XIV , Durban, South Africa, 7-11 September 2015

Loss of Intact Landscapes in Russia and Effective Forest Management in Secondary as Its Alternative for Conservation and Sustainable Rural Development Kobyakov, K.N.1, Shmatkov, N.M.1, Shvarts, E.A.1, Karpachevsky, M.L.2

1 WWF Russia, Moscow, [email protected] 2 Transparent World Partnership, Moscow

ABSTRACT Boreal forest covers 1.2 to 1.6 billion hectares of land in Russia, North America and Scandinavia. This represents roughly a third of the remaining global forest. Although overall forest cover in the region remains fairly stable, major changes are occurring, particularly through natural forest being replaced by secondary forest as a result of human-induced fires, of old-growth forests and . Until now, the rate of loss of boreal Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) and input from various factors in Russia were unclear and lack of estimations based on scientific research was holding back practical measures to halt degradation of wild forests in Russia. According to results of research carried out by WWF Russia, in association with the Transparent World Partnership and Russia and with support received from the WWF-IKEA Partnership on Forests, the area of IFLs in Russia decreased between 2000 and 2013 by 7.5% from 276,000,000 to 255,000,000 ha (a rate of– 1,600,000 ha per year, or 4,400 ha per day). This loss was measured by analysing satellite images. The analysis of satellite images was designed to determine the key factors causing loss. It was determined that the key loss factors are man-made fires (60%), logging (23%) and mining (17%). Maps of IFL loss were developed and are provided in this paper. The research was undertaken in 2013-2015 and represents the first time that research on the loss of Russian IFLs has been done at national scale. In addition to adverse ecological consequences, destruction of IFLs leads to negative social and economic effects. For example, logging in IFLs results in negative incentives for proper management of forests and rural employment close to settlements. This has been recognised in the Russian National Forest Policy which was officially approved at the end of 2013. More intensive forest management in secondary forests targeted at proper forest regeneration, thinning and effective protection against and fires may be a good alternative to the logging of IFLs and provides opportunities for sustainable rural development, including local employment and additional income generation. More intensive forest management in secondary forests has to be sustainable. Recommendations which have already been put forward or which are in the process of being developed for biodiversity conservation in industrial forests for various areas of Russia are analysed by the authors. Serious commitments from the Government and forest sector companies are required, on the one hand, to protect IFLs and, on the other, to provide alternative opportunities for timber harvesting, such as the sustainable management of secondary forests. The results of this research will help to raise awareness amongst Russian stakeholders and the global community of the threats to boreal forests in general and to Russian IFLs in particular and to implement measures targeted to halt . Keywords: intact forest landscape, old-growth forest, boreal forest, intensive forest management, high conservation values, biodiversity conservation

