Vassilis Nitsiakos, Professor of Social Folklore Studies at the University of Ioannina, has been particularly concerned with mountain communities. In his interview with journalist Varvara Aggeli, he talks about the way in which these communities lived together with the natural environment and demonstrates that what we define as forest is determined by specific historical and political parameters.
What is the meaning of a forest? Is a current definition of “a complex ecosystem with plants and animals characterized by high tree density” correct?
Definitions change depending on the political choices at any given time. Today, approaches and, of course, definitions of ecological systems are increasingly converging with local “traditional” ways of thinking. According to the science of Forestry itself, the forest is an open and dynamic ecosystem, permanently exposed to external influences whose boundaries are not clear and whose uses are not strictly defined and static through space and time.
All these mean that the scientific approach is not consistent with any jurisprudence and legislation on land ownership and land uses in the countryside and furthermore that socio-political situations usually lead to the circumvention of scientific principles.
Scientifically, based on the concept of the open and dynamic character of forest ecosystems, what is and what is not a forest cannot be defined in strict terms. Especially in Greece, where there aren’t any “virgin” forests but everything is more or less shaped in accordance with human –forest and agro-pastoral activity–, the meaning of a forest must be considered in relation to history, political economy and local practices over time.
Can you explain us a little bit more about why there have never been virgin forests in Greece?
Even in very mountainous regions, large forests of beech and pine trees etc, belong tο the communal areas of stock raising communities therefore they are always a part of wider pastures, in the sense that they are lower than the mountain meadows so the herds have to pass through them to get there and are used in many ways, e.g. on rainy days for mushroom grazing or on sunny days for herd resting. Moreover, in these forests there are clearings and other bare areas, which are used for pasture, and are vital elements of the organization of the sheepherders’ territory.
It is also known that in the past and up to the most recent war, the system of ‘drying out’, meaning the deforestation for the purpose of cultivation, was also in force in these forests, a reality that has been inscribed in the places named “Rogia”, that exist in almost every village of the mountainous region, even in the Vlach nomadic farmers community.
As for the lower oak zone, it goes without saying that the combination of agriculture and stock raising did not leave any space for the development of large and dense forests, as pollarding was a basic practice aimed at securing food for stable animals during the winter months, since they did not move.
The word ‘forest itself seems to be introduced to local communities through the administration and especially through the forestry services of the state, which since the liberation and afterwards take over the management of forests and have a strong interventionist presence in issues concerning the management of the natural environment in general
Are there any other reasons for the difficulty in defining the concept of forest in Greece other than the one you described?
The problem of defining forest lies in the long-standing controversy of a more general environmental nature and has in the past - and still does - caused conflicts between local communities and central authorities. It dates to the establishment of the Greek state and is also linked to Bavarian rule in Greece. The Bavarians, using the northern Europeans’ concept of forest, took its meaning for granted, which was not the case for the Greek reality. Georg Maurer, one of the three members of Otto’s Regency, writes in a notable way: “When we first came to Greece, everyone told us, according to prevailing perception, that there were no national forests anywhere, but we found at least three. From oaks and beeches, in Messinia, Evia and Roumeli. In order to preserve them, we appointed some young German foresters and logging was configured by a regulation of the Ministry of Finance as there was no control in this sector before”.
The word “forest” itself seems to be introduced to local communities through the administration and especially through the state forestry services, which, since the end of the Ottoman Empire, have taken over the management of forests and have a strong interventionist presence in issues concerning not only forests but also the management of the natural environment in a wider sense, since the definition of what is and is not a forest is changing and is also becoming an object of social and political struggle.
Once the respective legislation has been produced and implemented, based on this northern European concept of forests and their protection, important issues arise with serious implications for local communities, implications that are still visible in communities and their natural environment.
There are then, on the one hand, perceptions and practices of using “forests” for logging, agricultural and stock raising purposes, based on local systems of production and natural resource management and the strong presence of human productive activity, and on the other hand, a rather naturalistic and protectivist view of the forest as an important environmental asset.
