The Rantis Forest in Ikaria: A characteristic example of the “commons”

In the contemporary political-economic landscape, natural resources constitute a contested arena of global competition, wherein the interests of individual actors, nation-states, and transnational corporations exist in perpetual tension and undergo complex negotiation processes. This resource contestation operates within multilevel governance frameworks that reflect asymmetrical power relations and divergent political perspectives on social-environment relationships. Within this context, one category of resources has always stood out: common pool resources which include forests, water, oceans, fisheries, etc. and are defined by two fundamental properties: non-excludability and subtractability. Non-excludability refers to the inherent difficulty in preventing unauthorized individuals or entities from accessing and utilizing a resource, while subtractability denotes that consumption by one agent diminishes both the quantitative availability and qualitative integrity of the resource's products and services for subsequent potential users.

Garrett Hardin and the “tragedy of the commons”

These two inherent characteristics exacerbate the problem of governing nature, a problem that Garrett Hardin (1977) described as the “tragedy of the commons”. The concept of “tragedy” lies in the difficulty of resource conservation, as appropriators make intensive use of the resource they share and they use in common, and thereby destroy their own existence. Hardin’s essay sparked significant scientific debate and highlighted examples where tragedy is not the only possible outcome when people appropriate a common pool resource. In particular, numerous cases have emerged where communities living alongside, near or even within a common pool resource (e.g., a forest) manage it sustainably without necessitating recourse to market-based mechanisms or state-imposed regulatory frameworks, thereby demonstrating the viability of commons governance arrangements that transcend the conventional binary of privatization versus centralized control, as Hardin suggested and of course in such cases, tragedy is avoided.

Hardin’s thesis served as a catalyst for a new approach to the relationship between society and nature (focusing on symbiosis with nature rather than its conquest) as well as a new approach to the functioning of democracy and policy. Research has raised questions regarding the relationship between individual behavior and social well-being, individual and collective interest, cooperation, solidarity, and the way society interacts with the “Other”, Nature.

Elinor Ostrom’s response

Through extensive research, Elinor Ostrom and her School (1990, 1992) demonstrated that communities living nearside or alongside common pool resources can protect, utilize, and sustain them, provided that specific conditions are met. Whether because of their nature or for historical, social, or political reasons, these resources are not managed through market mechanisms or state authority, while the self-organizing context determines community and resource sustainability. The organization of the "commons" relies on collective action as the user community itself gives meaning to its socio-ecological entanglement with the resource. This requires cooperation and trust, participatory decision-making, rules, monitoring and conflict resolution mechanisms, as well as recognition of rights, and enforcement of restrictions.

Ostrom’s approach is not just a theoretical construct, but it has been proven functional in numerous cases worldwide. In fact, the commons are not a radical innovation but a familiar human practice of inhabiting the world. For Tim Ingold (2000, 2011), humans inhabit the space at the same time they live. Dwelling is the mode of human existence in the world. The world is not merely a collection of objects for human use but a place within which people live and inhabit as part of it. People have always lived together and acted collectively, organizing their lives through interaction, cooperation and reciprocity, learning to live in their environment, through their experiences.      

Ostrom demonstrated that communities can self-organize and effectively manage their resources. Her principles, known as the “design principles for governing of the commons,” serve as a set of guidelines. The Rantis Forest on the island of Ikaria and its community-based organization reflect the practical application of Ostrom’s eight principles and stand as an example of “commons” in Greece. In other words, the organization of Ikarian society and the relationship it has developed with the Rantis Forest aligns perfectly with Ostrom’s principles. This proves that communities can simultaneously conserve and appropriate common-pool resources, thereby ensuring the longitudinal sustainability of both ecological systems and social structures through institutionalized reciprocity and adaptive governance mechanisms.

