BELARUS Based on the Case Study in the Communities of Buda-Koshelevo, Gomel and Milashevichi (Gomel Region)

Forest Dependence of Rural Communities in the Republic of BELARUS Based on the Case Study in the communities of Buda-Koshelevo, Gomel and Milashevichi (Gomel region)

Written by Maryna Lazarava, PhD, Gomel State University, Belarus

October 2014

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content, findings, interpretations, and conclusions of this publication are the sole responsibility of the FLEG II (ENPI East) Programme Team (www.enpi-fleg.org) and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Implementing Organizations. CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 3 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. Introduction i) Forests and forest use in the country 13 ii) Rationale 13

2. Methodology i) Study area 14 ii) Method of sampling 15 iii) Number of households 16 iv) Timeline 17 v) Field implementation and problems 17 vi) Local unit conversion (incl. from key informant interview) 17

3. Study area characteristics

Community 1 – Buda-Koshelevo 17 Community 2 – Gomel 22 Community 3 - Milashevichi 26 Community 4 – Rudnya Viktorinskaya 28

4. Results and discussion

i) Income share by source 31 ii) Frequency and value of forest products 33 a. Fuelwood 37 iii) Cash and subsistence of forest products 39 iv) RFI over income quintiles 41 v) RFI over asset groups 43 vi) Most Important Products 45

5. Conclusion 47 6. References 49

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Villages and codes in the database Table 2 Local unit conversion Table 3 Seasonal calendar (Community 1) Table 4 Seasonal calendar (Community 2) Table 5 Seasonal calendar (Community 3) Table 6 Seasonal calendar (Community 4)

Figure 1 – Forest cover (%) in regions and districts of Belarus Figure 2 – Forest cover in Gomel Region and the location of the studied communities Figure 3 – Division of residents (%) by social status Figure 4 – Sources of income in Milashevichi Figure 5 – Collected forest products (Milashevichi) Figure 6 – Collected forest products Figure 7 – Value of the most important forest products in Milashevichi Figure 8 – Value of most important forest products Figure 9 – Frequency of purchase of firewood from forestries Figure 10 – Volume and value of firewood Figure 11 – Cash and subsistence use of the most important forest products in Milashevichi Figure 12 – Cash and subsistence use of the most important forest products Figure 13 – Cash, subsistence, and RFI by quintiles in Milashevichi Figure 14 – Cash, subsistence, and RFI by quintiles Figure 15 – Cash and subsistence forest income and RFI over asset groups in Milashevichi Figure 16 – Cash and subsistence forest income and RFI over asset groups Figure 17 - Main reasons of the decline of firewood and blueberries in Buda-Koshelevo Figure 18 – Main reasons of cranberry decline (Milashevichi)

ABBREVIATIONS curie/km2 – measure of density of soil contamination with radionuclides (cesium-137) hh- household GOLKHU – State Forest Management Establishment (Leskhoz) Cubic meter – measure of wood volume Chernobyl –Chernobyl nuclear power station mln BYR – million Belarusian Rubles

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Forest management in the Republic of Belarus is based on the principles of sustainability, inexhaustibility and relatively balanced forest use, which is understood as integrated utilization of timber/secondary forest resources and secondary forest production, while preserving the biological diversity and ensuring environmental, water/soil protection and social functions of forests. There is a number of publications devoted to forest management, forest and forest resource appraisal in Belarus. However, the social aspect of sustainable forest management has been overlooked by the research component of the forest industry, with attention focused only on ecotourism and the cultural heritage. Knowledge of the social aspects of forest functionality allows determining the degree of dependence of rural communities on forest, revealing the regional specifics of forest products use; planning more multipurpose forest use; and raising public awareness about sustainable forest management. Therefore, the goal of this survey is to learn about the particularities of forest resources use by rural communities in order to determine the degree of their forest dependence. The forest cover in the Republic of Belarus is currently 39.3%. The average per capita forest area is 0.86 hectares. Of the six regions of the country, the Gomel Region has the highest forest cover percentage – 45.8%, with per capita forest area reaching 1.3 hectares. For these reasons, the region was selected as a model area for the survey. The distribution of forests in the Gomel Region is not even. The communities were selected according to their proximity to populated centers with different population sizes: 1,000, 35,000 and 500,000 residents. Three populated centers were selected: the Milashevichi, Buda- Koshelevo and Gomel Districts with population density of 8.22 people per km2; 23.38 people per km2 and 34.82 people per km2, respectively. The forest land percentage in the Milashevichi district is 66.7, which is one of the highest in Belarus; this figure in Buda-Koshelevo district is 22.5%, which is one of the lowest in the Gomel Region; and in the Gomel district it is 44.0%. There are forestry enterprises in all selected communities. The random sampling technique was applied on an area of 10-30 km away from the selected populated centers (Milashevichi, Gomel and Buda-Koshelevo) to first select several villages around each of these centers and later, after site visits, a village best meeting the objectives of the study. Considering that, due to the Chernobyl accident, 25% of the territory of Belarus was, to a various degree, contaminated with radionuclides, the issue of forest functionality for rural communities in these conditions is essential. Thus, since in Buda-Koshelevo district there are forestries with different levels of radioactive contamination, we conducted studies in that community in both “clean” and “contaminated” areas. As a result of a field examination of the villages, and based on their relative proximity to forests, as well as the age and social diversity of residents, presence of a forestry, etc., the survey covered the following: in Gomel – the Novaya Buda village, in Milashevichi – the village of Ivanova Sloboda, and in Buda-Koshelevo – the village of Gubichi. Since in Buda-Koshelevo, the village of Gubichi is located in a “clean” area; a small village of Rudnya Viktorinskaya with a level of

radioactive contamination with cesium-137 from 5 to 15 curie/km2 was also selected. Before interviewing the households, we interviewed the relevant village council officials of Gubichi, Koshelevo (Buda-Koshelevo), Pribor (Gomel) and Tonezh (Milashevichi) and collected data on infrastructure, population composition, etc. As of 01.01.2014, the Gubichi community (Buda-Koshelevo) consisted of 585 members and 231 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every third house on all streets). Interviews were also conducted at workplaces (the farm, forestry, store, school, post office). Number of interviewed households (sample size) - 69, which amounts to 34% considering vacant houses. As of 01.01.2014, the Novaya Buda community (Gomel) included 293 members and 131 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every other house). Number of interviewed households (sample size) - 52, which is 39.7%. As of 01.01.2014, community Ivanova Sloboda (Milashevichi) consisted of 426 members and 196 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every third house). It was found that some houses were vacant for various reasons. The number of interviewed households (sample size) is 67, making 32%, and with the number of vacant houses – over 37%. As of 01.01.2014, community Rudnya Viktorinskaya occupying an area contaminated by radionuclides (Buda-Koshelevo) consisted of 25 members and 21 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every other house). The number of interviewed households (sample size) is 12, making 57%. The share of forest income in the total income amount is the most essential question of the study of the significance of forests in the lives of rural residents. The prioritization of incomes of rural residents living in the surveyed communities is also of high interest. In Milashevichi, salaries make up 34% of the total income, which is 1.5 and 1.3 times lower than in the Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities due to problems with finding well-paid jobs. Therefore, in these communities many strong and relatively young villagers leave their jobs for the summer or shift work at low-paying jobs in order to collect forest products for sale. The cash earned this way is used as an additional source of income in winter. Other income sources are mainly pensions and various benefits comprising 34%. The next important income source, after benefits and salaries, is, in the Milashevichi community, the forest income, which makes 16%. It mostly comes from collection of mushrooms, berries, firewood and non-wood forest products, such as medicinal herbs, honey, etc. The forest income share in Milashevichi is 5 times higher than in Gomel, 4 times higher than in Buda-Koshelevo and 8 times higher than in the Rudnya Viktorinskaya community. In Milashevichi, the share of income from livestock is 10%, and it is mainly comprised of the production of meat (52.6%), milk and eggs. A key source of income is crop farming – 6%. The primary crop is potato planted by practically all residents (82% of the respondents). There is a question, why not all 100%. The reasons are that some households could not work in the farm, since either had just recently moved (inherited or bought the house), or were ill (one woman broke a leg, while other pensioners felt too bad to work), or they were young families with an infant or parents or children living nearby, and they work on their gardens, etc. Such vegetables as cabbage, carrots, beets, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions and garlic are

also of importance. They are staple foods that are stored and consumed through the winter season. In Milashevichi, 61% of the surveyed households also grow pumpkins, which they consume as food and cattle feed in large quantities and, thus, pumpkins may be defined as internal resources in calculation of the livestock growing cost. So far, entrepreneurial activities have not spread far in rural areas (0.9%). According to the relevant village council officials, 10 procurers of wild crops were operating in the district. Their assistants from among local residents accepted and provisionally stored forest products. In Milashevichi, members of two surveyed households assist with procuring non-timber forest resources. According to them, they were licensed for this activity. They provided provisional storage facilities (a garage or a barn), and the last year they earned BYR 500-700 from each procured kilogram of forest products. They procured 100-200 kg and more a day. Livestock income is the least significant in Milashevichi, and practically equals zero. Its value is explained by the following reasons: First, some pensioners, due to poor health, can keep only a few chickens. The resulting product, eggs, does not justify the pensioners’ costs of keeping the fowl. Second, at the time of the survey, many respondents had kept pigs either from a few months to almost a year for slaughtering them for meat. Cattle is generally slaughtered in autumn or right before Christmas and, thus, the negative indicator may be explained by the fact that having invested in the cattle feed, vet services, etc., most respondents had not received a product in the form of meat from this source of income. The study established that, from the point of view of forest functionality, there were no significant differences between the residents of both Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities and, thus, we have combined them and shall discuss them as one, in comparison with the Milashevichi community. Proximity to such cities as Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel gives villagers a chance to find better-paid jobs. Thus, the third source of income is wages, which account for 51 % in Buda Koshelevo and 45 % in Gomel. Other income sources include pensions, child benefits, cash remittances, etc. In the Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities, proceeds from cattle products/livestock income is the most meaningful – 17% and 6%, accordingly. The main sources of this income are milk, 55.9% and meat, 28.8%. The share of crop farming in income is 6% in Buda-Koshelevo and 4% in Gomel. The primary crop is potato planted in gardens by 92 of the respondents the last year. Such vegetables as cabbage, carrots, beets, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions and garlic are also of importance. They are staple foods, both in raw and preserved form for the country folk in winter. Pumpkins are grown by 37% of the respondents. Forest income (3-4%) is the fourth source of income. Only one out of all surveyed households was engaged in entrepreneurial activities, in particular, timber processing (1%). Livestock income (less than 1%) is less meaningful for all surveyed communities. An analysis of income in Community 4, Rudnya Viktorinskaya , situated in a radioactively contaminated area, has shown pensions, 67%, was the most significant source of income for its residents. Some villagers or their close relatives are former “clean-up workers" of the Chernobyl