Introduction, scope and main objectives Russia is one of the few countries in the world which still has large swathes of land consisting of wild nature. In Russia, as with many other countries, most of these areas are located in the forest zone. From 1999 to 2001 the Global Forest Watch, a partnership of organisations (World Resources Institute, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. http://www.intactforests.org/team.html) involved into the global monitoring of forests, developed a common methodology for the identification and mapping of intact forest landscapes (IFLs). IFLs are unbroken natural landscapes in a current extant forest zone which have been minimally influenced by economic activity. As a result of the application of this methodology, maps of IFLs were published for Russia in 2002 (Aksenov et al., 2002), for Canada in 2003 (Lee et al., 2006) and for the World in 2006 (Potapov et al., 2008). In 2014, maps for the Worlds’ IFLs were updated (http://www.intactforests.org/world.webmap.html) and the mapping results for Russia were published (Kobyakov et al., 2015). IFLs are areas of virgin wild nature. Their are developing under natural patterns that create natural for of flora and fauna, including wide-ranging and vulnerable apex predators. Due to the large size and complexity of their structure, the existence of IFLs is not limited in time, except during catastrophic disturbances. IFLs provide key inputs into climate change mitigation at global and regional levels and provide basic services, eg. IFLs in Russia are very important for maintaining the continental water cycle for the whole of the Eurasian land mass (Makarieva and Gorshkov, 2007). IFLs are important in the preservation of the natural level of biodiversity and ecological processes at a landscape level and help to ensure hydrological regime stability and protection against floods, mudslides, avalanches and soil . For centuries, communities living in and around forests have been relying on IFLs for their subsistence. The shrinking of areas of IFLs negatively affects the overall ecological stability of the wider landscape (Aksenov et al., 2002; Thies et al., 2011; Yaroshenko et al., 2001). The preservation of IFLs is the most important contribution that the Russian Federation makes to the implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity. During the entire history of nature conservation in Russia, the key focus has always been on the preservation of large areas of wild nature within which protected areas of various categories, such as strict nature reserves (zapovednik), national parks and refugees (zakaznik), were established. The priority on the preservation of intact landscapes is stated in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection”: “Natural ecological systems, natural landscapes and natural complexes which have not been affected by anthropogenic impacts have to be protected as a priority”. An intensive approach to timber resource use was predominant in Russia throughout the 20th century. This approach was based on the pioneer exploitation of forest areas which had never before been harvested in a commercial manner. Such an approach resulted in the depletion of timber resources, a decrease in the ecological integrity of forests and a neglect of the social needs of many forest-reliant communities. Nowadays, the drawbacks of the extensive use of forests and the need for more active forest management in secondary growth forests is recognised at Government level and enshrined in Russian Forest Policy (http://www.rg.ru/2013/10/01/lesa-site-dok.html) which has been developed in close cooperation with non- government organisations (NGOs) and academia and which was officially approved by the Government of the Russian Federation in September 2013.

Methodology According to approved criteria, IFLs are defined as areas within a current extant forest zone of at least 50,000 ha in extent which have no permanent settlements, have infrastructure that is currently only used for transportation and which are not impacted by modern intensive economic activities. IFLs can comprise of various ecosystems, including non-forested ones, such as wetlands and mountain ecosystems. More detail on the identification criteria and methods used in determining IFL boundaries are given in several publications (Potapov et al., 2008; Aksenov et al., 2002) and in this research the methodological approach has been used without modification. For further information on the identification methodology of IFLs please refer to: http://www.intactforests.org/method.html. In the original research on Russian IFLs, namely the Atlas of Intact Forest Landscapes of Russia (Aksenov et al., 2002), various sources of remote sensing data were used, including low resolution images and images partly covered by clouds. This was the case mainly because of the poor accessibility to and availability of remote sensing data at this time. In 2013, the IFL boundaries of 2000 were validated thank to the opening of access to the Landsat high quality imagery archives (http://www.landsat.usgs.gov/index.php). New boundaries for the IFLs were then determined in 2013 using the same methodology as for 2000. The goal of the research was not only to measure the loss of IFLs between 2000 and 2013, but also to analyse the various factors contributing to their destruction. The analysis of satellite images demonstrated that there are three key factors contributing to the reduction in the area of IFLs, including loss resulting from fragmentation (Figures 1 and 2): 1) logging and building of roads for timber transportation 2) forest fires adjacent to infrastructure 3) mining and prospecting, development of infrastructure and transportation of minerals, oil and gas. Landsat satellite images were used to identify anthropogenic disturbances. Image analysis was conducted through expert-based visual interpretation using geographic information system (GIS) overlays with additional thematic and topographic map layers, as well as services that provide access to high-resolution , such as Google Maps, Bing Maps Yandex.Maps, Kosmosnimki and others. The purpose was to identify areas disturbed by logging, cutting and infrastructure, such as roads, pipelines, power lines. Disturbed and fragmented patches were classified according to causal factors.

Results After validation, it became clear that the area of IFLs in Russia in 2000 was not 289,000,000 ha as was believed before, but only 276,000,000 ha. During the process of validation, much of the non-forested areas in mountains and at the boundaries between forest and steppe zones was excluded from the total area of IFLs. The total area of IFLs in 2013 was 255,000,000 ha. IFL distribution across the country is uneven, with 88% of IFL area being located in the Urals, Russian Far East and Siberia. More than a half (54%) of the area is located in five (5) subjects of the Russian Federation, with three-quarters of the area being found in 10 Federation subjects. For more information on the distribution and characteristics of IFLs in Russia see Table 1. Table 1: Key facts about Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) of Russia.

