Programme Development Workshop Reports

Russian Far East Siberia European-Urals National Synthesis

The Future of Forest Conservation in Russia

The Challenges Facing Forests and Strategies for Addressing Them

Editors: A. Deutz D. Cantin A. Laletin V. Teplyakov V. Moshkalo Programme Development Workshop Reports

Russian Far East Siberia European-Urals National Synthesis

The Future of Forest Conservation in Russia

The Challenges Facing Forests and Strategies for Addressing Them

Editors: A. Deutz D. Cantin A. Laletin V. Teplyakov V. Moshkalo The designation of geographical entities in this Reproduction of this publication for educational book, and the presentation of the material, do not or other non-commercial purposes is authorized imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever without prior written permission from the on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of copyright holder provided the source is fully any country, territory, or area, or of its acknowledged. authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its Reproduction of this publication for resale or frontiers or boundaries. other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Please note that the strategies and recommendations presented in the workshop Citation: Deutz, A., Cantin, D., Laletin, A., reports are the direct products of the workshop Teplyakov, V. and Moshkalo, V. (eds.) (1999). The participants. The views expressed in this Future of Forest Conservation in Russia. publication do not necessarily reflect those of Programme Development Workshop Reports, IUCN. IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme, Montréal, Canada and Moscow, Russia. 72 pp. This series of program development workshops and their publication has been made possible in ISBN: 2-8317-0491-X part by funding from the US Department of State, Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental Graphic design by: Brault Design and Scientific Affairs; USDA Forest Service; Cover photo: Lenskie Stolby National Nature Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Park: Andrew Deutz Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Produced by: D. Cantin and A. Deutz Fisheries; Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Printed by: Interligne, Canada Forest Service; and WWF-Russian Program Office. IUCN also thanks the Centre for International Available from: Projects of the Russian State Committee for IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme Environmental Protection for assisting in the IUCN Canada Office organisation of the two workshops held near 380 Saint Antoine St. West, Suite 3200 Moscow. Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 3X7 tel: +1-514-287-9704 fax: +1-514-287-9057 [email protected] Published by: www.iucn.ca IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme, Montréal, Canada in collaboration with IUCN, IUCN Office for the Commonwealth of Office of the Commonwealth of Independent Independent States States, Moscow, Russia. IUCN European Programme P.O. Box 265 125475 Moscow, Russia tel.: +7(095) 190-7077/4655/1604 fax: +7(095) 490-5818 [email protected] Copyright: © 1999 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources The text of this book is printed on Windsor Offset

2 Table of contents Table of contents

Executive Summary 4

Russian Far East Workshop 7

Issues identified at the Russian Far East workshop 12

Strategies developed by the working groups at the Russian Far East workshop 13

List of participants of the Russian Far East workshop 17

Siberian Workshop 19

Issues identified at the Siberian workshop 23

Strategies developed by the working groups at the Siberian workshop 24

List of participants of the Siberian workshop 28

European-Urals Region Workshop 31

Issues identified at the European-Urals workshop 35

Strategies developed by the working groups at the European-Urals workshop 36

List of Participants of the European Russia and Urals Region 40

National Workshop 41

List of Participants of the National workshop 54

Annex 1. The State of Russian Forests 57

A.N. Filipchuk, V.V. Strakhov

3 Executive Summary Executive Summary

Russia’s forest sector is of global Russia is too large and the forest sector too importance because of its size, carbon- diverse to be adequately considered solely at storage capacity, biodiversity, and extent of the national level. IUCN therefore conducted its forest products (timber and non-timber). a series of four participatory workshops It is equally important nationally for its across the country. Separate workshops contribution to the gross domestic product, examined the Russian Far East, Siberia, and export earnings, and employment, as well as European Russia. These regional workshops for its vital role in the lives of indigenous were followed by a synthesis meeting at the peoples. A long history of forest national level. IUCN also commissioned management has made Russia a recognized background papers on the state of Russia’s leader in forest conservation, research, and forests in each region and for the country as development. a whole from the All-Russian Research and Information Center for Forest Resources Despite vast resources and the global (ARICFR). (The national paper is available demand for forest products, the Russian as Annex 1 of this report. The regional forest sector has been experiencing severe papers are available upon request.) management problems that threaten socioeconomic stability and the ecological The workshops brought together a unique integrity of the forests. The legacy of assemblage of local nongovernmental centralized planning policies, the recent organizations (NGOs), government officials, transition to a market economy and ensuing and scientists from within each region of economic and political turmoil have Russia, federal government officials and diminished Russia’s management capacity. national NGOs from Moscow, international These problems are further compounded by NGOs, and the foundation and donor insufficient public access to information and community active in each region. by the lack of mechanisms for public participation in decision making. These The workshops employed participatory issues are severe impediments to the methods to enable the Russian stakeholders conservation and sustainable development to articulate what they saw as the major of Russia’s forests, and they urgently need to obstacles and opportunities facing forest be addressed. conservation and sustainable development in each region of Russia. After generating a Because of these concerns, IUCN’s list of “urgent forest issues”, the Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme participants prioritized these issues. (TBFP) which is part of the broader IUCN Participants then broke into working groups Forest Conservation Programme, has and were asked to develop strategies for identified Russia as the first priority for the addressing each priority issue in the development of a country-level program to region’s context. They were asked to reflect promote conservation and sustainable forest on three strategic questions: 1) What needs management initiatives in temperate and to change to address the issue? 2) What boreal countries. opportunities exist for influencing that change? and 3) What partnerships need to be developed to bring about this change?