Nuclear Power Station and receive special benefits. The residents of this area also receive supplements to their pensions. The next meaningful source of income after pensions is plant farming, which makes up 7% of the total income of the people due to the fact that the villagers are mostly pensioners who have adequate time and experience for farming work. Livestock (5%) follows in the list of meaningful income sources. In Rudnya Viktorinskaya, pensioners with visiting, nearby or regularly co-residing children keep cattle in their households. Forest income in this community makes up less than 2% and includes occasional/irregular collection of mushrooms mostly. It should be mentioned that the collection of berries and mushrooms in the adjacent forests is banned. Because of the specific conditions of living on a contaminated area, practically no relations have been observed between the members of the Rudnya Viktorinskaya community with the forest. The outcomes are therefore further compared between two communities – Milashevichi and Buda-Koshelevo/Gomel. The Milashevichi residents collect a broad range of forest non-timber products including 13 different types. As compared with the other communities, where 17 items of forest products are collected, Milashevichi community members focus on products that are more profitable. The most popular forest resources were mushrooms collected by 67% of respondents last year; blueberries – by 64%; and cranberries – by 57%. Of a lower demand were birch juice collected by 36% households and birch twigs – by 14%, accordingly. The other types of non-timber forest resources, such as fish (6%); medicinal plants (4.5%); animal skin (4.5%); honey (3%); wild strawberries (3%); and twigs (1.5%) were collected by less than 6% of households. Members of the other communities (Buda-Koshelevo-Gomel) collect 17 types of non- timber forest products. The popular forest resources were mushrooms, collected by 76% of the respondents, blueberries – by 74%, accordingly. The majority of the population collected mushrooms and blueberries and, to a lesser degree, birch juice (29% of the households); wild strawberries (22%); medicinal plants (21%), birch twigs (14%) and nuts (7%). Other types of secondary forest resources, such as firewood, fagots, willow twigs, fish, game meat and rowanberries, were collected by less than 6% of households or on a one-time- only basis. A comparison of collection frequency in the compared communities shows that, due to the specific natural conditions in Milashevichi (marshes), cranberry collection was of a higher significance there, than in the other communities. Thus, it was found that the villagers collect large quantities of miscellaneous non-timber forest resources. Still, in Milashevichi, the most valuable products were cranberries (BYR 158 mln), mushrooms (BYR 116 mln), blueberries (BYR 103 mln) and firewood (BYR 18 mln). In the other communities, the following products were the most valuable: mushrooms (BYR 146 mln), blueberries (BYR 34 mln), and fish (BYR 13 mln). One third of the Milashevichi residents have permits from the forestry enterprise for collecting fuelwood (mostly dead standing trees) by themselves. This is not the case in the other communities (only in one instance, which accounts for 0.8%) whose members buy firewood

mainly from forestries. Since average wages in the other communities were higher due to their proximity to large cities, their members preferred to buy ready firewood (cut and sawed) including delivery. In accordance with the forest legislation, the population buys firewood from the state through forestries. There is a system of benefits, in accordance with which each household can purchase a limit of 4.99 cubic meters at a reduced price per year. If there is a need in a larger quantity, any amount above this established limit might be purchased at a higher price. However, some forestry enterprises (such as, the Milashevichi Forestry/GLKHU) offer villagers to harvest firewood in allotted forest sites by cutting specific trees (as pointed out by a forester) within an established timeframe and based on official documents. The less wooded region of Buda-Koshelevo is characterized by a higher frequency of firewood purchases by the population. Last year, all surveyed households (98.5%), except one with an electric boiler, purchased firewood from the Naspen Forestry of the Buda-Koshelevo Experimental Forestry Enterprise. In the Gomel and Milashevichi communities, 94% purchased firewood from the Pribor and Sloboda Stations of the Gomel and Milashevichi forestries. Households with large stocks of firewood remaining after the previous years did not buy firewood at all, because that had no need in additional firewood, as there were several extended warm periods during the winter. The local population consume the collected forest products by themselves, and sell a part of it to procurers for cash. The ratio between these two components in the compared communities differs. Thus, the remoteness of the Milashevichi community from large populated centers, employment problems encountered by its members and the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by forests with large reserves of various forest products constitute the reasons why collecting is one of key income sources for these people. Most of the collected berries are sold to procurers, while approximately one-half of all collected mushrooms used by the villagers for food. In the other communities, only part of the collected blueberries is sold. Large quantities are collected in the Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities for subsistence. This fact may be explained by proximity to cities, where the children, grandchildren and other relatives of the villagers live and work, and who get most of the products, in raw, preserved or dried form. During the survey, we observed that rural residents differed by the following characteristics: family makeup, education, social status, level of income, value of assets, etc. To determine the extent of their forest dependence, we classified them by their income levels (1- with the lowest income; 5 – the wealthiest). In Milashevichi, all population groups collected forest products both for their own consumption and for cash. The average income from forest products (both cash and subsistence) increases along with the total income. Category 1 is dominated by young families with small children, where only the family head is employed. Category 2 is represented by single pensioners or pensioners aged over 70; Category 4 – by pensioners living with another family member (generally, a spouse), or a pensioner with one working family member), or pensioners under 70. Category 3 comprises families with children (two and more), mostly schoolchildren, and the volumes of forest crop collected by them, as compared to Categories 1, 2 and 4 is higher; however, the needs of these families are also higher. The observed drop in the average forest income and RFI in Categories 1, 2 and 4 is due to

the prevalence of pensioners in Categories 2 and 4; due to poor health they visit forests less often, but have a stable income – their pensions. Category 5 comprises families with several working- age members who bring regular income in the form of wages, work in the households and actively collect forest products. Forest income makes a major part of the budgets of such families. In the other communities (Buda-Koshelevo-Gomel), all poverty categories included insignificant numbers of villagers (1-2 and only in Category 4 – 5) who sold blueberries for cash. In the Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities there is a trend toward reduction of forest dependence with growth of income of the population. The wealthiest residents (Category 5) have a high stable income and the large amounts of forest products they collect for own consumption do not have a significant influence on the overall family income. The relative forest income (RFI) index varies from 0.04 to 0.22 in the surveyed communities of the Grodno Region. It should be noted that in Milashevichi the RFI (0.16) is on average three times higher by quintiles than in the other communities (RFI = 0.05). The study suggests that the level of income in the communities is differentiated. However, within quintiles based on dividing the population into 5 groups by levels of income, the sample was not always homogenous, because some members of a household with a certain standard of living, might have changed jobs last year or might have been unemployed, etc. Thus, income not always fully reflects the standard of living of a household. That is why it seems useful to study forest dependence based on a division of household by owned assets. Ownership of vehicles, including agricultural, was chosen as a criterion for dividing the population into groups of owners of assets. Considering that during recent years, greater numbers of rural residents have been acquiring vehicles, including used cars (2-20 years old and older), and whose prices differ considerably, they were divided as follows: rich – who own vehicles costing from $8,000 and more; medium – less than $7,500 and not older than 10 years; and poor, who do not own any vehicles. In Milashevichi, the entire population, despite the value of owned assets, collect forest products for both subsistence and cash. Subsistence forest income is the highest in the medium category; it decreases in the rich category; and is the lowest in the poor category. A greater degree of forest dependence, based on average income from forest products and RFI, is observed in the category of expensive assets. The category of the wealthiest, according to their ownership of assets is represented by two-parent families: working age medium generation, frown-up children, sometimes pensioners- parents as well. The members of such families have a good job; work in their gardens and breed livestock. The proceeds they get from the sale of forest crop they invest in building, houses repairs, procurement of household appliances and cars. In that regard forest dependence in the category of rich is higher. In the other communities, the medium category is characterized by both high cash and subsistence use of forest products, is the most forest dependent one. The poor collect forest products for their own consumption, while the rich collect forest products for their own consumption and selling. When the population is divided by assets, forest dependence lowers, in the poor category, who are either unable because of poor health and advanced age, or do not wish to collect forest products. As a part of the study, the most important forest products were identified and the reasons of changes in their levels were analyzed.

