logu’’ (D’Arborea, 2003), a collection of written laws published around 1392 by Eleonora D’Arborea, head (Giudice) of the ‘‘Giudicato di Arborea’’ (today’s Oristano province), documents collective land use rights that were well established at the time. Seneghe was part of this Giudicato; on the ‘‘Monte’’ 6
http://www.sardegnaforeste.it/documentazione/immagini/seneghe.html.
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
horses and cattle belonging to the Giudice were foddered, while the people of Seneghe could exercise their rights of grazing, fire wood cutting, wood gathering and hunting. These rights, exercised through the centuries to the present days, are deeply rooted in the culture of the people of Seneghe. The strong feelings connecting the village with the woodland are expressed by the popular saying ‘‘su Monte est su nostru’’: ‘‘Lands and woods in the upper part of the mountain are our (common) possession’’.
119
the cadastral land-use classifications in the Old and in the New Land Registry (i.e., from 1866 to the present) we found an increase in the forest area from 953 to 996 ha. However, it is difficult to distinguish between the effects of two different processes on this increase. Following the suspension of grazing, natural re-colonization of trees (i.e., forest succession) has occurred in some areas. At the same time there is circumstantial evidence that, through careful management of grazing, part of today’s forest has developed on sites where earlier there were only sparse isolated trees.
2.3. Archival research 3.2. The right to gather firewood The survey used in this study was developed by analyzing all relevant, accessible, public archives, including those of the Seneghe commune (town council documents dating from 1885 to 1996), of the forest and environment rangers service (i.e., archives of Seneghe forest service ‘‘CFVA—Corpo Forestale e di Vigilanza Ambientale’’, dating from 1950 to 2000), and the state archives of Oristano and Cagliari (Cadoni, 2004). This analysis was integrated with information from local and regional research. The collected archival data covered both the social– cultural aspects of the Seneghe area, and focused on local traditions related to the norms of different historical periods. The archival data, consisting mostly of town council deliberations dealing principally with conservation problems, was fragmented and discontinuous through time for several reasons. First, Oristano territory was part of Cagliari province until 1974, and due to this relatively recent local administrative reorganization, our study was complicated by the need to locate relevant documents in the state and forest service archives of Oristano and Cagliari. Research in the Seneghe town council archives was also complicated by the loss of many relevant documents that occurred when they were moved and temporarily stored with inadequate protection during the 1950s. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the collected material was analyzed and classified with particular reference to firewood, pasture, production of charcoal and the problem of wildfires. Finally our research was complemented by interviews with available privileged witnesses which permitted us, in some cases, to fill in some of the gaps in the data and in others to document specific uses such as the use of the woodlands for charcoal production. For this study, we interviewed many residents who had been directly involved in forestry, including three specifically involved in charcoal production: the son of one of the charcoal production concessionaires of Seneghe, a former mayor of the town (from 1965 to 1985) who, as young man, worked for local charcoal producers, and a member of an important land-owing family who was also involved as young man in local charcoal production. 3. Results 3.1. Changes in forest area since the mid-19th century One of the documents found in the Oristano state archive was the Old Land Registry of Seneghe commune, which covered the period up to 1866. Comparing the distribution of
The study documents dealing with the right to gather firewood showed the earliest deliberations on this issue dating back to 1909. Until 1950, mentions of the common right to gather or cut firewood are only sporadic. During the period 1950–1960 there was a substantial change in practices, and only since the end of the 1960s was the current biennial right of woodcutting regularly exercised and documented. The few references to the sale of single trees from the early 20th century referred to the satisfaction of the immediate necessities of the population. The town council deliberation of 7 February 1909, for example, directs the exercise of these rights towards improving the condition of the forest by ‘‘thinning’’. Archival documents include the first known general regulation of common rights issued by Seneghe town council, dating back to 1912, and refer explicitly to the connection between forest cutting and the production of charcoal. The text of this deliberation affirms that ‘‘the practice confirmed the general opinion, that the charcoal-burners are the ruination of the mountain because, while taking advantage of the permits accorded to them, they acted as real vandals’’. Later (in a deliberation issued 20 December 1941 by the national commissioner ruling the town because no mayor could be appointed at that time in Seneghe) the practice of charcoalmaking is referred to differently; it is considered necessary for ‘‘tackling the problem of scarcity of coal in the whole region’’. Given the document preservation problems noted above, the lack of information concerning this period cannot be interpreted as an indication that common rights were not exercised throughout this period. Furthermore these practices were not always subject to registration, and therefore not necessarily documented in official archives. Between 1950 and 1960, the aims and methods of utilization changed radically: charcoal production declined rapidly as charcoal businesses disappeared, and the citizens of Seneghe once more availed themselves of the right to gather firewood for family use. During this period new sources of domestic energy, like gas, became more widely available, reducing the demand for charcoal and firewood. The exercise of common right for all the residents to collect wood is now perceived as a well-established tradition. Every two years, through personal contacts and (often cryptic) formal letters, the town administration and the forest service agree to coordinate woodcutting in a portion of the forest, setting out
120
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Fig. 1. Wood cutting areas within Seneghe commons from 1980 to 2002. (Source: Forest Service ‘‘CFVA’’, 2003.)