4 Executive Summary

Workshop participants produced lengthy Issue 3. Finding workable solutions to the sets of recommendations and strategies to problem of forest fires address each of the priority issues. The Issue 4. Restoration of radioactively following issues emerged as priorities in the polluted forests and modification of regions: its traditional use to protect local communities. For the Russian Far-East: Issue 5. Developing partnership between Issue 1: The lack of efficient methods for state bodies and public preventing and extinguishing forest organizations. fires. Issue 6. The need to balance the ecological, Issue 2. The need to incorporate ecological economic, social, and cultural values into forest inventory systems. aspects of sustainable development Issue 3. The need to diversify forest product and to find solutions to the use, especially non-timber forest problems of the forest sector at the products. political level. Issue 4. The need to diminish the biodiversity impacts of logging in The regional workshops were followed by a forest ecosystems, including the use national level workshop which was of criteria and indicators of designed to synthesize the results of the sustainable forest management. previous workshops; verify that the regional workshops had identified relevant issues for For Siberia: the regional and national levels; examine the Issue 1: Reduction of ecological and feasibility of the strategies developed at the economic damage from forest fires. regional workshops; and finally, identify next Issue 2: Inventory and conservation of old- steps for IUCN and other partners. growth forests. Issue 3: Adapting criteria and indicators of Based on the results of this series of sustainable forest management to workshops, it is clear to IUCN that our Siberian conditions. potential niche in forest conservation and Issue 4: Improving public awareness of management in Russia revolves around our ecological values. ability to serve as a catalyst and a convenor. Issue 5: The impact of rocket fuels on forests The first potential role for IUCN is as a networker. As a global Union, IUCN has the For the European-Urals region: ability to mobilize technical expertise in Issue 1. Problems with developing regional other countries as well as the expertise of a legislation and coordinating it with small but growing network of IUCN the federal forest legislation. institutional members and individual Issue 2. Extension of the Specially Protected commission members within Russia, which Natural Areas (SPNAs) network and can be brought to support forest development of the ECONET forest conservation in Russia. programme.

5 Executive Summary

The second role for IUCN is to function as a Based on the results of these workshops, facilitator in helping to build new and further meetings with Russian partners, partnerships with an increasingly mobilized UICN is currently developing a forest civil society within Russia, as well as with conservation programme in Russia, with organizations outside of Russia. several component projects.

And finally, a third potential role for IUCN is The next steps will consist of refining these to make the connections between policy and project proposals with potential technical practice by learning from field experiences partners inside and outside of Russia, in Russia and sharing these lessons learned fundraising and implementing the with Russian stakeholders and the rest of programme. IUCN is also developing a the world. This may be particularly valuable Memorandum of Understanding for to IUCN members and partners considering cooperation with the Federal Forest Service or reconsidering how best to deploy their of Russia. financial and technical resources for conservation in Russia.