Indicator Amount

Total area of IFLs in Russia 255,000,000 ha, representing 20% of the forest area in Russia, or 15% (2013) of the total area of the country. Total number of IFLs in Russia 523 with an average area of approximately 500,000 ha. Area of the largest IFL in 7,300,000 ha, located in the Krasnoyarsk Province (Siberia). Russia Almost half of the total area of IFLs (44%) is located in Siberia, with Distribution of IFLs within the one-third of the area of IFLs being located in two (2) subjects of the study area Russian Federation, namely Krasnoyarsk Province (Siberia) and Yakutia Republic (Russian Far East). 82% of the area of IFL is forest, the remaining 18% being wetlands Vegetation types withinIFLs and water bodies, mountain ecosystems, grasslands, and sparse forests. Status of IFL protection in Only 5.4% of IFLs are legally preserved in Federal protected areas Russia (zapovedniks, national parks and zakazniks).

For comparison of the situation existing in Russia with the state of IFLs in the world as a whole, Table 2 below provides data on global IFL analysis resulting from the joint research of a number of organisations (for more details, see http://www.intactforests.org/world.map.html).

Table 2: Key facts about Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) of the World.

Indicator Amount

Global forest zone area Covers 55,900,000 km2, or 37.3% of the total terrestrial area. Total area of IFLs in the World 13,100,000 km2, or 23.5% of the forest zone. Most IFLs are forests with a closed canopy (64.5%), the remaining Vegetation types within IFLs areas consisting of sparse forests (20.5%) and non-forest ecosystems (15.0%). Most IFLs are located in two (2) , namely moist tropical and Distribution of IFLs by biomes boreal forests. IFLs are least common in temperate climate zones. IFLs are located in just a few countries: 90% of the total area of IFLs is Distribution of IFLs by country shared by 13 countries with 63.8% of the total area being located in just three (3) countries, namely Canada, Russia and Brazil.

Figure. 1: Map of Intact Forest Landscape (IFL) distribution in Russia and factors contributing toward their destruction.

From the results of this research, it was determined that the area of IFLs lost in Russia between 2000 and 2013 was about 7.5% (21,000,000 ha) of the total. The average area of IFLs lost per year is 1,600,000 ha, or 0.6% of the total original area. The biggest threat to IFLs is catastrophic forest fires (Figures 2 and 5), most of which are caused by human activities related to the exploitation of forest resources in remote areas where the capacity for effective forest fire management is limited. The second most important threat is logging and the construction of forestry infrastructure, mostly timber transportation roads. Other threats to IFLs include road construction, mining and prospecting and the development of infrastructure for the transportation of minerals, oil and gas (Figure 2). Additional information on the loss of IFLs in Russia is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Key facts about the loss of Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) over a 13-year period (2000-2013).

Indicator Amount

Over 13 years from 2000 to 2013 the area of IFLs in Russia decreased Area of IFLs lost by 21,000,000 ha (from 276,000,000 to 255,000,000 ha), or by 7.5%. Average rate of IFL loss 1,600,000 ha per year, or 4,400 ha per day. Most severe destruction of IFLs (measured using absolute area) has Distribution of IFL loss on the taken place in Siberia and the Russian Far East. Only six (6) subjects area of the Russian Federation (out of a total of 39 subjects where IFLs are present) was the loss of IFLs not observed. 24 IFLs (out of a total of 491) were completely lost due to disturbances Reduction in IFL number and and fragmentation. Total number of IFLs has increased to 523 because fragmentation some larger IFLs were divided into two or more parts. Mostly anthropogenic fires (60%). However, half of the burnt areas are located in two (2) subjects of the Russian Federation where Key factors contributing to the catastrophic forest fires have occurred lately. In 13 subjects of the loss of IFLs Russian Federation the key factor contributing to IFL loss was logging and the development of roads for timber transportation.

Figure 2: Contribution of various factors to the destruction of Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs).