regulations that determine the amount that each family can collect and the corresponding payments. This kind of biennial ritual has created, in a relatively short time, a strong sense of socio-cultural unity and identity within the community. These wood harvests can be evaluated only partly by examining the sequence of deliberations related to its regulation. Between 1974 and 1994 only eight documents are available, with two years probably missing from the available records. Moreover, brushwood (assortments with diameter of less than 5 cm) were not registered, nor were the smaller withdrawals of larger diameter wood. After 2000, as part of one of the last efforts of the forest service to persuade the town administration to develop a forest management plan, woodcutting areas have been reconstructed, a posteriori, creating a map of the spatial distribution of the interventions between 1980 and 2002 (Fig. 1). This analysis shows a steady increase through this period in the area where these harvests have occurred. The forest service, both as its institutional duty but also concerned about the consequences of this trend, has repeatedly urged the town administration to develop a forest management plan that is compulsory for forests under public administration under the general forest law (Law no. 3247/1923).
specifications that dictate starting and closing dates, the locality, type of livestock permitted, the fee to be paid per animal and, in some cases, the maximum number of animals per unit land area, and specifying areas of exclusion which had been recently utilized for woodcutting. The number of documents present in the archives related to common right of grazing is much greater than those related to woodcutting rights. The homogeneity and consistency of the data permitted an analysis of grazing based on the registrations for the period 1982–2003 (Fig. 2). During this period it can be observed that, in addition to a marked inter-annual variability from 300 to 600 UBA (adult bovine equivalent units, including both sheep and cattle), there is also a strong variation in the overall density of grazing animals. Considering 0.5 UBA/ha as an approximate threshold for prudent livestock loading (Scotti et al., 2005), the lower values registered in Seneghe (0.3–0.5 UBA/ha) are roughly within the limits of sustainability while upper values (1.3 UBA/ha) can be excessive, depending on grazing duration and season.
3.3. The common right of grazing The common right to use the forest for grazing has been documented since 1883, the year the first deliberation of livestock capitulation was registered by the Seneghe town council. At this time, the permission to graze on the common lands was explicitly motivated by the need to ‘‘get rid of all the existing grass in the forest before the summer in order to avoid, as much as possible, the fires when the grass dries up’’. Access of livestock to the forest is allowed for two brief periods, one in summer and one in winter, with certain
Fig. 2. Registered cattle and sheep access to Seneghe commons from 1982 to 2002. (Source: Seneghe Commune Archives, 2003.)
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Through a specific survey (Salaris and Obinu, 2004) livestock density in the forest has been mapped for the period 2000–2004 (Fig. 3). It can bee seen that areas of high concentration are rather limited, whereas the areas classified as expansion areas, sporadically used, are extensive. From an economic point of view grazing in the forest is perhaps of limited interest, but its relevance is probably greater from the socio-cultural point of view. Since farmers in Seneghe represent an extensive and influential sector of the local society, the issues related to common grazing rights are of great social sensitivity, much more so than questions related to the common right of woodcutting. Nonetheless, the perpetuation of this tradition in both the short and long term is jeopardized by weaknesses in the general socio-economic and cultural framework of the territory. 3.4. Charcoal production Charcoal production in Seneghe may have been carried out as early or earlier than the middle of the 19th century. Beccu (2000) reports that, in Sardinia, ‘‘. . . in the second half of the past century the production and exportation of charcoal grew enormously, using rather big trees instead of relying on shoots as was used in the past’’. However, our archival research yielded few specific data concerning the production of charcoal, despite the historical importance of this activity. This may have been due to the fact that cutting requests for fuel wood and charcoal are not easily distinguished in the documents reviewed. We therefore rely on direct and indirect accounts collected through our interviews from which we conclude that production of charcoal was a significant activity in Seneghe from the 1940s to 1950s. Concessions for charcoal production were requested by two or three companies who utilized different forest areas in the territory.