6 Russian Far East Workshop

7 8 Russian Far East Russian Far East Workshop Workshop Yakutsk, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 1. The lack of efficient methods for 19 June 1998 preventing and extinguishing forest fires. 2. The need to incorporate ecological Introduction values into forest inventory systems. The first regional workshop on “Challenges 3. The need to diversify forest product use, Facing Forests of the Russian Far East” was especially non-timber forest products. held in Yakutsk, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 4. The lack of financing for forest on 19 June 1998. The workshop was management and conservation. convened in conjunction with the 5. The need to diminish the biodiversity international conference entitled “Biodiversity impacts of logging in forest ecosystems. Conservation in the Russian Far East: Priority 6. The elaboration and introduction of Territories (‘Hotspots’) and Strategies for regional criteria and indicators for Their Protection,” which was co-sponsored sustainable forest management. by Friends of the Earth (Japan), IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and the Ministry For the purposes of developing strategies for of Nature Protection of the Republic of Sakha addressing these issues, the participants (Yakutia). The workshop brought together a decided to consider the last two issues unique assemblage of local nongovernmental jointly. They also decided not to address the organizations (NGOs), government officials, issue of the lack of financing for forest and scientists from each of the territories of management, based on the assessment that the Russian Far East, along with federal there was little that the workshop could government officials and national NGOs from accomplish on this particular issue. Moscow, as well as international NGOs active in the Russian Far East, and the foundation Participants then broke into working groups community. and were asked to develop strategies for addressing each priority issue in the Russian The workshop was formally opened by Far East context. They were asked to reflect Lyudmila Shmatkova, Deputy Minister of on three strategic questions: 1) What needs Nature Protection of the Republic of Sakha to change to address the issue? 2) What (Yakutia). The workshop began with a opportunities exist for influencing that presentation on the sector-wide changes change? and 3) What partnerships need to needed to achieve sustainable forest be developed to bring about this change? management and an overview of the All Russian Research and Information Centre for Workshop participants produced lengthy Forest Resources (ARICFR) paper on the sets of recommendations for strategies and Russian Far East Forests (available approaches to address each of the priority separately). The workshop then employed issues. The following highlights some of the participatory methods to enable the Russian main points. stakeholders to articulate what they see as the major obstacles and opportunities facing forest conservation and sustainable development in each region of Russia. After generating a list of eighteen “urgent forest issues”, the participants prioritized these issues. They ranked the following six issues as top priorities:

9 Russian Far East Workshop

Issue 1: The lack of efficient methods Issue 2. The need to incorporate for preventing and extinguishing forest ecological values into forest inventory fires. systems. Among workshop participants, forest fires Effective forest management requires sound emerged as the top issue affecting forest technical information on the state and extent conservation and sustainable management in of the forest. However, workshop the Russian Far East. To prevent fires, participants acknowledged that for participants developed a wide range of approximately half of Russia’s forest cover in strategies, including raising public Asia, forest inventory statistics are either awareness; the use of prescribed burns to outdated or non-existent. Without such reduce fuel loads; the development of tax information, it is not possible to conduct incentives for better fire management by economically or ecologically justifiable forest timber companies; and expanding the management. Participants recommended the authority of forest-service personnel to completion of a forest inventory for the investigate fires. Participants also entire federal forest estate, based on emphasized the need for collaboration available satellite imagery, and beginning between government agencies, NGOs, and with areas where commercial logging is the media to accomplish these tasks. For planned. They acknowledged that obtaining actually fighting fires, participants sufficient financial resources for such an recommended a series of budgetary reforms endeavor would be a significant challenge. at the federal and regional levels to provide consistent funding for fire fighting. They Participants also focused on the need to recommended the elaboration of criteria to incorporate the full range of forest- prioritize which fires should be fought and ecosystem services into forest inventories, which allowed to burn. They also suggested rather than focusing exclusively on the elaboration of mechanisms to facilitate commercially valuable timber. To accomplish the delivery of financial and technical this, they recommended several courses of support from the international community in action, including undertaking an analysis of cases of “catastrophic” fires, since such fires existing inventory regulations in order to would be catastrophic on a global scale, as make recommendations for their well as on a regional scale. improvement, and undertaking a pilot project in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia).

In addition to collecting more and better data on non-timber forest values, participants also suggested developing a methodology for integrated land-use planning, based on existing local experiences, which could then be applied more broadly throughout the region.

10 Russian Far East Workshop

Issue 3. The need to diversify forest Issue 4. The need to diminish the product use, especially non-timber biodiversity impacts of logging in forest products. forest ecosystems, including the use of Workshop participants identified several criteria and indicators of sustainable strategies for diversifying the uses of a broad forest management. range of forest products in order to increase Workshop participants highlighted the the flow of economic values from forest biodiversity impacts of the prevailing clear- ecosystems while reducing pressures for the cutting practices in the Russian Far East, commercial harvesting of timber resources. particularly when performed in a The majority of the timber exported from the concentrated fashion, in primary forests, and Russian Far East is shipped out unprocessed. on permafrost soils. They recommended the Participants therefore suggested a number of adoption of ecosystem-based planning for measures to increase local value-added forest management, preferably to be carried processing. They also emphasized the need out on a landscape or watershed-level basis. to further develop domestic and interna- Another critical strategy recommended for tional markets for a range of non-timber addressing the biodiversity impacts of forest products, including markets for proposed logging operations is to open up carbon sequestration in the region as well as the environmental impact assessment expanding opportunities for eco-tourism. (“expertisa”) process to greater public scrutiny and comment.