A substantial portion of IFL loss is not connected to the direct destruction or damage to forests resulting from anthropogenic disturbances. It is rather the result of the fragmentation of IFLs brought about by disturbances. For instance, smaller patches of forests surrounded by felled and burnt areas, roads, etc., cease to meet the criteria required of IFL on the grounds of area and the geometry of the boundary. An example of such fragmentation and the reduction in size of IFLs can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: An example of Intact Forest Landscape (IFL) loss in the Krasnoyarsk Province (Siberia). Loss of IFLs in Siberia is taking place largely due to logging and forest fires. The large IFL in the centre of the map, which had a total area of 660,000 ha, was divided into two parts by various disturbances. Their combined total area now stands at 227,000 ha, or 34% of its former size. Key factors contributing to the loss are logging and the building of roads for timber transportation. In this case, fire is an additional factor that destroys the IFLs, all of which are located close to felling sites and forest roads.

In the European part of Russia, the key factor contributing to IFL loss is logging and felling sites are clearly visible surrounding all of the IFLs located in the Middle and Northern zones. The key loss factor in Western Siberia is fire, while another important factor is oil and gas mining. In Central Siberia, IFL loss is caused mostly by fires and mining. In the Angara Region, to the north and east of the Angara River in Southern Siberia, the logging front in IFLs is clearly visible and moving from the south to the north, from the southern taiga to the middle taiga zone. Importantly, fires are mostly associated with logging areas and roads because these areas provide much greater access to humans. In Eastern Siberia, the biggest threat to IFLs is fire. In the Russian Far East, most IFL loss is due to logging, while the second most important threat is fire. As in the European part of Russia, there is no clearly visible pioneer logging front and the last remaining IFLs are being exploited from a number of directions.