121
The testimonials collected on how these forests were managed for charcoal production are sometimes contradictory, and may be a consequence of the complex (probably disordered) conditions of the woodlands themselves. In some parts the forest structure was characterized by larger trees, at varying densities, and therefore with variable understory tree and shrub composition, while in other parts coppice stands were the dominant structural component. Consequently, some of those we interviewed reported having witnessed the production of charcoal by selective cutting of large trees, while others remembered cutting more in a coppice clear-cut fashion. Important evidence of the extension and intensity of charcoal production is found in the distribution and features of the charcoal burning sites in the forest. Clearings due to this activity are extremely numerous, and are still evident today as many of them are reinforced by walls. Although the tight network of these clearings of various sizes is quite evident in the aerial photographs of 1956, we were unable to estimate either annual charcoal production levels or even peak production years. 3.5. Forest fires The available data on fires allows us to reconstruct a history of their frequency in the Seneghe territory over quite a long period from the end of the 19th century up to the present. These data go back to 1881 (Beccu, 2000), shortly after data on fires began to be systematically recorded as a result of the first forestry law (1877) of the recently united Italian State. This law placed all the lands above the chestnut line under protection, and it obliged the forest service departments to register all forest interventions. The law instituted a compulsory ‘‘register of all the territories that had suffered fires’’ in which the land area, the locality, the kind of cultivation and the owners of the burnt areas were to be recorded. Seneghe forest, lying above
Fig. 3. Average cattle and sheep concentrations: 2000–2004. (Source: Salaris and Obinu, 2004.)
122
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
Fig. 4. Registered fire events occurring in Seneghe commons (1946–1994). (Source: Forest Service ‘‘CFVA’’, 2003.)
chestnut line, was subject to the protection regime of this law shortly after 1877 and hence its register was initiated with the 1881 fires, when three fires were recorded, for unknown causes, affecting an overall area of 65 ha of communal territory. Using the data from this archived forest service registry, along with the other information from other archival and direct witnesses, some important reference dates and interpretations regarding forest fire origins and their development can be established. No fire is documented in the register until the middle of the 20th century, but since we found a testimonial of a fire in 1946 in a separate, less formal document, it is likely that record-keeping in the register might have been defective. Registrations of fires were more frequent between 1952 and 1993. For more recent fires, the extent of the affected area or at
least the localities where these fires originated has been mapped (Fig. 4). The analysis of these data, summarized in the fire distribution map, indicates that fire has been a recurring problem, but also that it has been largely limited to the outer areas of the forest. Seneghe is, in fact, proud of its forest protection ability; which is supported by the information from the registers, particularly those of recent decades. A European project (Brundu et al., 2004) produced a map (Fig. 5) using remote sensing data that reconstructs the sequence of fires occurring over the last 20 years on the Seneghe side of Montiferru. This map shows that forest fires affected Seneghe to a much lesser extent than neighboring communes.
Fig. 5. Fires occurring in and around Seneghe between 1995 and 2002. Total area of the Sengeghe commune is approximately 5800 ha (Source: Brundu et al., 2004.) Key—thick lines: commune administrative boundaries; grey patches: areas classified as burnt in different years through remote sensing processing procedures; the fine line denotes the southern limit of ‘‘su Monte’’ common forest in the Seneghe commune.