11 Russian Far East Workshop Issues identified at the Russian Far East workshop

• The absence of efficient methods for • The many drawbacks in current methods preventing and extinguishing forest fires. for calculating the annual allowable cut • The need to increase the ecological (AAC). character and accuracy of forest • The drawbacks in the forest legislation. inventories. • Illegal logging and the illegal trade of • The need to use and market forest forest products. products in an integrated way (especially • The need to prevent fragmentation of non-timber forest products). large tracts of forest. • The lack of financing for forest • The problem of deforestation in management and conservation; permafrost areas. • The impact of logging on forest • The increase in the global consumption ecosystems. of timber and the export of round timber. • The need to elaborate and introduce • The need to determine who are the users regional criteria and indicators for the of the forest. sustainable use of forests. • The lack of forest regeneration and the • The need to develop effective legislation decrease of forest stands’ productivity. in forests formerly owned by collective • The lack of scientific information. farms and Soviet collective farms • Social aspects, including traditional uses (kolkhoz and sovkhoz) and to improve of nature by local and indigenous their management and overall state. peoples. • The proposal to have the forest service take charge of the light fire-fighting air- force .

12 Russian Far East Workshop Strategies developed by the working groups at the Russian Far East workshop

1. Improve methods for preventing • In highly visited areas, develop a wide and extinguishing forest fires. range of measures aimed at controlling access to forests. For example, permits A. Finance fire-fighting activities called and registration could be required to for in Russian legislation enter certain fire-sensitive areas. • Include a separate line item in the • Encourage timber companies, through government’s budget to fund fire- tax incentives and other means, to fighting activities. remove usable timber from burned • Establish a special fund in each region areas, thereby reducing the quantity of to cover fire-prevention and fire- dry fuel on the site. (This is also fighting expenses when releases of proposed as a preferable alternative to federal funds are delayed. This special logging in other, non-burned areas.) fund would be replenished when federal funds or other allocations are C. Other disbursed. • Develop a methodology for calculating • Develop criteria to identify fire-fighting damages resulting from forest fires that priorities, based on the location of the takes into account all forest ecosystem territory, the presence of protected services. areas, human settlements, etc., so as to • Considering the danger involved in better organize activities and associated combating forest fires and governmental expenditures. apprehending violators of forest-use regulations, have the government: 1) B. Establish preventative measures adopt a series of measures aimed at • Carry out prescribed burns, in some improving the social protections and instances, to reduce the amount of fuel privileges offered to forest rangers (undergrowth, etc.) on forest soils. through civil service status; and 2) However, prescribed burns on expedite the development and adoption croplands adjacent to federal forest of regulations allowing the use of estate territories would only be firearms by forest-protection personnel; conducted with the participation and • Bring in new forest-service staff, having supervision of forest-service specialists. the rights and status of Ministry of the • Extensively develop public awareness Interior personnel, to conduct and environmental education. investigations of the causes of fires, • Apply a full range of tools to ensure thereby increasing the conviction rate operational fire-surveillance efforts. for violations of forest regulations. The tools used would depend on the • Encourage the forest-service agencies characteristics of the territory involved to cooperate with public nature- and would include, for example, protection organizations and other lightning sensor arrays and fire towers. institutions to achieve independent • Establish mobile, mechanized, fire- public inspections. fighting units to optimize fire-fighting • Raise public awareness through the efforts. These units would be fully mass media, including special issues of supplied with suppression and publications and regular columns in communications equipment and be local and regional newspapers. capable of responding rapidly to a fire • Encourage forest-service personnel to alert in the region. work more closely with journalists