Figure. 4. Logging in an IFL in Siberia carried out by Figure. 5. An IFL in Yakutia (Russian Far East), with the logging company Rusforest Ust-Ilimsk in 2009- an area of 90,000 ha totally devastated by fire in 2013. This logging resulted in the IFL’s area August 2014. decreasing below the 50,000 ha threshold, meaning that the IFL itself has lost its importance. In 2013, the FSC Certificate for this company was suspended, with one of the reasons being given as uncontrolled logging in IFLs. Discussion If the rate of loss of IFLs remains the same, IFLs will completely disappear from Russia in 166 years’ time. However, the most rapid destruction of IFLs is taking place in those forest areas adjacent to commercially-logged forests that are the most productive in terms of timber resources. Total loss of ‘timber rich’ IFLs, therefore, is expected to take place much quicker, perhaps within the next 50 years. The legal protection of IFLs is poor. Only 5.4% of the total area of IFLs currently falls within Federal-level protected areas. In some cases, the status of ‘protective forests’ (the broad category of forests having some protective status and declared management purposes other than industrial harvesting) could help to preserve IFLs. However, no specific mechanisms exist under Russian forest law to protect IFLs. For these reasons, the responsibility and role of ecologically- and socially-responsible forest sector companies is increased. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) voluntary forest certification scheme is highly developed in Russia with approximately 40,000,000 ha, or 25%, of rented forests in Russia currently being FSC certified. This is since FSC certification became an important requirement for Russian timber products to enter global ‘green’ markets. According to the Russian National FSC Standard (FSC-STD-RUS-V6-1-2012), IFLs are considered as high conservation value forests as “large forest landscapes minimally influenced by human economic activity (or forests containing such a landscape)”. According to recommendations in the Standard, a significant proportion of IFLs should be completely excluded from forestry activities and, in the remaining IFLs which fall outside of strict conservation zones, the best available forestry technologies and practices with regard to biodiversity and forest ecosystem conservation should be used. Despite this, however, the area of IFLs, including IFLs in FSC certified forests, continues to decrease as a result of logging, roads and other infrastructural development (Figures 2, 3 and 4). Because of these major threats, Russia risks losing a large proportion of IFLs located outside of protected areas. This is why it is very important to regularly monitor IFLs and to analyse the threats to and rates of decrease in IFL areas. As of December 2014, 3,300,000 ha of IFLs, representing 1.3% of the total area of IFLs in Russia, are rented by FSC certified companies, while another 600,000 ha of IFLs (0.2% of the total) are in the process of being certified. IFLs which contain large areas that are certified (ie. more than 10-20% of an IFL) are located in four (4) subjects of the Russian Federation. There are currently 48 certified companies which rent IFLs or portions of them and the activities of almost all of them (45 out of 48) have resulted in a reduction in IFL area. In FSC certified areas, 37% of IFLs have been destroyed. Logging was the cause of loss for almost a half of these areas. The Russian National FSC Standard does not require a company to cease logging in IFLs completely, but it does require it to preserve the high conservation value of IFLs. This means that large areas of IFLs should be excluded from commercial harvesting, whilst in the remaining areas logging should be undertaken using methods that ensure the conservation of biodiversity and the preservation of the forest environment. Not all certified companies respect these requirements. For example, six (6) IFLs were completely destroyed through logging by certified companies and the area of many FSC certified IFLs have been reduced for the same reason. Logging in IFLs is one of the most serious challenges facing FSC in Russia and probably in the World as a whole. The credibility of FSC in Russia will be largely determined by the effectiveness or otherwise of addressing this challenge and whether or not FSC will be able to preserve IFLs and retain the unique high conservation values of certified areas. At the same time, FSC is a crucial tool in protecting IFLs from commercial exploitation and development. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of IFLs are currently preserved through voluntary agreements drawn up between logging companies and NGOs, many of which place moratoria on logging and the development of roads. The establishment of protected areas has been already commenced in many of these areas. Lately, FSC has been paying special attention to the conservation of IFLs in certified areas. IFL management- related violations frequently result in the suspension and even termination of FSC certificates. Interestingly, the proportion of IFLs falling in rented areas of those FSC certified companies currently in possession of active certificates is, on average, 13% while those with suspended certificates stands at 22%. At the end of 2013, a group of Russian NGOs, which includes WWF, Greenpeace and several other organisations, formulated a joint position paper on IFL management in order to assist forest sector companies in developing measures for IFL preservation. The English version of this paper is available at http://www.wwf.ru/about/positions/forest/eng. WWF Russia and Greenpeace Russia believe that the only way to remove the negative incentives for logging companies to destroy IFLs is to develop intensive but sustainable forest management in those secondary forests which are currently neglected. Sustainable use of secondary forests should include the formulation of a forest management plan that is targeted at long-term financial viability and profitability of forest management and the preservation of biodiversity and social values using more effective forest regeneration technologies that are directed at growing more productive forest stands, appropriate thinning, the protection of productive forests against fires and illegal logging, etc. More efficient and effective forestry in secondary forests will make an important contribution to sustainable rural development, including the building of roads and the creation of jobs in rural areas. Some forestry companies operating in Russia and in other boreal landscapes, such as Mondi, Ilim Group, International Paper and others, have developed business plans and established pilot field trials and demonstration plots to test intensive forest management practices. Ilim Group promotes a number of legislation-related initiatives that are necessary to implement intensive forest management practices. WWF leads an awareness raising campaign using lessons learned through the Pskov Model Forest Project (2000-2008), which was supported by various donors including Stora Enso and which was focused on testing the Scandinavian model of forest management in north-west Russia. WWF and the NGO Silver Taiga undertake studies in intensive forest management. These efforts, however, currently suffer from a lack of coherence and coordination. Inconsistent efforts taken by businesses and NGOs are not enough to yield results and some steps good for one stakeholder may not work for another. The very concept of intensive forest management is often understood differently across the Russian forest sector and in other boreal countries as it can be based on different perceptions, interests and experiences. Many experts stress the need for dialogue and a shared platform for government, business and NGOs to share and exchange views and opinions, data and best practices. Using lessons learned by the New Generation Plantations Platform (http://newgenerationplantations.org), WWF Russia is currently establishing the Boreal Forest Platform with the aim of building a cross-sectoral dialogue on best practices with respect to economically- effective, ecologically-sustainable and socially-acceptable forest management in Russia and across other boreal landscapes.