The conflicts and a constant struggle and tug-of-war were inevitable consequences, which have been of concern to society and the state to this day. Certainly, the abandonment and desertification of the mountainous land solved the social problem in a way, but its wider aspects are of particular interest.
There was a time when mountain communities were based on the principles of communalism, as you have described in your book “Peklari – Small scale social economy”. Can you describe these principles of communalism?
Peklari is a typical example, a case study. What I am describing and trying to interpret, applies to pretty much all communities located in the oak belt which have historically relied for their survival and reproduction on a combination of agriculture and stock raising, supplemented by other activities such as logging, foraging and technical specialization from a certain point onwards.
So, in this category of communities which operated over a long period of time in a specific framework of political economy with relative autonomy, self-sufficiency and self-government, people appropriated collective natural resources in a system of experiential sustainability and social egalitarianism, based on the household economy and focal groups meaning the individuals who made up a household.
This system ensured the reproduction of natural resources on the one hand and on the other hand the balance between the individual needs of the focal groups and the overall survival of the community. This was possible not only thanks to the awareness of the finite nature of natural resources and the sense of collectivity, but also thanks to the fact that the mode of production was characterized by use values and that the natural resources themselves (land, forests, water, etc.) were not perceived as individual properties but as common property which every focal group used according to its needs each time.
The characteristics of communitarianism, then, are relative autonomy and self-governance, the cooperation of focal groups as productive units on a basis of equality and solidarity, the sense of experiential sustainability as a necessity for the survival and the reproduction of the community combined with a social egalitarianism.
The community treats the environment from field to forest as a unity and has a permanent relationship of exchange and management with it. The environment in this case is not treated as a set of resources to be exploited, but as a single set of elements that constitute the community’s own ecosystem
Can communitarianism be a source of inspiration for a new economy? Can a small-scale social economy be implemented in today’s circumstances and in what way?
Today, this is not possible in a modern capitalist-type economy. First of all, current perceptions of the natural environment’s protection are very different, as we, today, make the modern distinction between “nature” and “civilization” and as an organized society we try to “protect” nature, to keep the forest or the traditional settlement intact - and we do not always succeed.
Οn the contrary, the community treats the environment from field to forest as a unity and has a permanent relationship of exchange and management with it. The environment in this case is not treated as a set of resources to be exploited, but as a single set of elements that constitute the community's own ecosystem, a unity interwoven with the community's destiny – and therefore in a sense consecrated – which is treated on the basis of the reproductive needs and the needs of the community itself.
In this context, the need to protect the environment prevails, not in the modern urban and bourgeois sense of the term, but in the sense of rational use, in order not to exhaust the resources on which the survival of the community depends. This is why we talk about “experiential sustainability”.
And certainly this approach highlights the fact that the relationship between humans and the environment is mediated by society. In this sense, communitarianism, if not a model of social and economic organization, could be at least an example of inspiration for an alternative political economy. And the management model of experiential sustainability, along with the ethos of collectivity and social solidarity, could be a part of the value code of an alternative ethical economy, even on a small scale.
What would you say is the key element for forest protection?
I mentioned earlier the way forest was an integral part of the community, which contributed to its preservation. Today, the desertification of the mountainous land and climate change are making the protection of forest systems an increasingly difficult affair. The proliferation of wooded areas, the closure of clearings, paths and other openings, combined with the increasing likelihood of fires, are putting forest wealth and mountain masses in general at great risk.
But the problem is not only ecological. It is primarily political, in the sense that it concerns the policies related to nature’s treatment on behalf of the globalized capitalist system, which mediates the relationship between society and nature, human and natural environment. If this system of political economy does not change, if man does not reconsider his position towards the universe, if he does not change from being sovereign to feeling part of the world around us, productivism and the corresponding value of accumulation and quantitative growth will continue to exacerbate the problem of climate change. And what is needed, in my opinion, is a change in the production model, where uncontrolled growth will give way to a de-growth perspective.
The desertification of mountainous land and climate change are making the protection of forest systems an increasingly difficult affair. The proliferation of wooded areas, the closure of clearings, paths and other openings, combined with the increasing likelihood of fires, are putting forest wealth at great risk