Thus, in Buda-Koshelevo, the respondents defined firewood, blueberries and medicinal plants as the most important forest products. The respondents were concerned about the decline in the stocks of firewood and blueberries that has been taking place in recent years. They stated that the levels of medicinal plant species collected by them had not changed. The villagers link the reduction of firewood to local forest use restrictions (50%) and the decrease of the areas of mature forests (50%). According to the respondents, blueberry levels are declining due to, firstly, intensified harvesting (33%) – more people collect these berries than before (city residents, vacationers, etc.); secondly, the use of damaging collection methods (33%) by harvesters that break blueberry plants, which take a long time to be restored; and, thirdly, climate changes (33%). Blueberry stocks have increased during recent years because of the ban on their collection. An increase of the use of blueberries will be possible after a certain time necessary for radionuclides to lose half of their radioactivity. When asked, what could be the most important factor for increasing firewood use, the respondents answered that it would be a “better access to forests”. The most important for increasing the use of blueberries or income from them was more efficient protection of forests from the growing numbers of collectors. Another very important aspect pointed out by the respondents was the need to set up better markets and increase procurement prices for this product. Respondents in the Gomel community named firewood and blueberries as the most important products; they have not noticed any decline in these forest products during recent years. Respondents in the Milashevichi community named firewood and cranberry as the most important products, In the recent years, the firewood stock remains on the same level, while the amount of cranberry has dropped. The Milashevichi residents that the declines in cranberry reserves and yield capacity is a result of, first of all, climate change, and then of the use of prohibited collection methods and the increase of the numbers of collectors. According to the respondents, in order to increase the use of cranberries and the income from their collection, higher procurement prices should be set, because procurers offer very low prices, especially at the outset of collection, while at the market it is sold at very high prices at the beginning of the season; and the number of collectors should be regulated. In Rudnya Viktorinskaya, firewood and blueberries were also named as the most important products. Blueberry stocks have increased during recent years because of the ban on their collection. An increase of the use of blueberries will be possible after a certain time necessary for half-life of radionuclides. Thus, three large communities in various parts of the Gomel Region were involved in the survey. Their specific locations conditioned the differences in their socioeconomic positions and key areas of development. The Buda-Koshelevo community has an agricultural orientation, which influences not only the economic makeup of its members, but their social standing as well. As compared with the other communities, the number of professionals is higher in Buda-Koshelevo, as well as the agricultural income. The Gomel community is located near a large regional capital, which influences all sides of

its members’ lives. A major part of the respondents work in the city. Members of rural communities located near to large populated centers collect forest products both for themselves and for their children who, as a rule, live and work in the cities. Forest dependence is stronger in areas isolated from large cities and infrastructures and surrounded on all sides by forests. In such communities (Milashevichi), the share of forest income in total income is 4 and more times higher compared to the other communities. A major part of the working-age population of Milashevichi spend summers collecting forest products. This source of income is very important for them, as for many villagers proceeds from sale of berries and mushrooms make a major part of their overall income. Main conclusions and follow-up recommendations: This forest dependence survey, conducted in Belarus for the first time, has shown that the use of forest products in different communities differs considerably. This circumstance has to be taken into account, when planning and managing forests. The forest use in Belarus is multipurpose (integral) when not only timber is obtained but also other non-timber forest resources with the use of the methods not violating ecological state of the forest ecosystems. In accordance with the Forest Code of the Republic of Belarus the variety of non-timber resources of Belarusian forests include soft resin, birch juice, edible mushrooms (including edible boletus and chanterelle), berries (including cranberries, blackberries, mountain ash and chokeberry tree), fruits, medicinal herbs (including Saint-John’s wort and yarrow), feed resources, game animals and honey. The Ministry of Forestry of Belarus has data on average annual stocks of non-timber forest resources, including biological resources and means of collection, as well as data on annual amounts of collected resources (on the basis of special permits and by local people visiting the forest). A pilot project on the study of forest and forest resources role in the life of the rural population has been implemented as a part of the FLEG II Programme. The local communities selected for the study in Belarus are situated in the Gomel Region and differ by the range of collected resources and the level of forest income. As the studies have proved the forest dependence of the local population is more than four times higher in the settlements situated far from big cities an area with a high forest density. In these areas, wide-scale forest crop collection, mainly for sale, is observed. The collected crop is sold to private procurers at low prices; the latter resell the raw products, abroad as well. As far as the procurement prices are low for the locals they try to collect as much as possible often using the prohibited methods of collection, thus, bringing harm to the berry beds. Therefore, we propose the following measures to ensure multipurpose forest use and to support local population and conserve resources capacity and forest biodiversity:

• Continue identification of forest-dependent communities. • Identify the range of forest crop collected by these communities. • Create forest crop processing facilities in these areas (production of dried or canned mushrooms and berries, herbal teas, possibly, in special-design packaging) will help promote the country and its forestry sector. It could be also related with eco-tourism. • A reasonable pricing policy and market provisions (on-spot procuring of collected

productions). The issue of sale of non-timber products by private businessmen should also be examined. • Reinforce public control over berry beds in the area of mass collection of berries. • Regulate collection of non-timber forest resources, prevent the use of illegal means of collection of forest resources.

1. Introduction 1.1 Forests and forest use in the country

Forest management in the Republic of Belarus is based on the principles of sustainability, inexhaustibility and relatively balanced forest use, which is understood as integrated utilization of timber/secondary forest resources and secondary forest production, while preserving the biological diversity and ensuring environmental, water/soil protection and social functions of forests. In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (Article 13), the Forest Code of the Republic of Belarus (Article 7) and other legal acts, the forest sector of the country functions in conditions of exclusive state ownership of forests and centralized forest management and use [1, 2]. In accordance with Article 13 of the Land Code, parcels of land included, in particular, in the land of the forest fund [3] are not to be provided as private property or property of foreign states and international organizations. The right to dispose of forests, the general policy of increasing the natural resources potential of forests and sustainable forest use are determined by the President of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Belarus. A specially authorized government authority, Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus, whose functions and objectives are established in the Forest Code and in the Regulation on the Ministry of Forestry, carries out state administration of the use, reproduction, conservation and protection of the country’s forests; develops the legal framework for forest management; and ensures a rational development of forest resources. Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus coordinates the activities of other national government authorities, local executive and regulatory authorities and legal entities concerned with forest management, regardless of their type of ownership, in the sphere of the use, conservation and protection of the forest fund and reforestation. Such legal entities include forest management agencies of the Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus; forestry enterprises and forestries of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Belarus; educational and experimental forest enterprises of the Ministry of Education; experimental forest bases of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus; the Polessky State Radiation and Environment Reserve of the Republic of Belarus Emergency Ministry; public conservation organizations that manage nature reserves and national parks; forest management enterprises of the Property Management Directorate of the President of the Republic of Belarus, and the Minsk Forest and Park Authority. The forest fund of the Ministry of Forestry occupies over 86% of the total area of the state forest fund. The forest legislation of Belarus allows leasing land of the forest fund, though this practice has not yet become widespread. Forest law provides for the use of forests for collecting crops of forest products with limitations on their amounts and prohibition of collection methods that deplete the resources of non-timber forest products and harm forest biodiversity.

1.2 Rationale

There is a number of publications devoted to forest management, forest and forest resource appraisal in Belarus (3, 4, 5,6,7,8, etc.). However, the social aspect of sustainable forest management has been overlooked by the research component of the forest industry, with attention focused only on ecotourism and the cultural heritage. The following questions have never been studied: What is the dependence of Belarusians and, especially of rural residents, on forest resources? What types of forest products are gathered in different regions of the country? What is gathered depending on income levels? How many forest products are used by the local population for cash and for subsistence? How important are forest products for communities located in areas contaminated by radionuclides? These and many other questions need to be answered. Knowledge of the social aspects of forest functionality allows determining the degree of dependence of rural communities on forest, revealing the regional specifics of forest products use; planning more multipurpose forest use; and raising public awareness about sustainable forest management. Therefore, the goal of this survey is to learn about the particularities of forest resources use by rural communities in order to determine the degree of their forest dependence.

2. Methodology 2.1 Study area

The forest cover in the Republic of Belarus is currently 39.1%. The average per capita forest area is 0.86 hectares. Of the six regions of the country, Gomel Region has the highest forest cover percentage – 45.8% (Figure 1), with per capita forest area reaching 1.3 hectares. For these reasons the region was selected as a model area for the survey.

Figure 1 – Forest cover (%) in regions and districts of Belarus

Gomel Region is situated in the southeast of Belarus and borders with Russia and in the south with Ukraine. The region occupies 19.5% of the country’s territory and 16.4% of Belarus population live there. The area of the region is 40.4 thousand sq.km and it includes 21 districts. The distribution of forests in Gomel Region is not even (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Forest cover in Gomel Region and the location of the studied communities 2.2 Method of sampling

The communities were selected according to their proximity to populated centers with different population sizes: 1,000, 35,000 and 500,000 residents. Three populated centers were selected: the Milashevichi, Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel Districts with population density of 8.22 people per km2; 23.38 people per km2 and 34.82 people per km2, respectively. Forest cover parentage is Milashevichi district is 66.7, which is one of the highest in Belarus; this figure in Buda-Koshelevo district is 22.5%, which is one of the lowest in Gomel Region; and in the Gomel district it is 44.0%. There are forestry enterprises in all selected communities. The random sampling technique was applied on an area of 10-30 km away from the selected populated centers (Milashevichi, Gomel and Buda-Koshelevo) to first select several villages around each of these centers and later, after site visits, a village best meeting the objectives of the study. Considering that, due to the Chernobyl accident, 25% of the territory of Belarus was, to a various degree, contaminated with radionuclides, the issue of forest functionality for rural communities in these conditions is essential. Thus, since in Buda-Koshelevo district there are

forestries with different levels of radioactive contamination, we conducted studies in that community in both “clean” and “contaminated” areas.

2.3 Number of households

In the Buda-Koshelevo community we looked at small villages (Naspan and Rudnya Viktorinskaya) and large ones (Gubichi, Staraya Buda and Rogin). In the Gomel community, we looked at large villages (Teleshi, Terenichi, Pribor, Pioner and Novaya Buda) and small ones (Tsykuny). In the Milashevichi community, we looked at villages located far away from large highways and railroads and river routes (large: Pribolovichi, Dzerzhinsk, Bukcha, Ivanova Sloboda and with small populations: Sloboda). In each populated center (Buda-Koshelevo, Gomel and Milashevichi), several villages were examined in order to select one village in each region that would best comply with the goal of the study. As a result of a field examination of the villages, and based on their relative proximity to forests, as well as the age and social diversity of residents, presence of a forestry, etc., the survey covered the following: in Gomel – the Novaya Buda village, in Milashevichi – the village Ivanova Sloboda, and in Buda-Koshelevo – the village Gubichi. Since in Buda-Koshelevo, the village Gubichi is located on a “clean” area; a small village of Rudnya Viktorinskaya with a level of radioactive contamination with cesium-137 from 5 to 15 curie/km2 was also selected in the contaminated area.

Table 2 Villages and codes in the database Region Village name Code in the database 3 Buda-Koshelevo 301 3 Gomel 302 3 Milashevichi 303 3 Rudnya Viktorinskaya 304

Before interviewing the households, we interviewed the relevant village council officials of Gubichi, Koshelevo (Buda-Koshelevo), Pribor (Gomel) and Tonezh (Milashevichi) and collected data on infrastructure, population composition, etc. As of 01.01.2014, the Gubichi community (Buda-Koshelevo) consisted of 585 members and 231 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every third house on all streets). Interviews were also conducted at workplaces (the farm, forestry, store, school, post office). According to the results of the study, part of the 231 houses are planned to be demolished (according to a route study – 1), some houses, according to neighbors, are vacant (5) and some houses have been bought by city dwellers as summer houses and are used during the summer season (3).Number of interviewed households (sample size) - 69, which amounts to 34% considering vacant houses. As of 01.01.2014, the Novaya Buda community (Gomel) included 293 members and 131 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every other house).