Conclusions and Outlook Our study has shown the tremendous loss of Intact Forest Landscapes in Russia (21,000,000 ha in the period from 2000 to 2013) due to anthropogenic forest fires, logging and mining. The transition to intensive and sustainable forestry in secondary forests as an alternative to logging in IFLs, which is recognised by the Government of the Russian Federation and forms the basis of the new Forest Policy of Russia (2013), aims to improve the economic efficiency of the forest growing cycle and to introduce sustainable forest management practices in economically accessible secondary forests, which in turn will help guarantee the supply and quality characteristics species of timber that are in demand at competitive prices. Proper use of secondary forests will make it possible to preserve IFLs and other high conservation value forests. The transition to intensive forest management requires economic and legal incentives for forest businesses, an increased role for lease-holders and the public in making forest management decisions and the setting up of safeguards for investments in forests, roads and other infrastructure necessary to practice intensive forestry. This will make it possible for logging and wood-processing companies to gain significant long-term economic benefits, such as less costly transportation of timber and the cultivation of native species that are in demand, to become more responsible, to invest more in thinning, other silviculture operations and to pursue ecological and social sustainability. A multi-stakeholder dialogue should be established to raise awareness of the approaches involved in resilient landscapes and thinking, creating shared values and social learning among Russian and other boreal stakeholders and to incorporate these key elements into sustainable forest management in boreal forests. In parallel to the development of more intensive and wise management of secondary forests, the most valuable IFLs should be preserved as National Forest Heritage landscapes within which no commercial logging or fragmentation is allowed. The intention of establishing National Forest Heritage sites is stated in the Russian Forest Policy, but some practical steps to translate this into action should now be urgently taken.

Acknowledgements This study on the dynamics of IFLs in Russia from 2000 to 2013 was supported by the WWF-IKEA Partnership on Forests Project. Authors would like to thank Elena Kopylova (WWF Russia), Julia Kuleshova and Philip Johnson for their highly appreciated help in editing the article.

References 1. Aksenov, D., Dobrynin, D., Dubinin, M., Egorov, A., Isaev, A., Karpachevsky, M., Laestadius, L., Potapov, P., Purekhovsky, A., Turubanova, S. and Yaroshenko, A. (2002). Atlas of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes. Moscow, 187 pp. Available at: http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/pdf/gfw_atlas_full.pdf. 2. Kobyakov, K.N., Karpachevsky, M.L., Aksyonov, D.E., Esipova, E.S., Danilova, I.A., Vladimirova, N.A. and Zhuravleva, I.V. (2015). On Changes of Intact Forest Landscapes Area in Russia in 2000 – 2013 due to Variety of Factors. Moscow: WWF Russia, Poster map A1. Available at: http://www.wwf.ru/resources/publ/book/980 (in Russian). 3. Lee, P., Aksenov, D., Laestadius, L., Noguerón, R. and Smith, W. (2006). Canada’s Large Intact Forest Landscapes. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada, 84 pp. 4. Makarieva, A.M. and Gorshkov, V.G. (2007). Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrological cycle on land. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11, Р. 1013-1033. 5. Potapov, P., Yaroshenko, A., Turubanova, S., Dubinin, M., Laestadius, L., Thies, C., Aksenov, D., Egorov, A., Yesipova, Y., Glushkov, I., Karpachevskiy, M., Kostikova, A., Manisha, A., Tsybikova, E. and Zhuravleva, I. (2008). Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. and Society 13(2): 51. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art51. 6. Thies, C., Rosoman, G., Cotter, J. and Meaden, S. (2011). Intact forest landscapes. Why it is crucial to protect them from industrial exploitation. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note no. 5/2011, 19 pp. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/forests/2011/IntactForest Landscapes.pdf. 7. Yaroshenko, A., Potapov, P. and Turubanova, S. (2001). Intact Forest Landscapes of the European North Russia. Moscow: Greenpeace Russia, 75 pp. (in Russian).

