Ukraine reforms in forestry 1990–2000

The purpose of this article is to examine what reforms took place in the State forest management of Ukraine during its first decade of independence and the underlying reasons for these reforms. Whereas most of Central and East Europeʹs countries went through an intensive period of reform throughout the 1990-ies, the reform process in Ukraine slowed down markedly after only a few years. This concerns also the State forest sector. After some reforms in the early 1990-ies, adapting the State forest management to Ukraineʹs status as an independent country, the reform process almost came to a halt. One key example is that no institutional division of policy, control and management was made during the period, which set Ukraine apart among most Central and East Europeʹs countries. Also, the development of private initiatives in the sector was very slow. Whereas factual motives can be found against any individual reform, an almost total absence of reforms points to problems in the very atmosphere of reform. Therefore, the reform process in Ukraineʹs State forest sector of the 1990-ies is best analysed by methods from political science. Three explanatory models have been tested — elements of public choice theory, analyses of interest group struggles and indications of Rentier-Capitalism. By analysing reforms that did take place, it is also possible to discuss why other reforms, that took place in neighbouring countries, did not take place in Ukraine. The results show, that the three explanatory models all can be applied to explain the reform process, but on individual reforms, one or two models usually lead to a more likely explanation of the process observed. Thus, interest group struggles between involved State institutions have slowed down reforms. Also, politicians appear to have been reluctant to take decisions that might threaten employment or environment. Finally, there are clear indications that various economic interests have had significant importance, which is understandable, considering that control over the forest resource means control over an important economic asset.