Number of the interviewed households (sample size) - 52, which is 39.7%. As of 01.01.2014, the community Ivanova Sloboda (Milashevichi) consisted of 426 members and 196 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every third house). It was found that some houses were vacant for various reasons. The number of interviewed households (sample size) is 67, making 32%, and with the number of vacant houses – over 37%. As of 01.01.2014, the community Rudnya Viktorinskaya occupying an area contaminated by radionuclides (Buda-Koshelevo) consisted of 25 members and 21 households. Households were selected on the basis of random sampling (every other house). The number of the interviewed households (sample size) - 12, which is 57%.

2.4 Timeline

Interview timeframes in the Gubichi community (Buda-Koshelevo) were the following: May 26 – May 30, June 9, June 25, 26, July 8. In Novaya Buda community (Gomel) interview timeframes were the following: July 11-14 and July 28-30. Interview timeframes in community Ivanova Sloboda (Milashevichi) were the following: July 17-20. In Rudnya Viktorinskaya (Buda-Koshelevo), the interviews were conducted on August 1.

2.5 Field implementation and problems

During the interviews, some villagers displayed distrust and unwillingness to respond to questions, especially to those concerning assets. Most of the respondents, after the goals of the study had been explained and they had been engaged in private conversations, agreed to answer the questions of the questionnaires.

2.6 Local unit conversion

Table 2. Local unit conversion Local namе Metric Metric Mean price across Product unit equivalent the regions, BLR 1 Bag/sack Kg 40 90000 Potato 2 Bucket Kg 10 30000 Mushroom 3 Bucket Kg 9 22500 Cranberry 4 Bucket Kg 9 18000 Blueberry 5 Truck Kg 200 60000 Manure All data was entered as USD at the rate of 1USD = 10.000 BYR

3. Study area characteristics Community 1 - Buda-Koshelevo

3.1 Brief history of village

The largest village of the first community that had been studied is the village of Gubichi. The following characteristics of the community will be mainly based on this village. According to written sources, the village of Gubichi has been known since the 16th century as a settlement located in the Rechitsa District of Minsk Province in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the 1640 inventory of the Gomel Eldership, it is described as a village consisting of 15 houses. After the first division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, it was listed as part of the Russian Empire. It had a grain distillery, milling shop and later a grain reserve warehouse. An elementary school was opened in 1895. In 1909, it was part of Nedaiskaya District, Gomel Country, Mogilev Province. Since 1924, it has been the center of the Gubichi Village Council of Buda-Koshelevo District.

3.2 Demographics

According to the 1838 Census, there were 44 households in the village of Gubichi; and during the 19th century, it grew both by the number of households and residents (in 1858 – 73 hh and 388 residents and in 1897 – 124 hh and 875 residents). Gubichi continued to expand in the first half of the 20th century (1909 – 141 hh and 1,004 residents and in 1925 – 225 hh). However, starting from the second half of the 20th century, growth had ceased and by 1959, there were 635 residents living in the village. A declining trend is being observed in the 21st century (2004 – 281 hh and 671 residents and at present – 231 hh and 585 residents). The main reason is the outflow of youth to cities. The study was conducted in Buda-Koshelevo District located in the northeast of Gomel Region. The specific feature of this region is that part of its area is contaminated with radionuclides. Population of the district is 43,100; district capital – Buda-Koshelevo with a population of 9,500. The city is located 48 km northwest of Gomel and 256 km southeast of Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Working-age population comprises 55.2%, of whom 41.0% are women; pensioners – 25.8%, of whom 73.3% are women; and 19% of the population are children, of whom girls comprise 50%. Practically all Gubichi residents (over 90%) are engaged in agriculture in their households. 62% of house owners keep livestock. One-third of the population works at the local collective farm, of whom 40% are women. There have not been any significant changes in the population of the town for the past year.

3.3 Infrastructure availability

Automobile and railroad transportation is the prevailing means of communication. The Buda-Koshelevo Railroad Station is located on the Minsk-Gomel Line. The Dovsk- Gomel highway passes through the district. Buda-Koshelevo District is of interest as a tourism location with its sacred spring Holy Krinichka in Selets; Moiseenko Art Gallery, church in Nedoika; and the site of an ancient settlement in Uvarovichi. The Chechera Reservoir is a recreational resource (Vydritsa village);

and there are 4 functioning country estates in the district. The agricultural town Gubichi is located 20 km to the west of Buda-Koshelevo; 8 km from the Sharibovka railroad station (on the Zhlobin-Gomel Line); and 56 km from Gomel. The Cheremkha River, a confluent of the Dnepr River, flows through the northern part of the town edge. In addition, a year-round motor road connects Gubichi with Buda-Koshelevo. The town has power and water supply, but lacks gas supply. The residents use bottled gas. In the town, there is the Town Council and the office of the GOLKHU Buda-Koshelevo Experimental Forestry Enterprise of the Naspen Forestry. The town has an adequate infrastructure: a school, community center, library, a medical and obstetrician center, kindergarten, 3 stores, of which one is private, a post office, House of Crafts, canteen for the workers, a farm, and a service center.

3.4 Economic data

The employment level of the working-age population is around 93%. Among those who are not employed are villagers who work several months in Russia and then spend several months at home.

3.5 Major economic activities

Agriculture, mostly meat and dairy, is the leading economic branch of the district.

3.6 Seasonal calendar

Table 3. Seasonal calendar (Community 1) product jan feb march april may june july august sept oct nov dec Carrot + Onion + Apples + + + Tomato + + + Cucumber + + Cabbage + + Red beet + + Potato + + Medicinal + plants Boletus + + + edulis

Chanterelle + + + + Wild + + Strawberry Armillaria + + Aspen + + + mushroom Birch + + + mushroom Lime tree + flowers Birch juice + Blueberry + +

3.7 Major markets and market access

The distance to the nearest market is 22 km; firewood and timber may be bought at the forestry (1 km). There is a system of benefits, in accordance with which each household can purchase a limit of 4.99 cubic m per year at a reduced price. If there is a need in a larger quantity, any amount above this established limit may be purchased at a higher price.

3.8 Major land cover and land uses

Forests occupy 22.5% of the district, which is one of the lowest forest cover percentages in the Gomel Region. According to the Forest Site Classification of the Republic of Belarus, the northern part of Buda-Koshelevo District is categorized as a subzone of hornbeam-oak-dark- coniferous forests of the Berezinsky-Predpolessky Forest District and is a part of the Chechersko- Pridneprovsky Forest Track Complex, while its southern part is located in the subzone of broadleaf-pine forests of the Polessko-Pridneprovsky Forest District and is part of the Gomel- Pridneprovsky Forest Track Complex. Overall, pine forests prevail in this district in combination with broad-leaved oak, hornbeam and other forests. The larger part of the district lies on a plain. The relief is made up of sand bars, ravines and river-valleys. There us a variety of soils, but sands dominate.

3.9 Description of conservation areas

The Buda-Koshelevo Biological Reserve was founded in this district to preserve valuable oak trees. The biological reserve is situated too far away from Gubichi and, thus, the villagers do not go there.

3.10 Tenure and governance

Forested areas surrounding the villages of Gubichi, Novaya Buda and Ivanova Sloboda are

not included in protected areas with limited economic activity. The Republic of Belarus, which is the owner of all forests, exercises its forest ownership, use and management rights through authorized government authorities within their competence and with an account of the habitat forming, water protection, conservation, health and sanitary, recreational and other functions of forests in the interests of the citizens of the Republic of Belarus and in the general interests of the state. Forest management is regulated in accordance with the forest legislation of Belarus and corresponding decrees, regulations and regulatory acts. The Forest Code of the Republic of Belarus dated July 14, 2000, is the primary legislative act of the forest sector, whose goal is to ensure a complete and systematic regulation of relations in the sphere of managing, protecting and conserving the forest fund and renewing forests in the country. Relations in the sphere of managing and protecting forested land are regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Belarus on the protection and use of land (Land Code and the legislation passed on its basis); relations in the sphere of managing plants in the forest fund are regulated by the forest legislation of the Republic of Belarus (the law of the Republic of Belarus of June 14, 2003 “On Plants” and the legislation passed on its basis); relations in the sphere of protecting and managing animals within the boundaries of the forest fund are regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Belarus on protecting and managing animals (the law of the Republic of Belarus of July 10, 2007 “On Animals” and the legislation passed on its basis); and relations in the sphere of the use and protection of water resources, the subsoil and atmospheric air that arise in connection with the use, conservation and protection of the forest fund and forest renewal are regulated by the water resources legislation (“The Water Code” of the Republic of Belarus of July 15, 1998), the legislation on subsoil (“The Subsoil Code” of the Republic of Belarus of July 14, 2008), on the protection of atmospheric air (law of the Republic of Belarus of December 16, 2008 “On the Protection of Atmospheric Air) and other legislations of the Republic of Belarus. In the sphere of regulating forest relations, a number of decrees of the President of the Republic of Belarus were also passed, in particular: • Presidential Decree # 6 of January 5, 2011, “On Some Questions of Regulation in the Forest Sector” (along with the “Rules for Marketing Timber on the Internal Market of the Republic of Belarus in 2011-2012”); • Presidential Decree # 446 of September 9, 2009, “On Some Questions of Improving Activities in the Forest Sector”; • Presidential Decree # 364 of July 7, 2008, “On the Approval of the Provision on the Procedure of Classifying Forests as Protection Groups and Categories, Transfer of Forests from One Protection Group or Category to Another and Establishing Specially Protected Forest Areas”; • Presidential Decree # 91 of February 12, 2009, “On Some Questions of Activities in the Forest Sector”; • Presidential Decree # 214 of May 7, 2007, “On Some Measures to Improve Activities in the Forest Sector” (along with the “Rules for Releasing Standing Timber and Its Harvesting in the Forests of the Republic of Belarus”, “Rules for Selling Timber on the Internal Market of the Republic of Belarus”, “Regulation on State Forest Protection in the Republic of Belarus”), etc.

