BELARUS Based on the Case Study in the Communities of Buda-Koshelevo, Gomel and Milashevichi (Gomel Region)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 2 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 3 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 4 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.