The case of the Rantis Forest

The Rantis Forest, one of the most significant ecosystems of Ikaria and Europe as well, is located on the slopes of Mount Atheras (or Pramnos). The forest extends in the southern and central regions of the island, surrounding the communities of Dafni, Frantato, and Karkinagri. Covering approximately 1.600 hectares today, the forest’s terrain is diverse, with steep slopes in the southern part and gentler slopes in the north. It is mainly home to oak trees (Quercus ilex, locally known as arious or aries), purslanes (Arbutus andrachne), and kermes oaks (Quercus coccifera) while the landscape is interspersed with cultivated chestnut, walnut, and vineyard plantations. This combination of natural forest and human activity creates a unique landscape that links nature with the island’s history.

The historical connection with the survival and protection of Ikarian society elevates the Rantis Forest into a living symbol of resilience, solidarity, and cooperation. Its economic and social importance is incontrovertible, as it has been a vital resource for the local community for centuries, from antiquity to the first decades of the 20th century. The inhabitants utilized the forest for timber and charcoal production, agricultural crops, harvesting forest fruits, while practicing rotational grazing within the forest. The range of activities that developed in Rantis Forest not only strengthened the local economy for centuries, but also contributed to its conservation, despite periodic pressures. The forest served as the matrix of Ikarian life. Unlike many other islands, Ikaria is an island where maritime activities did not constitute the predominant socioeconomic foundation; rather, its inhabitants' existence revolved around its mountainous range, the forest. Voyagers' ethnographic records from the 17th century refer to a forest-covered island, inhabited by an exceptionally poor community living in its interior. Many even reported that the island appeared to be uninhabited. Protected by the forest, the inhabitants developed their society inland, far from the coasts. This legacy is still evident today, as the forest is interspersed with cultivated lands, forming an agroforestry complex that includes pasture, shrublands, forest areas and cultivations, in a unique patchwork of unbroken land uses, including settlements with the so-called “anti-pirate” houses.

The Rantis Forest also served as a pasture for the raskó, semi-wild goats which could be hunted by the islanders (as a population control strategy). The raskó were left free and coexisted with pastoral livestock farming. Beyond the forest itself, the raskó were also a common pool resource, organized as “commons”. The cultivated lands that intersected the forest (mainly vineyards, as Ikaria was also famous for its wine) were protected by fences, stone structures built collectively by the communities. Similarly, they controlled overgrazing by the raskó, protecting their pasture lands on a rotational basis. The lithic demarcation structures, which traverse the forest ecosystem and extend throughout the insular territory, function as spatial delineators of boundaries and differentiated land utilization regimes, constituting a material manifestation of socio-spatial organization (Koumparou 2002, 2019).

Rantis Forest under the Ostromian approach

The Rantis Forest serves as an example of the application of the eight principles outlined by Elinor Ostrom, which guide the organization and governance of commons.

1. The boundaries of the forest are defined

Ostrom’s first principle refers to the clear definition of resource boundaries. In the Rantis Forest, the forest’s limits are defined and recognized both by the forest-bordering communities and by central government. Local communities have a clear knowledge of the forest area in which only the inhabitants are allowed to intervene, while at the same time, designated forest segments are conceptualized as common pool resources accessible to neighboring communities, exemplifying a sophisticated polycentric governance.

2. Adaptation of rules to local needs and conditions

Decisions regarding the use of the forest, such as timber harvesting, vineyard cultivation, or grazing, are made in a way that responds to local needs and conditions. For example, pastoralism practices and silvicultural extraction activities are orchestrated through rotational systems that simultaneously ensure the satisfaction of inhabitants' subsistence requirements, while maintaining ecosystem integrity through calculated disturbance regimes, that facilitate regenerative ecological processes. Access and appropriation rules for the forest are established through collective decision-making processes, which are based on a framework of collective responsibility. The triple principle of autonomy, self-government, and self-management are fundamental elements of the functioning of communities, ensuring the active participation of their members in decision-making and resource management. In the mid-20th century, similarly to the raskó goats, pigs were also allowed to roam and fed on acorns. However, according to local testimonies, the pigs destroyed the forest by digging the ground, preventing it from regenerating, and this is why this practice was almost immediately abandoned.