Of much importance are regulatory acts of the Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus passed in the form of decrees in the sphere of regulating forest relations.

3.11 Government and other development/conservation projects

Forests in Belarus play a tremendous conservation role along with environmental, resource and other functions. There are currently over 1,440 specially protected areas in the republic. Relations in the sphere of managing, protecting and conserving the forest fund and renewing forests located within the boundaries of protection nature areas are regulated by the forest legislation of the Republic of Belarus on protected areas (the law of the Republic of Belarus of October 20, 1994 “On Protected Nature Areas” as revised by the law of the Republic of Belarus of May 23, 2000, and the legislation passed on its basis).

3.12 Calamities

No significant calamities that may affect the data have been observed.

3.13 Other relevant issues

In 1986 brick houses (139 apartments) were built for relocated residents of areas contaminated by radionuclides as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe.

Community 2 - Gomel

3.1 Brief history of village

The settlement selected for the close study in the second community is Novaya Buda. Thus, the further characteristics of the second community Gomel will based on the description of the village of Novaya Buda. A burial mound discovered by archeologists at a distance of 2 km to the east from Novaya Buda gives evidence that the village began to be populated starting from the late 10th – early 12th centuries. According to written sources, the village of Novaya Buda has been known since the 18th century as a settlement in Rechitsa District of Minsk Province in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After the first division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, it was listed as part of the Russian Empire. In 1798, it belonged to Field Marshal Count P.A.Rumyantsev- Zadunaisky as part of his Gomel Estate. In 1834, Novaya Buda was the property of Field Marshal Prince I.F.Paskevich. According to the 1897 Census, a grain reserve warehouse was located there. In 1909, it was part of the Dyatlovichskaya District of Gomel County, Mogilev Province. From 1926 and up to date, it has been under the jurisdiction of the Pribor Village Council. In 1930, the collective farm Red Builder (Krasny Stroitel) was organized in Novaya Buda; and there was also a blacksmith’s shop.

3.2 Demographics

In the late 18th century, some 80 people lived on the area of today’s Novaya Buda and by the late 19th century – over 190 people lived in 31 households. In the first half of the 20th century, the village grew (1909 – 32 hh and 237 residents; 1926 – 67 hh and 361 residents; and in 1959 – 509 residents). In the early 21st century, there were 131 households in Novaya Buda with 314 residents; today 293 residents live in the same number of the households. The study was conducted in the Gomel district. The city of Gomel is the administrative capital of the Gomel Region and Gomel District. It has the second largest population in the country (521,225 as of December 1, 2013). Gomel is located in the southeast of Belarus, on the Sozh River, 302 km southeast of Minsk. Its area is 135 km² (as of January 1, 2011). The number of workers employed at state enterprises is approximately 39%, including 58% in industry. Women account for 55% and men for 45% of the total population. Working-age population in Novaya Buda comprises 57.1%; pensioners – 23.5%; children under the age of 15 – 19.4%. During the past year, some changes have taken place in the village’s population: there was a 4.4% increase, due to born children and the arrival of migrants and a 9.2% decrease, due to deaths and departed residents. Thus, an average decrease of 4.8% has occurred.

3.3 Infrastructure availability

The village of Novaya Buda is situated at a distance of 2 km from the Pribor Railroad Station (on the Kalinkovichi-Gomel Line) and 10 km to the west of Gomel in proximity to the Uza River (a confluent of the Sozh River); it borders with a forest on the west. The means of communication used by the locals – first by a country road and then by motor road Kalinkovichi- Gomel. The village has power supply and water wells and no gas supply – residents use bottled gas. The layout of the village is made up of 2 almost parallel streets connected by 2 lanes and running from the southeast to the northwest. The streets are lined with private wooden houses. There is a church, a store and a post office in the village.

3.4 Economic data

The employment level of the working-age population is over 90%. Among the temporarily unemployed residents are school and college graduates who have not yet become employed and also those who work in other countries and spend the summers at home.

3.5 Major economic activities

80% of the population is engaged in agriculture. In Pribor Village Council, there is a procurement center and private procurers.

3.6 Seasonal calendar

Potatoes are the key agricultural product in all the studied villages. It is planted in April- May and harvested in August-September. The same time of planting and harvesting is set for

beets, cabbage and carrots. In all the villages, growing garlic and onions is very popular and they are harvested in July and July-August respectively. Other popular vegetables include cucumbers and tomatoes that are planted in May and harvested in June-July and July-August-September respectively. Apples are the most common fruit and are harvested from June to September. Table 4. Seasonal calendar (Community 2) product jan feb march april may june july august sept oct nov dec Red beet + + Potato + + Carrot + + Cucumber + + Garlic + + Onion + Tomato + + + Cabbage + + Blueberry + Birch juice + Armillaria + + Aspen mushroo + + + m Birch mushroo + + + m Chanterell + + e Boletus + + + edulis

3.7 Major markets and market access

The distance to the nearest markets of consumer goods and agricultural products is 15 km; firewood may be bought at the forestry (1 km). There is a system of benefits, in accordance with which each household can purchase a limit of 4.99 cubic m per year at a reduced price. If there is a need in a larger quantity, any amount above this established limit may be purchased at a higher price.

3.8 Major land cover and land uses

Gomel is situated in the northern part of the Pridneprovskaya Plain. According to physiographic zoning, the city and most of its suburban areas lie within the northeastern part of the Gomelskoye Polessye physiographic district, which is a part of the Belorusskoye Polessye subprovince. On the northwest, the city is adjoined by the Checherskaya Valley physiographic district of the Predpolesskaya province.

In the area surrounding Gomel, sod-podzol and at times boggy soils prevail that develop on glacieofulvial sand-slit fluvial soils; there are also sod and sod-calcareous, alluvial and peat- bog soils. The relief is a flat and undulating plain included in the water-genetic erosion- accumulating relief system. The more common are sod-podzol soils (78.4%). Other types of soils are represented insignificantly. Pine ranges (61%) prevail in the forests of the studied area with occasional oak woods (11%), birch woods (18%) and black alder woods (7%). The Republic of Belarus, which is the owner of all forests, exercises its forest ownership, use and management rights through authorized government authorities within their competence and with an account of the habitat forming, water protection, conservation, health and sanitary, recreational and other functions of forests in the interests of the citizens of the Republic of Belarus and in the general interests of the state. Forest management is regulated in accordance with the forest legislation of Belarus and corresponding decrees, regulations and regulatory acts.

3.9 Description of conservation areas

Forested areas surrounding the villages of Novaya Buda are not included in specially protected natural territories.

3.10 Tenure and governance

Rules regulating the use of forest land and natural resources are applied to the whole of the Republic of Belarus (see description of Community 1).

3.11 Government and other development/conservation projects

3.12 Calamities

No significant calamities that may affect the data have been observed.

3.13 Other relevant issues

The main environmental problems of Gomel - air pollution and soil and water contamination by chemical elements – are due mainly to the position of Gomel as a large

industrial center. Local climatic conditions are favorable for the successful growth of a broad range of wood and shrub species that are typical of the geobotanical subzone of broad leaf-pine forests (pine, oak, maple, ash, hornbeam and lime). The natural and climatic conditions are very well suited for using this area for recreational purposes year-round and more actively during summer and autumn.

Community 3 - Milashevichi

3.1 Brief history of village

Community 3 - Milashevichi is represented by the village of Ivanova Sloboda. According to written sources, the village of Ivanova Sloboda has been known since the 19th century as a settlement in Tonezh District in the Mozyr County, Minsk Province; and in 1879 as a settlement in Tonezh Parish. At the end of the 19th century, there was a blacksmith’s shop in the village and in 1913, a county school was opened there in a rented peasant house. A collective farm was organized in the village in 1930. The village was burned down by the Nazis in 1943. Since the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, the village is the center of the Red Polesye (Krasnoye Polessye) Collective Farm.

3.2 Demographics

According to censuses, during the 19th century, the village expanded and the number of residents grew (in 1811 there were 11 hh and 59 residents; in 1834 – 15 hh and 99 residents; and in 1897 – 74 hh and 401 residents). In the first half of the 20th century growth continued (1908 – 85 hh and 607 residents; in 1925 – 118 hh; and in 1940 – 141 hh and 723 residents). After World War II, the village was restored and, according to a 1959 Census, 526 people lived there. In 2004, there were 244 hh and 551 residents in Ivanova Sloboda. At present, it consists of 196 households in which 426 residents live. The working-age population comprises 45.5%; pensioners – 39.4%; and children less than 15 years of age – 15.0%. No population changes have been observed, because the numbers of born children and deceased residents are approximately the same.

3.3 Infrastructure availability

The village has power and water supply, but does not have gas supply; the residents use bottled gas. The distance to the nearest consumer goods and agricultural markets is 45 km. The office of the Sloboda Station of the Milashevichi Forestry/GLKHU is located in the village, where there are also an elementary school and kindergarten, a collective farm, a medical and obstetrician center, a store, a post office and a work site of the forest chemical industry (soft resins production). The layout of the village is the following: there is one straight street running from southwest to northeast lined with private wooden and brick houses; and small lanes that perpendicularly branch off it.

3.4 Economic data

The employment level of the working-age population is 90%. Among temporarily unemployed there are villagers who collect forest products in the summer.

3.5 Major economic activities

Meat and dairy agricultural production is the leading branch in this district. The local collective farm specializes in growing grain and fodder crops and in breeding large cattle. The timber industry occupies a considerable share in the economy of the district. With account of health and sanitary, water protection, soil protection and other functions of the forest, the role of forests in the life of the district is constantly growing.

3.6 Seasonal calendar

Table 5 Seasonal calendar (Community 3) product jan feb march april may june july august sept oct nov dec Potato + + + Apples + + + Tomato + + + + Cucumber + + + Onion + + Garlic + + + Carrot + + Red beet + + + Birch juice + Cabbage + + +

3.7 Major markets and market access

The distance to the nearest markets of consumer goods and agricultural products is 10 km. There is a system of benefits, in accordance with which each household can purchase a limit of 4.99 cubic meters at a reduced price per year. If there is a need in a larger quantity, any amount above this established limit may be purchased at a higher price.