ANNEX

POSITION PAPER of non-government nature conservation organizations of Russia on intact forest landscapes Intact forest landscapes (IFLs) are large natural landscapes within a current extant forest zone and minimally influenced by human economic activity. IFLs are defined as territories with areas of at least 50,000 ha with no permanent settlements, infrastructure currently used for transportation and not influenced by modern intensive human economic activities. The complete definition and methodology for IFL identification are provided in several publications (Yaroshenko A., Potapov P., Turubanova S., 2002. The Last Intact Forest Landscapes of Northern European Russia. Greenpeace - Global Forest Watch, Moscow, Russia; Aksenov D., Dobrynin D., Dubinin M., Egorov A., Isaev A., Karpachevskiy M., Lestadius L., Potapov P., Purekhovskiy A., Turubanova S., Yaroshenko A. 2002. Atlas of Russia's Intact Forest Landscapes. Global Forest Watch, Moscow, Russia; Greenpeace. 2006. The World's Last Intact Forest Landscapes (poster) and others). According to the current version of the Russian National Forest Stewardship Council Standard, IFLs are defined as high conservation value forests (HCVFs). According to the classification of HCVFs, approved by FSC, IFLs are defined as forest areas containing globally or nationally significant large landscape level forests (HCVFs 2). According to recommendations of the standard, a significant proportion of IFLs should be completely excluded from forestry activities and in the rest of IFLs (outside of strict conservation zones) the best available forestry technologies and practices with regard to conservation of biodiversity and forest ecosystems should be implemented (Annex E to the Russian National FSC Standard). Currently the total area of IFLs in the world is about 1.3 bln ha, in Russia – 279 mln ha, the area of IFLs is constantly decreasing due to industrial development. At present less than 25 % of the Russian forest zone can be considered IFL. Industrial development of IFLs is consumption of a natural resource (wild forests), the origin and reproduction of which is not related to human economic activities. Key features determining IFLs’ natural importance cannot be preserved when an IFL is fragmented and intensively used for industrial purposes and cannot ever be artificially regenerated. In fact industrial development of IFLs is use of a non-renewable natural resource. The concept of sustainability, as well as sustainable forest management criteria and principles cannot be applied to such use. In exceptional cases the industrial development of IFLs could be justified by extreme need of forest settlements when overexploitation of forest resources on other territories has brought them to the margin of survival. However, even under these circumstances industrial development of IFLs cannot be considered as an element of sustainable forest management. However, it is should be recognized that the existing system of forest resources use is (with a few exceptions) focused specifically on industrial development of IFLs; for this reason it is hardly possible to refuse from logging in IFLs at once for social and economic reasons. That is why we believe it is possible to establish a ‘transition period’ when logging of parts of IFLs could be accepted, however only if a system of measures is implemented to ensure exclusion of any logging in IFLs in future. The alternative for logging in virgin forests must be intensive forest management in secondary growth forests – to get required volumes of forest products from previously developed forest lands with developed infrastructure. Based on the stated above, non-governmental environmental organizations which signed this statement believe that: 1. A logging company has to consider all environmental risks thoroughly before renting large areas of IFLs; first of all if the company is planning to proceed with FSC certification of forest management. The company has to consider that FSC certification of forest management will require total ban for logging on large areas of IFLs and strict limitations in other parts of IFLs. When a company does not plan to certify forest management on a rented area it has to consider risks that it will face problems with marketing forest products produced from timber harvested in IFLs in domestic and international markets of certified products. 2. When a company plans industrial development of an IFL or some part of it, the company has to consider a ‘zero option’ first of all – that means, the company has to consider refusal from any industrial activities in the IFL. When due to social and (or) economic reasons this option is unacceptable, logging has to follow maximal environmental limitations, explained below. 3. That part of an IFL to be totally excluded from economic development has to be not less than 50% of its total area. This requirement is applicable not only to a total area of the IFL, but to a part of its area leased by a given company when it leases only a part of the IFL. 4. Decreasing of intact area of an IFL to an area less than 50 000 hectares is not acceptable. That means in all cases, regardless IFL’s total area, area of it territories which are totally excluded from industrial development cannot be less than 50 000 hectares. When IFL’s total area is close to 50 000 hectares, the IFL should be totally excluded from industrial development. 