3. Participatory decision-making process

Ostrom's third principle underlines the importance of user participation in decision-making. In the Rantis Forest, local communities are an organic part of governance, and through assemblies and discussions, they actively participate in the management of the forest, as well as in organizing the political, economic, and social life. Decisions are made collectively, according to the needs and priorities of the community, and the ecological condition of the forest. Collective action and cooperation are key features of the community's functioning, and these processes ensure equal participation of all.

4. Internal social control

It is the collective responsibility of the community to supervise and ensure the adherence to rules concerning the use of the forest. The community takes on this responsibility internally, and its members act as informal “supervisors” through their daily relationships and interactions. Social pressure, moral condemnation, discussions, and acceptance play an important role and serve as effective mechanisms for compliance.

5. Penalties for violating the rules

The inhabitants also monitor the management of the forest and impose informal or formal sanctions on those who violate the rules, with financial penalties (fines) not being excluded. The penalties for rule violations aim to prevent the destructive exploitation of the resource and to safeguard the cohesion and well-being of the community.

6. Accessible institutions for conflict resolution

There are low-cost and easily accessible institutions for resolving conflicts between members of the community. One of these was the community council. Local assemblies and informal agreements are examples of such mechanisms, which ensure the smooth functioning of the community and the forest. Nevertheless, there were cases where the community would warn the offender that it would seek the intervention of the central government (Ottoman administration) to protect the forest from over-exploitation.

7. Respect for self-management by external power structures

The right to self-management of the forest has historically been respected by external power structures, since the time of the Ottoman Empire (Ikaria joined Greece in 1917). The forest-bordering communities had the ability to manage the forest according to their own rules, ensuring their livelihood. Autonomy, based on local rules and practices, allowed the communities to adapt the use of the forest to their needs without disrupting the balance of the ecosystem. It is worth noting here that the user communities in our country are usually identified with the communities as administrative units of the Ottoman Empire and the modern Greek state until 1997, when the “Kallikratis” plan for the merging of communities was implemented.

8. Multi-level governance

The governance of the forest is organized at many levels: from the self-management and self-establishment units, as communities are defined, to the neighboring forest-bordering communities, which collectively appropriate the forest but also the overall Ikarian society. This tiered approach ensures the participation of all, promotes effective and fair governance of the forest and the community, and simultaneously contributes to overcoming the challenges of collaboration.

The properties of the forest

Ostrom, in her article “Reformulating the Commons” (2002), redefined her eight principles, offering a more structured approach to understanding the commons. Specifically, she classified these principles into two main and distinct categories. The first category includes the characteristics and nature of the resource itself, while the second focuses on the community and the principles related to its structure, function, and dynamics, emphasizing the importance of the interaction between these two factors for the successful governance of the commons.

At the same time, Ostrom underlines the fact that the main components of the commons are, on the one hand, the absence of property rights (as we know the institution of property in the Western sense, as an instrument of hegemonic power relations and not as a social tool of organization) and, on the other hand, the independence of the actors. Therefore, specific attributes of the resource systems and socio-political characteristics of appropriators contribute crucially to the likelihood of self-regulating initiatives emerging. Regarding the properties of the resource, the forest essentially constitutes the living space of the community, the domain of its daily activities. Ostrom refers to valid indicators for the condition of resources, which are available to the community at a relatively low cost. The Ikaria community has detailed knowledge of the forest landscape, having a complete and deep understanding of its actual condition, as well as its limits. This deep knowledge is made possible not only because the forest system is small but mainly because of communication within the community and also between the communities. At the same time, the quantity and quality of materials and services provided by the forest do not exhibit significant or unpredictable changes over time, which allows the forest-bordering communities to rely on them without concern for sudden shortages or fluctuations. The steady flow of services from the forest, following a predictable pattern, enables users to feel secure. The communities are fully aware of both the carrying capacity of the forest for timber and combustible material supply, as well as its function as grazing land and arable land. For example, the population of raskó goats is kept at a specific level, and their consumption is also collective, primarily at festivals, which serve as identity rituals of the Ikarian society.