3.8 Major land cover and land uses

The study was conducted in the Lelchitsy District (Milashevichi). Milashevichi is an administrative and cultural/economic center situated in the left bank of the Ubort River, 250 km from the regional center, Gomel, 35 km from the district center, Lelchitsy, and 110 km from the nearest railroad stations of Yelsk, Zhitkovichi and Mozyr. Forests occupy 67.7% of the area, which is the highest woodiness indicator not only in the Gomel Region, but in the Republic of Belarus as well. In the forests of this district pine stands prevail, accounting for 71.3% of all wooded land; as well as hard-leaved species (common oak [quercus robur]) – 6.4 % and soft-wooded species (birch and black alder) – 22.3%. Considerable areas (27%) are occupied by bog forests. According to the Forest Site Classification, forest stand adjacent to the village of Ivanova Sloboda are included in the central part of the Polessko-Pridneprovsky Forest District of the subzone of broadleaf-pine forests. The village of Ivanova Sloboda is situated 25 km northwest of Milashevichi and over 250 km from Gomel. Means of communication: first a local road and then the motor road Dzerzhinsk- Lelchitsy.

3.9 Description of conservation areas

The forests surrounding Ivanova Sloboda are not included in specially protected natural territories.

3.10 Tenure and governance

Rules regulating the use of forest land and natural resources are applied to the whole of the Republic of Belarus (see description of Community 1).

3.11 Government and other development/conservation projects

3.12 Calamities

No significant calamities that may affect the data have been observed.

3.13 Other relevant issues

The Tonezh Village Council, which includes 6 villages, operates an official firm that

procures wild berries and mushrooms; 10 local private procurers do the same. In 2013, the procurers’ deductibles to the village council totaled to 27 million Belarusian Rubles.

Community 4 – Rudnya Viktorinskaya

3.1 Brief history of village

In 1986, the village area was contaminated with radionuclides due to the Chernobyl accident. Some inhabitants moved out and were granted in other settlements by the Government. Only pensioners stayed in the village, who were not willing to leave their homes.

3.2 Demographics

All the residents of this village are pensioners. Figure 3 shows the division of villagers by social status in the Gubichi community (Buda- Koshelevo), in Novaya Buda community (Gomel), the community Ivanova Sloboda (Milashevichi) and the community Rudnya Viktorinskaya (Buda-Koshelevo).

100

Percent 40

0 1 2 3 4

Row 1 Row 2 Row 3

Figure 3 – Division of residents (%) by social status 1 – Buda-Koshlevelo, 2 – Gomel, 3 – Milashevichi, 4 – Rudnya Viktorinskaya; Row 1 – working-age residents, Row 2 – pensioners, Row 3 – children up to 15 years old

3.3 Infrastructure availability

The village has power supply and water wells and no gas supply – residents use bottled gas. The layout of the village is the following: a short straight street runs from southeast to northwest and is lined with private wooden houses. The motor road Chechersk – Buda-Koshelevo crosses the village.

3.4 Economic data

All the residents of this village are pensioners. In some of the households, 14 working-age persons are registered, but they, as a rule, live elsewhere. These are grown up children who have their own families. They often come and help their parents.

3.5 Major economic activities

The key activity of the residents of Rudnya Viktorinskaya is crop farming.

3.6 Seasonal calendar

Potatoes are the key agricultural product in all the studied villages. It is planted in April- May and harvested in August-September. The same time of planting and harvesting is set for beets, cabbage and carrots. In all the villages, growing garlic and onions is very popular and they are harvested in July and July-August respectively. Other popular vegetables include cucumbers and tomatoes that are planted in May and harvested in June-July and July-August-September respectively. Apples are the most common fruit and are harvested from June to September. Table 6. Seasonal calendar (Community 4) product jan feb march april may june july august sept oct nov dec Potato + + + Apples + + + Tomato + + + + Cucumber + + + Onion + + Garlic + + + Carrot + + Red beet + + + Birch juice + Cabbage + + +

3.7 Major markets and market access

3.8 Major land cover and land uses

The village of Rudnya Viktorinskaya included in the study is situated 10 km to the north of the district capital Buda-Koshelevo and the railroad station Buda-Koshelevskaya (on the Zhlobin- Gomel Line). The village is partially surrounded by forests and there is the Glina River (confluent of the

Lipa River).

3.9 Description of conservation areas

The forests surrounding Ivanova Sloboda are not included in specially protected natural territories.

3.10 Tenure and governance

Rules regulating the use of forest land and natural resources are applied to the whole of the Republic of Belarus (see description of Community 1).

3.11 Government and other development/conservation projects

Forest ranges that surround the village are classified by their level of contamination as Zone 2 (5-15 curie) and are under restricted forest management conditions.

3.12 Calamities

It is prohibited to collect berries and mushrooms in the forest.

3.13 Other relevant issues In the nearest future the situation with the territories contaminated with radionuclides will not get any better; therefore, it is rather difficult to foretell the future of the village.

4. Results and discussion 4.1 Income share by source

The share of forest income in the total income amount is the most essential question of the study of the significance of forests in the lives of rural residents. The prioritization of incomes of rural residents living in the surveyed communities is also of high interest. The major sources of the annual income (2013) of the rural population of all the studied communities are wages, pensions, etc. In the Milashevichi community (Figure 4), wages make up 34% of the total income, which is 1.5 and 1.3 times lower than in the Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities due to problems with finding well-paid jobs. Therefore, in these communities many strong and relatively young villagers leave their jobs for the summer or shift work at low-paying jobs in order to collect forest products for sale. The cash earned this way is used as a source of income in winter. Other incomes include, mainly, pensions, benefits, etc. After wages and pensions, the next most significant source of income in Milashevichi is forest income, which comprises 16%. It comes from collecting mushrooms, berries, fuelwood and other non-timber forest products, such as medicinal plants, honey, etc. The share of Forest income in community Milashevichi is 5 times higher than in community Gomel, 4 times higher

than in Buda Koshelevo and 8 times – than in community Rudnya Viktorinskaya. In Milashevichi, the share of income from livestock is 10%, and it is mainly made up of meat (52.6%), milk and eggs. An important income comes from crop farming – 6%. Potatoes, which are the primary crop, are grown practically by all residents (82% of the respondents). Why not 100%? The reasons are that some households could not work in the farm, since either had just recently moved (inherited or bought the house), or were ill (one woman broke a leg, while other pensioners felt too bad to work), or they were young families with an infant or parents or children living nearby, and they work on their gardens, etc. Such vegetables as cabbage, carrots, beets, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions and garlic are also of importance. They are staple foods that are stored and consumed through the winter season. In Milashevichi, 61% of the surveyed households also grow pumpkins, which they consume as food and cattle feed in large quantities and, thus, pumpkins may be defined as internal resources in calculation of the livestock growing cost. So far, business activity has not become widespread in rural areas (less than 1%). According to the relevant village council officials, 10 procurers of wild crops were operating in the district. Their assistants from the local residents accepted and provisionally stored forest products.

Figure 4. Sources of income in Milashevichi

In Milashevichi, members of two surveyed households assist with procuring non-timber forest resources. According to them, they were licensed for this activity. They provided provisional storage facilities (a garage or a barn), and the last year they earned BYR 500-700

from each procured kilogram of forest products. They procured 100-200 kg and more a day. Livestock income is the least significant income in Milashevichi and practically equals zero. Its value is explained by the following reasons: First, some pensioners, due to poor health, can keep only a few chickens. The resulting product, eggs, does not justify the pensioners’ costs of keeping the fowl. Second, at the time of the survey, many respondents had kept pigs either from a few months to almost a year for slaughtering them for meat. Cattle is generally slaughtered in autumn or right before Christmas and, thus, the negative (for some households) indicator may be explained by the fact that having invested in the cattle feed, vet services, etc., most respondents had not received a product in the form of meat from this source of income. The study established that, from the point of view of forest functionality, there were no significant differences between the residents of both Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities and, thus, we have combined them and shall discuss them as one, in comparison with the Milashevichi community. Proximity to such cities as Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel gives villagers a chance to find better-paid jobs. A major source income is wages, accounting for 51 % in Buda Koshelevo and 45 % in Gomel. Other income sources include pensions, child benefits, cash remittances, etc. After wages and pensions the most significant source of income in the communities of Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel (Figure 5) is animal products (livestock) income – 17% and 6%, correspondingly. The source of this income is mainly milk – 55.9% and meat – 28.8%. The share of income from crop growing makes 6% in Buda-Koshelevo and 4% - in Gomel. Potatoes are the main agricultural crop grown in local households – last year 92% of the respondents planted it. Such vegetables as cabbage, carrots, beets, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions and garlic are also of importance. They are staple foods that are stored raw and as preserves and are consumed through the winter season. Pumpkins are grown by 37% of the respondents. Forest income (3-4%) is the fourth source of income. Only one of all surveyed households were engaged in business, specifically, timber processing (1%). Livestock income (less than 1%) is the least significant in all surveyed communities. An analysis of income in Community 4 – Rudnya Viktorinskaya –situated in radioactively contaminated area shows that the most important income source are pensions: 67%. Some villagers or their close relatives are former “clean-up workers" during the Chernobyl accident and receive special benefits. The residents of this area also receive supplements to their pensions. Crop farming is the next important income source after pensions; it makes up 7% of the overall income of the villages, since all residents of that village are pensioners who have the free time and experience necessary for farming. The next most important source of income is livestock (5%). In Rudnya Viktorinskaya, households of pensioners, who have children who often visit them or who live nearby, or who periodically live with their parents, keep livestock. Forest income in this community is less than 2% and includes occasional (not permanent) collection, mainly, of mushrooms. However, it is prohibited to collect mushrooms and berries in forest surrounding this community. Because of the specific conditions of living on contaminated area, practically no relationship has been observed between the members of the Rudnya Viktorinskaya community

and the forest. The outcomes are therefore further compared between two communities – Milashevichi and Buda-Koshelevo/Gomel.