5. Exclusion from industrial development (referred in paragraphs 3 and 4) includes refusal from rented territory when after refusal from rent some measured are implemented for protection of this part of an IFL (development of a protected are or reservation of an area for such protection, development of a moratorium agreement with a succeeding leaseholder, etc.). 6. Allocation of IFL’s priority areas for conservation has to be based on zoning of the territory for high conservation values. Zoning has to be based on results of specialized research, which have to determine parts of the IFL with high importance for conservation of biodiversity, migration routes and the forest environment. The research should be based on data on protective forests and forest areas with a special regime of protection, important bird areas of Russia, recognized Ramsar sites, spawning areas of valuable fish species, watersheds, established and planned protected areas, important plant areas, established or planned territories of traditional land use, and data (including maps) of published research on delineation of HCVF of any other types if existent for a given area. Allocation of IFL’s priority areas for conservation should be determined by natural and social values and conservation objectives and be based on a sustainable watershed management approach rather than on the efficacy of industrial logging. No economic development activities should occur at an IFL before the work on zonation and allocation of priority areas for conservation is completed. 7. Fragmentation of an IFL, its separation in two or more disconnected parts is not allowed when areas of fragments is larger 5 % of the IFL’s total initial area. Minimal width of a corridor between fragments should not be less than 10 km to ensure connectivity. 8. Only the best available technologies to ensure the highest possible level of biodiversity portection and forest environment preservation and imitation of natural forest dynamics should be practiced on areas allocated for economic activities. Group-selection and group-shelterwood are the most preferred logging types. Clear cuts could be practiced only in areas where environmental reasons for such logging are confirmed by special research (e.g. for soils with a high risk of windfall after selective logging). The described logging technologies and practices can be introduced gradually, considering legal requirements and the constraints of a given company, but the adoption of the logging regime should be completed in no more than 5 years. 9. Economic activities within areas of an IFL allocated for this purpose should ensure ecological connectivity of larger elements of the landscape. Nature conservation planning should be organized to determine key elements of ecological network and to establish measures for its preservation, these measures have to be included into a forest management plan and their implementation has to be enforced. 10. In any case, before and after ecologically acceptable methods of forest used are introduced, the following limitations for clear cuts in IFLs should be respected: a. maximal width of a clear cut has not exceed 200 meters; b. when any boundaries are found near a felling site, boundaries of the felling site should follow them; c. a mosaic forest cover should be preserved in a form of strips and groups of retention trees on clear cuts, the area covered with retention trees should not be less than 10 % of the total area of the felling site; d. clear cuts of any age should not border each other without strips of a forest cover or other natural vegetation, the width of these strips should not be less than 150 meters. 11. Forest regeneration on felling sites in IFLs’ areas involved into economic development should be natural. Artificial regeneration is acceptable only on sites where natural regeneration is not feasible. 12. In any case, allocation of felling sites within an IFL has to be accompanied by a special research and allocation of non-operational areas for preservation of key biotopes (areas of forest with high biodiversity conservation value) in accordance to the national FSC standard and regional recommendations (if available). Key elements of forest determined by the national FSC standard or by regional recommendations (if available) should be preserved when logging is carried out. 13. Stakeholders may provide more strict requirements targeted at an IFL’s preservation depending on specific conditions, such as value of a particular IFL for regional biodiversity conservation, social and cultural interests of local communities and Indigenous peoples, and other factors. This position should be considered as a stakeholders’ claim in any forest certification process which has to consider stakeholders’ opinion and also in the process of environmental policies development by companies of the forest sector. Information on IFLs’ boundaries and values is public and readily available. Companies which lease IFLs have to take measures for conservation of IFLs even in absence of personal stakeholders’ claims or responses from them. This position is open for signing by interested non-governmental organizations.

Evgeny Shvarts (Conservation Director) on behalf of WWF Russia Alexey Yaroshenko (Forest Department Head) on behalf of Greenpeace Russia Dmitry Aksenov (Director General) on behalf of the Non-Commercial Partnership “Transparent World” Yuri Pautov (Director) on behalf of the Komi Regional Non-Commercial Foundation “Silver Taiga” Alexander Markovsky (Board Chair) on behalf of the Interregional Non-Governmental Organization “Northern Coalition for Nature Conservation” (SPOK) Victor Petrov (Council Chair) on behalf of the Kola Wild Nature Conservation Center