The sacred forests of Epirus as an example of management system for the “commons”

This article discusses the issue of the sacred forests of Epirus as a system of management of common resources or “commons”. By the term “commons” or common pool resources or collective resources we refer to natural or artificial resources to which non-excludable characteristics are attributed, as it is very difficult to exclude potential users from their possession, while their misuse can reduce the quantity available to others. Dozens of examples of collective resources management originate from different times and regions of the planet - the most typical of them refer to irrigation systems, coastal fishing grounds, pastures and forests. Their management is based on sets of rules that define governance structures, access, use, management frameworks, sanctioning and the mechanisms for resolving any conflicts. The rules are not imposed from outside in a coercive manner but are a collective product.

What are the sacred forests

The sacred forests of Epirus are an example of effective collective management of the commons. These are natural forests, usually near settlements, which are preserved as important for the functioning and survival of communities and protected through supernatural beliefs. The phrase sacred forest is used in the modern context and includes these forests among the Sacred Natural Sites of the planet1. The term is used by the global research community to designate areas that a range of individual or collective representations define as sites of special spiritual value and symbolic significance to adjacent communities, who conceptualize them as sacred.

Sacred forests are locally referred to as ecclesiastical, vacufian, meadows, eftapapada or excommunicated forests, or have names that denote the character of the place where they grow (e.g. Plae [side] in Mikro Papigo indicating a steep hillside), the type of vegetation (e.g. Pournaria in Aristi) or the name of the holy person to whom they are dedicated (e.g. Agios Nikolaos in Livadakia in Vitsa).

The forest of Greveniti

Our long-term work in mountainous Epirus resulted in the recording of sacred forests in almost every settlement of the municipalities of Zagori and Konitsa, which we thoroughly studied. Actually, following an interdisciplinary approach that combined collection of archive material, ecological data and ethnographic research, we applied the framework of Elinor Ostrom (1933-2012), who was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her analysis of the economic governance of common resources. Our aim was to examine the main socio-ecological processes interacting in the sacred forest of Greveniti in East Zagori over a period of 300 years, a period approaching the age of the oldest beech trees in the forest measured by dendrochronology.

During this period there were huge population, economic and social changes in the settlement –actually, during the Occupation, Greveniti was set alight more than three times by the German troops, who completely destroyed 297 houses and left behind 22 people dead, while the inhabitants found shelter in the forest. Despite the dramatic changes, however, the sacred forest continues to be preserved and is of great importance to the local community, which acts as its custodian. The sacred forest of Greveniti is preserved as a protector of the settlement and is considered an “eftapapado”, meaning that it is excommunicated by seven priests to prevent its use.

Multiple functions, flexible management

The protection of adjacent settlements from landslides, rockfalls or avalanches is the most important reason for the establishment and conservation of sacred forests in Epirus. Such protective forests are known in other parts of the country as “kefalaria”, and are even contained in the Forest Code as forests whose management is subject to special restrictions in the public interest (Article 69, Law 86/1969). Also, they often perform the function of protecting the underground aquifer, since they have sources of drinking water. Other sacred forests functioned as reserves, usually serving emergency needs of communities. Finally, they continue to serve aesthetic purposes, being “ornaments” of settlements and recreation places, as well as devotional purposes, as places of pilgrimage and places of local festivals. Each function does not exclude the others, confirming the concept of the multifunctional forest.

Since sacred forests are socio-ecological systems, it was discovered that their management could range from absolute protection, where all harvesting is prohibited, to the possibility of allowing fruit picking, grazing, removing dead branches lying on the ground, thinning or even timber harvesting in extremely exceptional cases. The community determined the form and type of management each time, in order to safeguard the security of the settlement, its natural resources and its survival in times of crisis. For example, forests made up of evergreen oak trees could provide their branches in the event of heavy and prolonged snowfalls in order to ensure the survival of the animals in the shed, kept by each family. In such exceptional circumstances, management was determined by community decisions and the benefits were reaped by the Church. In exceptional cases, the community, together with the Church, could decide timber harvesting to cover emergency needs or to carry out community service projects. A typical case is the construction of central temples or schools, and similar examples exist in other regions of the planet. In addition, the community had preservation mechanisms for its internal cohesion and stability and conflict avoidance mechanisms, allowing some levels of offensive behavior in the forest from its weak members. Thus, poor and destitute people could use the sacred forest in violation of the laws, at “their own risk” and at the price of sometimes God-given punishments for their sin.

Supernatural beliefs as a protection mechanism

The conservation of forests through supernatural beliefs was established during the years of Ottoman rule (in Epirus 1479-1913), when the Church, due to the self-administration status of some mountain communities, such as Zagori, found itself in the peculiar position of substituting the political and judicial power without having the mechanisms and institutions required for the implementation of the law. It therefore used fear generating mechanisms, such as excommunications, which in the case of the forests were, οn one side, a vague threat against potential offenders, but on the other side, were quite popular for resolving economic or social issues such as theft, border settlements or pasture claims. Potential offenders feared either the holy figures who acted as supernatural protectors of the forest, or the curses associated with excommunications and they invoked the passions of tragic biblical figures who defied the wrath of God. The consequences ranged from minor accidents, misfortunes, financial losses or disasters to serious accidents and sudden deaths of the offender's family members and animals, culminating tragically in the extinction of the offender's generation. At the same time they could result in social exclusion and post-mortem in the loss of soul salvation. After the incorporation of the region into the Greek state (1913), community decisions and Forest Prohibitory Orders often formally reiterated the customary prohibitions, establishing permitted and non-permitted uses of these forests. However, inhabitants continued to fear divine punishment more than the forest ranger, as they themselves confess, and it is supernatural beliefs that continue to protect sacred forests to this day.

Sacred forests in the modern context

Today, sacred forests represent a wide variety of vegetation types and forms related to the location, the reasons for their establishment and the history of each place and are considered extremely valuable elements of natural and cultural heritage. Since 2015, the sacred forests of the villages of Zagori and Konitsa have a place in the National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage as locally adapted management systems2. They are also components of the cultural landscape of Zagori, which was inscribed in September 2023 on the UNESCO World Heritage List3. In addition, since 2016 they have been a teaching subject in summer schools and undergraduate elective courses at the University of Ioannina4 and numerous educational5 and other materials6 have been produced to understand their value.

Marini - Govigli V., Efthymiou A., Stara K. (2021). “From religion to conservation: unfolding 300 years of collective action in a Greek sacred forest” Forest Policy and Economics 131: 102575

Stara K., Tsiakiris R., Nitsiakos V., Halley J.M. (2016). “Religion and the management of the commons: the sacred forests of Epirus”. In Agnoletti M., Emanueli F. (eds.). Biocultural Diversity in Europe. Verlag: Springer

Efthymiou A. (2019). Sacred forests and governance: A study of the Greveniti sacred protective forest in East Zagori using the Ostrom framework. Thesis. Ioannina. University of Ioannina, BET Department, Ecology Laboratory

Nitsiakos V. (2015). Peklari. Small Scale Social Economy. Ioannina: Isnafi

Stara K. (2022). “When matter becomes immaterial. The sacred forest as a management system of the commons of the past and a commodity of contemporary intangible cultural heritage”. In Nitsiakos V., Drinis G.N., Potiropoulos P. (eds.). Cultural Heritage: New Readings - Critical Approaches. Athens: Ars Nova