4.2 Frequency of collection of forest products

The Milashevichi residents collect a broad range of forest non-timber products including 13 different types. As compared with the other communities, where 13 items of forest products are collected, Milashevichi community members focus on products that are more profitable. The frequency of collection is shown on Figure 5. The most popular forest resources were mushrooms collected by 67% of respondents last year; blueberries – by 64%; and cranberries – by 57%. Of a lower demand were birch juice collected by 36% households and birch twigs – by 14%, accordingly.

Collect forest productsMilashevichi (Milashevichi)

Blackberry Other Birch juice 3% 6% 7%

Fungal Cranberry 10% 45%

Blueberry 29%

Figure 5 –Collected forest products (Milashevichi)

Other– 6%:Wood –1.7%, Birch besom– 1.5% ,Nettle– 1.0%, Red bilberry– 0.7%, Honey– 0.3%, Fish – 0.2%, Raspberry – 0.2%, Medical herbs – 0.1 %, Animal skin- 0.1%, Single – 0.1%: Hazel nuts, Wild strawberry

The other types of non-timber forest resources, such as fish (6%); medicinal plants (4.5%); animal skin (4.5%); honey (3%); wild strawberries (3%); and twigs (1.5%) were collected by less than 6% of households. Members of the other communities (Buda-Koshelevo-Gomel) collect 17 types of non- timber forest products. The frequency of this collection is shown on Figure 6. The popular forest resources were mushrooms, which were collected by 76% of the respondents, and blueberries –

74% respectively. The majority of the population collected mushrooms and blueberries and, to a lesser degree, birch juice (29% of the households); wild strawberries (22%); medicinal plants (21%), birch twigs (14%) and nuts (7%). Other types of secondary forest resources, such as firewood, fagots, willow twigs, fish, game meat and rowanberries, were collected by less than 6% of households or on a one-time- only basis. A comparison of collection frequency in the compared communities shows that, due to the specific natural conditions in Milashevichi (marshes), cranberry collection was of a higher significance there, than in the other communities.

Сollect forest products Fish Birch besom Other 1% 4% 2% Fungal 33% Wicker branches 11%

Birch juice 23% Blueberry 26%

Figure 6 – Collected forest products

Other: Raspberry – 1.2%, Wild strawberry – 0.8%, Birch twigs – 0.5%, Blackberry– 0.2%, Sorbus berries– 0.2%, Hazel nuts – 0.2 %, Wicker fence – 0.3%, Medical herbs – 0.3 %, Wicker basket – 0.2%, Timber – 0.2%, Wood – 0.1%

Therefore, it has been found out that the communities collect large quantities of miscellaneous non-timber forest resources. Still, in Milashevichi, the most valuable products were cranberries (BYR 158 mln), mushrooms (BYR 116 mln), blueberries (BYR 103 mln) and firewood (BYR 18 mln) (Figure 7).

Milashevichi

103 158

116

Cranberry Fungal

Figure 7 – Value of the most important forest products in Milashevichi (in BYR mln) In the other communities, the following products were the most valuable: mushrooms (BYR 146 mln), blueberries (BYR 34 mln) and fish (BYR 13 mln) (Figure 8).

13 34 Fungal Blueberry Fish

146

Figure 8 – Value of most important forest products (in BYR mln)

4.3 Fuelwood

One third of the Milashevichi residents have permits from the forestry enterprise to harvest fuelwood (mostly dead standing trees) on their own. This is not the case in the other communities (only in one instance, which accounts for 0.8%) whose members buy firewood mainly from forestries. Since average wages in the other communities were higher due to their proximity to large cities, their members preferred to buy ready firewood (cut and sawed) including delivery. In accordance with the forest legislation (Presidential Decree # 214 of May 7, 2007, “On Some Measures to Improve Activities in the Forest Sector” (along with the “Rules for Releasing Standing Timber and Its Harvesting in the Forests of the Republic of Belarus”, “Rules for Selling Timber on the Internal Market of the Republic of Belarus”, etc.) the population buys firewood from the state through forestries. There is a system of benefits, in accordance with which each

household can purchase a limit of 4.99 cubic meters at a reduced price per year reduced price. If there is a need in larger quantity, any amount above this established limit may be purchased at a higher price. However, some forestry enterprises (such as, the Milashevichi Forestry/GLKHU) offer villagers to harvest firewood in allotted forest sites by cutting specific trees (as pointed out by a forester) within an established timeframe and based on official documents. The frequency of firewood procurement by various communities is shown on Figure 9.

Figure 9 – Frequency of purchase of firewood from forestries

The less wooded region of Buda-Koshelevo is characterized by a higher frequency of firewood purchases by the population. Last year, all surveyed households (98.5%), except one with an electric boiler, purchased firewood from the Naspen Forestry of the Buda Koshelevo Experimental Forestry Enterprise. In the Gomel and Milashevichi communities, 94% purchased firewood from the Pribor and Sloboda Stations of the Gomel and Milashevichi forestries. Households with large stocks of firewood remaining after the previous years did not buy firewood at all, because that had no need in additional firewood, as there were several extended warm periods during the winter. Several pensioners from the Rudnya Viktorinskaya live with their children in the city during the cold season, and do not need to procure firewood. Figure 10 shows the volume and value of firewood purchased by the communities.

Figure 10 – Volume and value of firewood Right column: (in BYR mln)

4.4 Cash and subsistence of forest products

The local population uses collected forest products for own consumption, and sell a part of it to procurers for cash. The ratio between these two components in the compared communities differs. Thus, the remoteness of the Milashevichi community from large populated centers, employment problems encountered by its members and the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by forests with large reserves of various forest products constitute the reasons why collecting is one of most essential income sources for these people. Figure 11 shows the correlation between cash and subsistence use of the most important forest products, from which it follows that most of the collected berries are sold to procurers, while approximately one-half of all collected mushrooms used by the villagers for food.

Figure 11 – Cash and subsistence use of the most important forest products in Milashevichi

In the other communities, only a part of the blueberries is sold. Large quantities are collected in the Buda-Koshelevo and Gomel communities for subsistence. This fact may be explained by proximity to cities, where the children, grandchildren and other relatives of the villagers live and work, and who get most of the products, in raw, preserved or dried form Figure 12 shows the ratio between cash and subsistence use in the communities of Buda- Koshelevo-Gomel.

Cash and forest subsistence the main forest products

16 14 R

Y 12 10 8 6 4

in 1000 000 B 2 0 Fungal Blueberry Fish Birch juice

CASH SUB Figure 12 – Cash and subsistence use of the most important forest products

4.5 RFI over income quintiles

During the survey, we observed that rural residents differed by the following characteristics: family makeup, education, social status, level of income, value of assets, etc. To determine the extent of their forest dependence, we classified them by their income levels. Figure 13 shows average income by categories of poverty (cash and subsistence) and relative forest income. In Milashevichi, all population groups collected forest products both for their own consumption and for cash. The average income from forest products has a tendency to grow along with the total income. Category 1 is dominated by young families with small children, where only the family head is employed. Category 2 is represented by single pensioners or pensioners aged over 70; Category 4 – by pensioners living with another family member (generally, a spouse), or a pensioner with one working family member), or pensioners under 70. Category 3 comprises families with children (two and more), mostly schoolchildren, and the volumes of forest crop collected by them, as compared to Categories 1, 2 and 4 is higher; however, the needs of these families are also higher.

The observed decrease of average income from forest products and RFI in Categories 1, 2 and 4 is explained by the fact pensioners prevail that in Categories 2 and 4, and because of poor health they go to the forest less often, but have a stable income in the form of a pension. Category 5 comprises families with several working-age members, who have a stable income in the form of wages, who work in the household and actively collect forest products. Forest income makes a major part of the budget of these families.

Figure 13 – Cash, subsistence, and RFI by quintiles in Milashevichi

In the other communities (Buda-Koshelevo-Gomel), all poverty categories included insignificant numbers of villagers (1-2 and only in Categories 4–5) who sold blueberries for cash (Figure 14).

Figure 14 – Cash, subsistence, and RFI by quintiles

There is a tendency to reduction of forest dependence as the population’s income grows. The exception is Category 1. Households of this category depend on forests to a smaller degree, because they have a stable income in the form of pensions and have fewer needs. The wealthiest residents (Category 5) have a high stable income and the large amounts of forest products they collect for their own consumption do not have a significant influence on the overall family income. Local people forest dependence (RFI) varies from 0.04 to 0.22 for the studied communities of the Gomel region. However, in Community Milashevichi Forest dependence is on average three times higher by quintiles (RFI – 0.16) than in the other communities (RFI – 0.05).

4.6 RFI over asset groups

The study suggests that the levels of income in the communities is differentiated. However, within quintiles based on dividing the population into 5 groups by levels of income, the sample was not always homogenous, because some members of a household with a certain standard of

living, might have changed jobs the previous year or might have been unemployed, etc. Thus, income does not always reflect the standard of living of a household. That is why it seems useful to study forest dependence based on a division of household by owned assets. Ownership of vehicles, including agricultural, was chosen as a criterion for dividing the population into groups of owners of assets. Considering that during recent years, greater numbers of rural residents have been acquiring vehicles, including used cars (2-20 years old and older), and whose prices differ considerably, they were divided as follows: rich – who own vehicles costing from $8,000 and more; medium – less than $7,500 and over 10 years of service; and poor, who do not own any vehicles. In Milashevichi (Figure 15), the entire population, despite the value of owned assets, collect forest products for both subsistence and cash.

Figure 15 – Cash and subsistence forest income and RFI over asset groups in Milashevichi

Subsistence forest income is reduced from the “rich” to the “poor” category. A greater degree of forest dependence, based on average income from forest products and RFI, is observed in the category of expensive assets. The category of the wealthiest, according to their ownership of assets is represented by two-parent families: working age medium generation, frown-up children, sometimes pensioners- parents as well. The members of such families have a good job; they breed livestock. The proceeds they get from the sale of forest crop they invest in building, houses repairs, procurement of household appliances and cars. In that regard forest dependence in the category of rich is higher. In the other communities (Figure 16) the medium category characterized by both high cash and subsistence use of forest products, is the most forest dependent one.

Figure 16 – Cash and subsistence forest income and RFI over asset groups

The poor collect forest crop for their own consumption, while the rich do both - collect it for their own consumption and sell the collected forest products. When the population is divided by assets, forest dependence lowers in the poor category, who are either unable because of poor health and advanced age, or lack desire to earn surplus income.

4.7 Most Important Products

As a part of the study, the most important forest products were identified and the reasons of changes in their levels were analyzed. Thus, in Buda-Koshelevo-Gomel respondents defined firewood, blueberries and medicinal plants as the most important forest products. They were concerned about the decline of firewood and blueberries that has been taking place in recent years. They stated that the levels of medicinal plant species collected by them had not changed. Figure 17 shows the reasons of the decrease of resources noted by the respondents.

The villagers link the reduction of firewood to local forest use restrictions (50%) and the decrease of the areas of mature forests (50%). According to the respondents, blueberry levels are declining due to, firstly, intensified harvesting (33%) – more people collect these berries than before (city residents, vacationers, etc.); secondly, the use of damaging collection methods (33%) by combines that break blueberry plants, which take a long time to be restored; and, thirdly, climate changes (33%).

120

100 Reason 3 - Climate change

80 Reason 2 -Not proper collection methods Percent Reason 1 - More intensive use of 60

Reason 2 - The reduction in the area 40 of Mature forest Reason 1 - Local restrictions 20 forest management

0 Сategory 1 - Wood Category 2 - Blueberry

Figure 17 - Main reasons of the decline of firewood and blueberries in Buda-Koshelevo

In response to the question about the most important factor for increasing firewood use, the respondents answered that it would be a “better access to forests”. The most important for increasing the use of blueberries or income from them was more efficient protection of forests from the growing numbers of collectors. Another very important aspect pointed out by the respondent was the need to set up better markets and increase procurement prices for this product. Respondents in the Gomel community named firewood and blueberries as the most important products; they have not noticed any decline in these forest products during recent years. In the Milashevichi community, firewood and cranberries were named as the most important products. Firewood has remained at the same level during recent years, while the amount of cranberries has declined. Figure 20 shows the reasons of cranberry decline in Milashevichi. The Milashevichi residents that the declines in cranberry reserves and yield capacity is a result of, first of all, climate change, and then of the use of prohibited collection methods and the increase of the numbers of collectors. According to the respondents, in order to increase the use of cranberries and the income

from their collection, higher procurement prices should be set, because procurers offer very low prices, especially at the outset of collection, while at the market it is sold for very high prices in the beginning of the season; and the number of collectors should be regulated. In Rudnya Viktorinskaya, firewood and blueberries were also named as the most important products.

Milashevichi

120

100 Reason 3 - More intensive use of 80 Reason 2 -Not proper collection methods

60 Reason 1 - Climate change Percent 40

0 Сategory 2 Cranberry

Figure 18 – Main reasons of cranberry decline (Milashevichi)

Blueberry stocks have increased during recent years because of the ban on their collection. An increase of the use of blueberries will be possible after the period of half-life of radionuclides.

5. Conclusion Three large communities in various parts of the Gomel Region were involved in the survey. Their specific locations conditioned the differences in their socioeconomic positions and key areas of development. The Buda-Koshelevo community has an agricultural orientation, which influences not only the economic makeup of its members, but their social standing as well. As compared with the other communities, the number of professionals is higher in Buda-Koshelevo, as is agricultural income. The Gomel community is located near a large regional capital, which influences all sides of its members’ lives. A major part of the respondents work in the city. Members of rural communities located near to large populated centers collect forest products both for themselves and for their children who, as a rule, live and work in the cities. Forest dependence is stronger in the regions that are isolated from large cities and infrastructures and surrounded on all sides by forests. In such communities (Milashevichi), the share of forest income in total income is 4 and more times higher that in the other communities.

A major part of the working-age population of Milashevichi spend summers collecting forest products. This source of income is very important for them, for the majority of the villagers the money earned through sale of berries and mushrooms are makes a considerable part of the overall family income. This forest dependence survey, conducted in Belarus for the first time, has shown that the use of forest products in different communities differs considerably. This circumstance has to be taken into account, when planning and managing forests. We believe that it would be useful to identify all communities with high forest dependence. To support them, a number of specific measures could be proposed. Organization of sustainable integrated use of forest resources in proximity to the most forest-dependent communities will facilitate conservation of biodiversity of the forest ecosystems, improve their environment-forming, water protective and other ecological and social functions of the forest. At present, non-timber forest crop (primarily cranberries, blueberries, and mushrooms) is procured in bulk at low prices by private procurers and probably most of it is resold raw abroad. In this situation it could be possible not only to have additional income establishing forest crop processing facilities in the regions but also create additional working places.

6. References

1 Конституция Республики Беларусь. 1994. – С изм.и доп., принятыми на респ. Референдумах 24 ноября 1996 г. и 17 октября 2004 г. Минск: Беларусь,- 2004. 2 Лесной кодекс Республики Беларусь. Принят Палатой представителей 8 июня 2000 г. Одобрен Советом Республики 30 июня 2000 г. Текст кодекса по состоянию на 19 апреля 2005 г. Мн.: Амалфея, 2005. – 100 с. 3 Кодекс Республики Беларусь о земле: принят Палатой представителей 25 ноября 1998 г.: одобр. Советом Республики 19 декабря 1998 г. // Ведамасцi Нац. Сходу Рэсп. Беларусь. 1999, №15 Ст. 316. 3 Атрощенко, Н.О. Экономическая оценка лесов и лесных ресурсов в системе устойчивого лесопользования / Н.О. Атрощенко // Труды Белорусского государственного технологического университета. Серия I. Лесное хозяйство. – Минск: БГТУ, 2006. – Вып. XIV. - C.12-15. 4 Багинский, В.Ф. Лесопользование в Беларуси / В.Ф. Багинский, Л.Д. Есимчик. – Минск: Беларуская навука, 1996. 367 с. 5 Багинский, В.Ф. Рациональное использование лесных ресурсов в Республике Беларусь и их экологического потенциала в системе национальной стратегии устойчивого развития: реализация и пути совершенствования / В.Ф. Багинский // Природные ресурсы, 2002. №3. – С.25-35. 6 Гримашевич, В.В. Рациональное использование пищевых ресурсов леса Беларуси / В.В. Гримашевич. – Гомель: ИЛ НАНБ, 2002. - 261 с. 7 Гримашевич, В.В. Рациональное использование ресурсов дикорастущих ягодных растений и съедобных грибов Беларуси в условиях рыночной экономики / В.В. Гримашевич // Проблемы лесоведения и лесоводства: Сборник научных трудов. – Гомель: ИЛ НАНБ, 2005. – Вып. 64. – С.421-430. 8 Гримашевич, В.В. Ресурсы основных видов лесных ягодных растений и съедобных грибов Беларуси / В.В. Гримашевич, И.В. Маховик, Е.М. Бабич / Природные ресурсы, 2005, №3. – С. 85-95.

About the author

Maryna Lazarava's total record of research work makes 25 years. In 1993 she defended a thesis for PhD in Agricultural Sciences specializing in Forest Studies and Forest Management. In the period of 1991-2005 she worked at the Institute of Forest of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus dealing with the problems of structural-functional diversity in forests on zonal-typological basis. The sphere of research interests of Maryna Lazarava also comprises the study of character and dynamics of forest formation processes and modeling of forest growth and formation, development of programmes and norms of forest breeding. She is the author and co-author of a number of legal documents in the sphere of forest management. Since 2006 Maryna Lazarava has been chairing the department of Forest Management Disciplines at Gomel State University. She has also supervised a number of research projects dedicated to improvement of the sphere of forest management in the Republic of Belarus. Ms. Lazarava takes an active part in various conferences, seminars and meetings on a wide range of issues of forest management and governance. Ms. Lazarava is a member of Scientific Council of the Institute of Forest of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus; a member of the Council of Biological Faculty of Gomel State University; a member of the Research Council of the Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus. She has more than 75 published research works.

Cover photo provided by Institute of Botany of the National Academy of Science of Belarus

About FLEG II (ENPI East) Program

The Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FFLEG) II European Neighbourhood annd Partnership Instrument (ENPI) East Countries Program supports participating countries’ forest governance. AAt the regional level, the Program aims to implement the 2005 St. Petersburg FLEG Ministerial Declaration a nd support countries to commit to a time-bound action plan; at the nationaal level the Program will review or rev ise forest sector policies and legal and administrative structures; and improve knowledge of and supporrt for sustainable forest management and good forest governance in the participating countries, and at the sub -national (local) level the Program will test and demonstrate best practices for sustainable forest manageme nt and the feasibility of improved forest governance practices at the field-level on a pilot basis. Participating coountries include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. The Program is funded by tthe European Union. http://www.eenpi-fleg.org

Project Partner

EUROPEAN COMMISSION The Europeean Union is the world’s largest donor of offficial development assistance. EuropeAid DDevelopment and Cooperation, a Directorate General of the European Commission, is responsible for designing European development policy and delivering aid throughout the world. EuropeAid delivers aid through a set of financial instruments with a focus on ensuring the quality of EU aid and its effectiveness. An active and proactive player in the development field, EuropeAid promotes good governance, human and economic development and tackle universal issues,, such as fighting hunger and preserving natural resources. http://ec.euroopa.eu/index_en.htm

WORLD BANK The World Bank Group is one of the world’s largest sources of knowledge and funding for its 188 member-countries. The organizations that make up the World Bank Group are owned by thhe governments of member nations, which have the ultimate decision-making power within the organizations on all mattters, including policy, financial or membership issues. The World Bank Group comprises five closelly associated institutions: the Internationall Bank for Reconstruction and Developmentt (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA), which together form thee World Bank; the International Finance Corporation (IFC); the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA); and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dissputes (ICSID). Each institution plays a disttinct role in the World Bank Group’s mission to end extreme poverty by decreasing tthe percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a day to no more than 3 percent, and promote shared prosperity by fostering the income growth of the bottom 40 percent for every country. For additional infformation please visit: http://www.worldbank.org, http://www.ifc.org, http://www.miga.org

IUCN IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and developpment challenges. IUCN’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’’s oldest and largest global environmenttal organisation, with more than 1,200 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries.. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. www.iucn.org

WWF WWF is one of the world’s largest and most respecctted independent conservation organizationns, with almost 5 million supporters and a gloobal network active in over 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. www.panda.org