open access

https://hdl.handle.net/2115/47602

The Forest Policy in Bosnia-Herzegovina under the Habsburg Government : Opposition and Compromise between the State Intervention and Common Rights

日本語

2010

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

Slavic Studies

57

97-122

This article aims to analyze the forest policy of the Habsburg government. Bosnia-Herzegovina was mainly agricultural land under the Habsburg monarchy. According to the census in 1910, about 88 percent of the inhabitants were engaged in agriculture. In addition, the surface area of Bosnia-Herzegovina was 51,155 square kilometers of which more than half was forest. Negatively evaluating the governance of the Habsburg authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina in general, historiography considers its agricultural policy a particular failure. Although the forest (including the pasture) was essential for the annual revenue of Bosnia-Herzegovina and for the farm management and livestock breeding of the peasant population, only slight attention has been paid to the forest policy. For example, Sugar and Begović studied the national forest development policy under Habsburg rule but did not engage in study of the forest administrative system and regulation of the inhabitants' usufructuary rights (in German, Servitut). Imamović explains this problem, but he does not handle the entire policy. Under such research conditions, this article focuses on these problems. In the first chapter, I describe the forestal situation under the Ottoman Empire in Bosnia-Herzegovina and business relations concerning woods. The Ottoman government established a land law in 1858 and a forest law in 1869. The authorities tried to regulate the state's ownership of the land and the woods by these two laws. The forest law would regulate the inhabitants' usufructuary rights. However, the Habsburg authorities dismissed this law merely as an "armchair theory" and found forest control in Bosnia-Herzegovina insufficient. Trade in wood in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not active, either. According to a report of the English consul, dealings were limited to oak staves; however, the value of these trading goods had risen at the end of the nineteenth century. The foreign trade statistics of the Habsburg authorities showed an increase in exports, diversification of exports (for example, lumber, sleepers, firewood, etc.), and expansion of the market. The market area spread throughout not only Europe but also Africa and Asia (for example Egypt, Tunisia, South Africa, India, and China). This evidence demonstrates the change of forestry conditions after the Ottomans' cession of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Habsburgs in 1878. The second chapter deals with the process of building a forest administrative mechanism, the actual conditions of management of the state forest, and regulation of inhabitants' usufructuary rights. The Habsburg authorities continued the tradition of the "forest law (1869)" of the Ottoman Empire. The main measure of the authorities was to regulate the measurement of ownership of the woods and forests, and a boundary was set up around the state forest. The authorities prepared a forest administrative organ on the basis of country offices (Bezirksamt). For this purpose, they increased the number of government officials and established a secondary school to educate future government officials. Management of the state forest resulted in a surplus, realized by implementing a series of policies at the beginning of the twentieth century. While it allowed them to control the inhabitants' farm management, the authorities did not at the beginning regulate the Ottoman Empire's usufructuary rights of its inhabitants. However, since the former Ottoman law stipulated a heavy fine for encroachment onto the forest, the government had to issue a new regulation. The authorities attempted to tighten the law aiming at managing forestry. But these measures did not seem to work effectively, as the authorities simply had to repeat the same instructions. The third chapter tackles the problem of regulating the inhabitants' usufructuary rights and the "Law on exclusion of municipality forest and pasture from state-owned land (Gesetz über die Ausscheidung von Gemeindewaldern und Gemeindeweiden aus ärarischem Besitz)." The regulation by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina triggered resistance among the people, as it went against their tradition. Many ignored the governmental measure, committing forest theft. The authorities coped with these offences by imposing fines and imprisonment on thieves and afterwards granted amnesty. These measures did not serve as a solution to the problem. Indeed, the government intended to offer the forest and pasture to the municipalities, but was unable to go through with it for lack of a control group. This problem was solved by a law concerning the administration of village communities (Gesetz über die Verwaltung der Dorfgemeinden in Bosnien und der Herzegowina). Based on these conditions, the government attempted to divide the forest and pastures into municipality forest and state forest, but the interest relations of the forest (and pastures) were very complicated. In other words, because conflicts emerged not only between farmers and state, but also between landowners and state and landowners and tenants, the forest problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina became increasingly complicated. In fact, the settlement of these disputes took a long time, to be precise, until the eve of World War I. The purpose of this law was to separate the state forest from usufructuary rights and give the forest and pastures to the municipalities. The government also intended to better use uncultivated land. The content of my work can be summed up in the following three points: 1. The Habsburg authorities composed their forest administration and forest law based on the law of the Ottoman Empire. In short, the government tried to first apply the lax regulation of the Ottoman Empire, but after that, started to change it gradually. 2. The series of policies of the government provided a base for the development of the forest. That is to say, the Habsburg government succeeded in creating a favorable investment environment, but took into account the inhabitants' usufructuary rights as well. 3. The regulation plan for the common rights of the inhabitants caused opposition among the people and did not have any effect. This forced the government to enact a law on "forest separation" and to strive to reconcile differing interests in this way. There were certainly many difficulties in the execution of this law. But one should not overlook the effort made by the Habsburg authorities in establishing this law.

紀要論文

Version of Record

0562-6579

AN0012574X