What is the innovation about?
Traditional forest commons historical regime located in NP Nizke Tatry Slovakia, enabled evolution of robust governance and forest management regime adaptable for global challenges such as climate regulation and intention for carbon smart forestry contribution to multifunctional forestry and well-being.
What makes this innovation a good example?
Long lasting common pool resource regime (regardless historical or created) provide evidence how to respond to societal and environmental challenges via self-organizing activities. Self-organization of forest ecosystem services based on adaptability and flexibility of members in forest commons and land trusts (non-governmental organization) – enables innovative practices in forest management to support the provision of non-wood forest products and services, in particular is enabling the evolution of nature-based forestry.
Where is the case study innovation located?
Slovak forest commons Hybe are located in the largest Slovak National Park, the Nízke Tatry (72,842 ha, with buffer zone 110,162 ha).
Czech part of the case study is located in Liberec Region, northern part of Czech Republic. The altitude is between 350-850 m.a.s.l.
When was the innovation established, and by whom?
With renationalisation of land and return to property rights in early 90s of Central European forestry. Market pressure increased demand for production services and seriously effected quality and capacity of forests resulting in mobilisation of communities for self-organisation.
Why was the innovation established?
Wind storm represents critical stress factor for Central European, followed by bark beetle infestation and market pressure it end ups with conflict of production over conservation of forest.
Who is benefiting from the innovation?
Members of local forest community but also wider society – multiple ecosystem services are provided by forests (mostly regulation and cultural services).
Does the innovation need particular natural conditions to work? If so, what kind?
Forest and its biodiversity
Does the innovation need particular forest management strategies to work? If so, what kind?
It needs a forest management plan, a nature conservation strategy and a carbon smart forestry management plan.
Does the innovation need particular policies, stakeholder, or market conditions to work? If so, which one?
There is a need to set up payment scheme for ecosystem services in carbon smart forestry to stimulate/ increase the intensity of use carbon smart forestry practices.
What are the main difficulties for the innovation to work?
Lack of general national policies to support forest policy and governance innovations (PES and carbon smart forestry) and lack of incentives to motivate/stimulate behavioral change to forest multifunctionality.
Where would you like to see the innovation in five years?
Scaling out initial payments for ecosystem services to increase donors/patrons, regular donations, and new payment incentive such as new market products.
How might InnoForESt help you in this endeavor?
To exchange international knowledge about application of voluntary payments for ecosystem services in forest management. To define optimal rules for payments for ecosystem services and for effective implementation of innovative forest governance.
Is there more information on the innovation available?
- Kluvánková, T; Gežík, V., 2016. Survival of commons? Institutions for robust forest social – ecological systems. Journal of Forest Economics 24:175-185.
- Brnkaľáková, S., 2016. Adaptive management of mountain ecosystem services. PhD thesis. Slovak University of Technology. 125 pp.
Please visit Land Trust Association Cmelak: