Welfare forest functions in the normative and planning documents and in the practice: example of the forests in the Banjaluka city area

Abstract

The paper gives an overview on current position of forest functions, multiple use forestry, nature protection etc., in normative acts, planning documents and forestry practice on forests of Banjaluka as an example. In first part of this paper we analyzed all relevant normative acts and planning documents. Normative acts analyzed were: Law on Forests of RS (2008, 2013), Law on Nature Protection of RS (2014). Planning documents analyzed were: Forestry Development Strategy of RS (2012), Nature Protection Strategy of RS (2011), Spatial Plan of RS (2013), Forest Management Plan for “Donjevrbasko” Economy Area (2009), Spatial Plan of Banjaluka city (2014). From those analyzed documents we conclude that there are good formal preconditions for realization and implementation multiple use forestry and gaining of all forest functions (with emphasis on protection and social forest function). Analyzed documents were not perfectly harmonized, but they are not limitative for implementation of modern forestry practice. But, in the same time, realization of all of this almost totally missing in forestry practice (example of Banjaluka forests). Also nature protection practice is on the same level as it is for last fifty year in our country. So we can conclude that our practice of forestry and nature protection today has relatively formal good preconditions, but at the same time very poor realization of same in practice. Good example for those conclusions are forests of Banjaluka city – especially in the meaning of implementation of social and protective forest functions. We found that management plan for this forests has no goals that matches social or/and protective forest function, in spite the fact that many of inhabitants of Banjaluka city use this forest for recreation and rest in nature surrounding, for getting in touch with nature. At the same time, we cannot neglect protective function of this forest area for protection of life quality in a relatively big city (second biggest in B&H). Management forest plan for this area do not have that in it goals. Now, it only has production goal, in spite the fact that all analyzed acts highlight importance of implementation multiple use forestry. We hope that one of important preconditions had allready happened with the Decision on proclamation of special purpose forests of the city of Banjaluka at the areas of Starčevica, Trapisti and Šibovi. Finally, we give some recommendations: forestry practice (in the Banjaluka city area) needs to take active action and get involved in the future processes in this area and problems. Banjaluka forests, primary Starčevica region/forest, could be an ideal example for implementing modern forestry practice: multiple use forestry in spite of only mono-functional forestry (production forestry function is now predominant); urban forestry; to initiate and take part in intersectoral cooperation – which is only possible way to implement all needed in forest areas which are in direct contact with urban areas, and their inhabitants. Benefits for forestry are in possibility to promote, educate and bring forestry coser to the people. If forestry do it as we show it on our examples (Figures 4–7) it is a very good way to educate people about forest, forestry and nature. We see it as a starting position for new forestry concept in Banja Luka, and in Republic of Srpska – B&H. Therefore, the question of the relationship of forestry to solving the problem of Banjaluka forests is seen as a turning point in determining the current forestry development: whether we are moving step forward or may return a step back.