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
4. Discussion In support of the planning framework which the ForEnCarb project aims to develop, the historic–bibliographic analysis reported in this paper focuses on the local cultural heritage related to forests and wood in the Seneghe commune. Our results underlined contrasting features: while the community has historically cared for its forest and would significantly benefit from the adoption of sustainable management practices, it does not appear to be able to perceive the mid- to long-term benefits that would arise from the relatively low, short-term investments required to move in this direction. The severe fragmentation of documentary data makes it difficult to conclusively answer the basic questions which guided our study: what are the main natural and anthropogenic processes that have shaped the forest as we see it today? Were coppicing systems extensively used, and managed, for charcoal production? Or, considering the question from an operational standpoint: are existing coppices really traditional, used for charcoal production for more than a century, or are they simply the result of relatively recent management interventions, e.g., clear-cuts after fires? The attachment of the population to its territory can be considered an element of sustainability in the case of the use of the forest for grazing and as far as safeguarding the forest against fires is concerned. Forest grazing, in spite of the fact that small areas are overexploited, creates only limited problems which could be easily resolved through rational management of this activity. The low frequency of fires, compared to neighboring communes and other regions of Sardinia, is an indication of a strong sense of property and attachment of the population to their ‘‘su Monte’’. Finally, despite the documentation difficulties discussed earlier, it seems clear that the traditional know-how related to silvicultural management have in part died out and in part been distorted as commonly accepted hearsay. Today’s forest woodcutting customs do not stem from a traditional silvicultural activity. Rather, they represent an irrational exploitation of a fragile resource instead of a forest renovation based system aimed at maintaining the highest possible ecological standards. 5. Conclusions Despite the challenges and difficulties involved in our analysis of forest management history at the local level, we maintain that such historical analyses are worthwhile, and should be considered a required step in the preparation of sustainable development actions (Agnoletti and Scotti, 2004). Sustainable development projects that concern common forests need to pay very specific attention to local historical analyses since all main components of sustainability – ecological, economic and socio-cultural – are affected. From an economic standpoint, common forests management requirements can be relatively easily met if the community can afford the costs, while the attainment of ecological and socio-cultural components of sustainability are much more demanding. Evaluation of the impacts of forest management on the ecological system
123
requires an analysis of resource conditions over time, supported by historical records. The socio-cultural dimension is more than just an aspect of common forests, it is part of the essence of this resource, and the preservation and enhancement of its sociocultural values should be based on, and shaped by, historical analysis. Moreover, participatory approaches to the design and implementation of development activities are essential methodological keys to sustainable development and sound historical analyses are fundamental inputs for such processes. These processes need to resolve conflicting requests, based on diverging opinions that are frequently rooted in different perceptions of local history. If, for a given question, the historical analyses do not provide clear answers, only compromise solutions can be sought. If, however, welldocumented answers to controversial local historical questions can be produced, resolution of conflicting requests can yield benefits by development of more farsighted approaches. In addition, local myths often play a significant role shaping concepts and relationships. The participatory process needs to take these into consideration and possibly exploit them, while maintaining a clear distinction between history and its simplified popular representation. In the village of Seneghe, many believe the following, unconfirmed, historical origin of the right of common use of ‘‘su Monte’’: ‘‘it is the heritage of a medieval Spanish lady who owned the land; she loved children but had none of her own, so she passed the property over to the children of Seneghe’’. This belief helps to explain the roots of the strong feelings citizens have for their common lands: the property cannot be sold because children cannot sign contracts, so these lands must be preserved and used for their benefit! Over the past 50 years, forest products and services – firewood, cattle grazing and sheltering (during harsh winter and summer periods) – have been continuously exploited with no protection from over-exploitation apart from the personal awareness of the forest guards and communal administrators. Previous attempts to produce a forest management plan, theoretically a legal obligation, have failed. Today, firewood resources are in a critical condition, as interventions during recent decades have resulted in the conversion of over half of the common woodlands: firewood-producing coppices have been slowly replaced by high forest and, in recent years, clearcutting has occurred over an extensive area. Since firewood harvesting is an unofficial (i.e. non-taxable) work opportunity for a limited though significant number of residents, there is strong resistance to limiting such privileges. As a result, whatever the technical advantages of planning may be, they are not sufficient to persuade the community to take actions needed to counteract the cultural decline of their common right. The contrast between the strong socio-cultural unity which the population experiences during the period of woodcutting and the claim of rights to withdraw unlimited wood supplies from a limited resource simply because the right exists, indicates the lack of awareness of the complexity of the forest system and of the benefits that it can provide on a sustainable basis through management planning. By facilitating LocalAgenda21-like participation processes, the ForEnCarb project
124
R. Scotti, M. Cadoni / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 116–124
aims to recover and restore genuine traditional forest knowledge and management practices, integrating them into longterm climate change mitigation projects. Success will necessarily involve evaluating and comparing opportunities, and contrasting economic, environmental and socio-cultural implications of practicable climate change mitigation options. Historical analyses are essential to these ends. If successful, the project will help to inform sustainable recovery strategies in other forest and woodland commons. Acknowledgments The research was carried out as part of the pilot project ForEnCarb, financed by the Sustainable Development Service of the Regione Sardegna, through the Seneghe commune and the consortium for university development of Nuoro, with the scientific support of the University of Sassari and the ProgettoBosco-Riselvitalia national research program. Many thanks are due to the large number of students, young professionals, and public servants who contributed to the project. We would like to particularly acknowledge the assistance of the following co-workers: Dott. Arghittu Valentina, Dott. Fenu Giuseppe, Obinu Antonio, Salaris Marco and Pintus Martina for their research on woodcutting and grazing; Dott. Pallanza Simona, Camedda Paolo and Frau Ivano of the forest service (CFVA) for their logistical and technical support; Dott. Ibba Cristian, Dott. Marongiu Mauro and Dott. Cabiddu Angelo of the initial ForEnCarb implementation group. The institutional support of the forest service provided by Oristano (Dott. Mavuli Sebastiano and Dott. Giannasi Maria Piera), as well as that of Seneghe (com. Cadoni) and the Seneghe commune council (Dott. Cubeddu Salvatore and Dott. Diego Feurra) is recognized and appreciated. Finally, Mr. Gianmario Sgrignani, Mr. Sebastiano Uras, Mr. Tonino Salaris and all Seneghe residents deserve special thanks for the extremely kind way the community both promoted and participated in this project. References Agnoletti, M., Scotti, R., 2004. Pianificazione e risorse paesaggistiche in area mediterranea: verso una critica degli attuali modelli di sostenibilita`. In: Atti del convegno nazionale—Piante della macchia mediterranea: dagli usi
tradizionali alle nuove opportunita` agro-industriali. Italus Hortus 4 (11/ numero speciale), pp. 25–30. Angius-Casalis, G., 1833–1855. Dizionario geografico storico statistico commerciale degli stati di S. M. il re di Sardegna, vol. I–XXVII. Editrice Sardegna-Cagliari, Torino. Beccu, E., 2000. Tra cronaca e storia le vicende del patrimonio boschivo della Sardegna. Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari. Bollier, D., 2002. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. Routledge, New York. Brundu, G., Tsiourlis, G., Kemper, T., Delogu, G., Kazantzidis, S., Konstandinidis, P., Monaci, G., Pallanza, S., Papoulia, S., Sommer, S., Mehl, W., 2004. Reconciling agro-silvo-pastoral landuse systems with nature conservation and environmental protection issues: the Sardinia and Lagadas case studies. Georange Science Meeting, 11/12 March 2004, JRC Ispra, Italy, http:// www.georange.org/georange/concepts/g12_brundu_sardinia_lagadas.pdf. Cadoni, M., 2004. Pianificazione territoriale e forestale: gerarchie, complementarieta` e sovrapposizione degli strumenti che le norme prevedono. Tesi di laurea, Universita` degli studi di Sassari, Facolta` di Agraria, Nuoro. D’Arborea, E., 2003. La Carta de Logu. In: Brigaglia, M. (Ed.), La Biblioteca della Nuova Sardegna. Editoriale la Nuova Sardegna, Sassari, pp. 25–247. De Martini, A., Liori, A., Carta, E., Todde, S.A., Abis, A., d’Angelo, M., Careddu, M.B., 2007. Piano forestale ambientale regionale—Rapporto ambientale. Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Cagliari, http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_46_20070208100408.pdf. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248. Merlo, M., 1995. Common property forest management in northern Italy: a historical and socio-economic profile. In: Dembner, S.A. (Ed.), Common Property Forest Resource Management. Unasylva 180 (46), 58–63. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Pili Deriu, R., 1993. Seneghe, vita di un antico borgo rurale. Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari. Ray, P.H., Anderson, S.R., 2000. The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World. Harmony Books, New York. Salaris, M., Obinu, A., 2004. Indagine sulla fruizione del diritto di uso civico di pascolamento a su Monte di Seneghe (OR). Comune di Seneghe (rapporto conclusivo borsa di studio, relazione di tirocinio). Universita` degli studi di Sassari, Facolta` di Agraria, Nuoro. Scotti, R., Ruiu, P.A., Sitzia, M., 2005. Grazing cows in a forest restoration area in Sardinia: 25 years of experimental data. In: Georgoudis, A., Rosati, A., Mosconi, C. (Eds.), Animal Production and Natural Resources Utilization in the Mediterranean Mountain Areas. EAAP Publication 115, Iohannina, Greece, pp. 73–81. Thompson Jr., B.H., 2000. Tragically difficult: the obstacles to governing the commons. In: Olin, J.M. (Ed.), Program in Law and Economics. Working Paper 187. Stanford Law School, Stanford, pp. 1–54. Todde, G., 2003. Ademprivio. In: Maurandi, P., Deonette, T. (Eds.), Scritti economici sulla Sardegna. Centro di Studi Filologici Sardi/CUEC, Cagliari, pp. 36–345.