The properties of the community

Regarding the qualities of forest appropriators, Ostrom notes that dependence on the resource and a shared understanding of its functioning are critical. The forest was a vital element for the survival of the population of Ikaria. It functioned not only as a natural refuge but also as a source of food and raw materials. There were historical periods when the very life of the inhabitants depended on the forest. With the people hidden in the forest, the island gave the impression of being uninhabited, which made pirate raids and/or the presence of Ottomans particularly limited or even nonexistent. The inhabitants of Ikaria chose to settle in the interior of the forest, away from the coastline. They built their houses in such a way that they were almost invisible from the sea, using natural materials and the forest itself as a shield for protection. The “anti-pirate” houses, as they were called, were low buildings that blended into the natural environment, using rocks and dense vegetation. Engaging in activities at night was a measure of coping with threats, a means of survival. This tactic proved extremely effective in preventing raids, as potential invaders saw an apparently deserted island during the day. This distinctive way of life significantly influenced the perception of time in Ikarian society. The adaptation to a nocturnal lifestyle led to the development of a different rhythm of life, one that was less rigid and more flexible, constituting a departure from hegemonic conceptualizations of temporality.

Communities organized the appropriation of a common pool resource understanding of how the forest functions, recognizing that any intervention in the ecosystem will not only affect its well-being but also its relationship with others. Τhe benefits of cooperation, trust, and autonomy contribute to the emergence of the commons, Ostrom notes. The inhabitants of Ikaria understand that the cost of maintaining this organization is lower than the benefits they will reap from the utilization of the resource. At the same time, mutual trust, consistency in keeping agreements, and reciprocity in relationships strengthen cooperation and reduce the likelihood of conflicts. Communities have the autonomy to determine access to and use of the resource without external interventions. This autonomy reinforces a sense of responsibility and control over the organizational system of using the resources. The communities are experienced, as life on the island has been collectively organized for centuries.

Cooperation, trust, communication, the anticipation of future threats, and the ability to build relationships based on reciprocity and solidarity are key mechanisms for regulating human behavior, with the aim of preventing destructive consequences and avoiding tragedy. In the commons of Ikaria, the fundamental conditions for social and ecological survival have been established in a way that acknowledges equal importance of both the forest and the community. The allocation and distribution of forest products, as well as the preservation of forest ecological function, have been organized through collective processes and cultural rituals, such as traditional festivals. This approach transcended individual interest and anthropocentric thinking, emphasizing the coexistence and interdependence between humans and nature.

The Rantis Forest functions as a socio-ecological system where nature and society coexist equally, offering valuable lessons for modern natural resource management. The organization of the commons is not a one-dimensional resource governance system but rather a system of ideas, values and ethics that is gradually gaining recognition in contemporary social and political theory. As a system of ethics in political and economic thought, it prioritizes the values of democratic and cooperative participation in communities to achieve sustainability. Historical knowledge motivates individuals to take initiative and self-organize, engaging in the formation of governance patterns that respond to modern political, economic, and environmental challenges, drawing inspiration from the principles of direct democracy and freedom.

Bibliography

Hardin, G. (1977). “The Tragedy of the Commons”. In Hardin, G., and Baden, J. (eds.), Managing the commons. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.

Ingold, T. (2011). Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1992). “The Rudiments of a Theory of the Origins, Survival, and Performance of Common Property Institutions”. In Bromley D. W. (ed.), Making the Commons Work. California: ICS Press.

Ostrom, E. (2002). “Reformulating the commons”. Ambiente & Sociedade, 5-25.

Koumparou, D. (2002). The Regime of Common Property: The Case of the Rantis Forest on the Island of Ikaria. PhD Dissertation, University of the Aegean, Department of Environment, Mytilene.

Koumparou, D. (2019). “The Commons as a Socio-Ecological System: The Case of the Rantis Forest in Ikaria”. Geographies, 34, 98-113.