13 Russian Far East Workshop

covering forest-sector themes to avert What needs to be done: the publication of inaccurate • Conduct a forest inventory for the entire information. federal forest estate , at least on the basis • For several years, international of satellite imagery. Begin inventorying in organizations have been indicating their areas where logging operations have interest in protecting Russian forests already been planned. from fire, particularly those in the • Organize a public campaign to inform the Russian Far East. In the event that public and governmental bodies of the catastrophic fires occur, they should be absence of a comprehensive inventory of considered catastrophic on a global data and build capacity for its scale; therefore, development by means of case examples. establish mechanisms to facilitate the - The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), with delivery of financial and technical the participation of other interested assistance from the international parties as needed, could prepare a report community to assist in fire suppression. with photographs and video materials for presentation to interested stakeholders 2. Methods for incorporating through the mass media. ecological values into forest inventory - The IUCN could raise funds for the systems. development of the first stage of this work (approximately $10,000 to $20,000 A. Basic solutions US). For approximately 50% of Asian Russia’s - Donor organizations that were present forest estate (443.4 million of 971.6 million at the conference could be approached ha), including the Russian Far East in to finance this project. particular, there are practically either no • Approach the Federal Forest Service with forest inventory statistics or only ones that a request to expedite forest-inventory are outdated. Up to one-third of former activities; however, as in the past, funding collective lands (sovkhozy and kolkhozy) for this work may not be made readily also lack forest-inventory data. available. • Propose to regional governmental In such a situation, it is impossible to speak authorities that funds for forest inventory of economically and ecologically justifiable be included in any forest-sector logging volumes. In collective forests, development programs. logging is generally conducted without • Request that the Ministry of Agriculture systematic controls. However, existing forest and Food Production disburse funds to regulations specifically forbid logging carry out inventories on forested lands activities when no forest inventory has been zoned for agriculture. done. B. Quality of forest inventory regulations The most important shortcoming of “Forest Inventory Instructions….” (1995) is the high tolerance of statistical uncertainty concerning the definition of taxonomic indicators. Also, the list of key indicators is insufficient: there is no mention in it of fauna-related indicators, although the

14 Russian Far East Workshop

Federal Forest Service is specifically 3. Strategies for diversifying forest- authorized to address such questions. There product use, especially non-timber is also a lack of sufficient representation of forest products (NTFPs). protected areas, regulations for recreation on forest lands, etc. A. Timber • Ask the IUCN to coordinate efforts of the • Develop a pilot project to promote value- Far Eastern Forestry Research Institute, added timber for small business. forest-management agencies, NGOs, and • Promote the export of processed timber others to conduct an analysis of existing products by influencing timber importers. forest-inventory regulations. • Support organizations in their efforts to • Suggest that Russian Far East regional develop and realize investment projects on governments use this analysis when they timber processing activities. propose modifications to these • Promote the application of forest- regulations to the Federal Forest Service certification mechanisms. (and the Government of the Russian Federation). B. Wild-growing forest products (mushrooms, berries, nuts, fiddleheads, C. Improving the quality of forest medicinal herbs, etc.) inventory activities • Support local organizations that process • Encourage agencies within the executive NTFPs (for example, the Hunters’ Society branch of the federal government to and others). invite NGOs to participate in secondary • Promote efforts to market and trade NTFPs forest-inventory meetings. through regional trade associations (for example, the “Association of Non-timber D. Development of a public, registry- Forest Product Users,” Khabarovsk). based system of forest evaluation • Develop a pilot project to promote NTFPs. • Ask the IUCN to develop a general Examples include the acquisition of methodology of land evaluation, materials processing equipment, the including multi-stakeholder use of the certification of NTFPs, etc. resource and including ecosystem • Provide support to local organizations in services, based on the experience of the realizing investment projects. Chuguevskiy region. This methodology • Undertake market research for NTFP could then be published and distributed resources and develop advertising to forest-management agencies. campaigns for these markets in the • Organize a workshop to discuss this Russian Far East. experience with representatives of forest- management agencies and other C. Animal resources interested parties. • Support rare-species conservation efforts. • Extend the market for fur-bearing animal products. • Consider and evaluate animal-population estimates and hunting quotas when developing markets for fur products.

15 Russian Far East Workshop

D. Bee keeping • Develop a method for determining the • Extend the market for apiary products; environmental-economic value of forest • Promote the acquisition of processing massifs. and packaging equipment. • Develop criteria to evaluate the state and • Evaluate habitat conditions and biodiversity of the forest environment. conservation of wild native bee genotypes; evaluate the economic viability B. Declare moratoria on: of honey production. • Logging in especially valuable and virgin forests. E. Timber-processing wastes • Clear-cutting several adjacent areas • Develop pilot and investment projects greater than 50 hectares in old-growth where crafts (souvenirs, brooms, fir and mature, secondary-growth forests. cones, etc.) are made from NTFP • Clear-cuts on fragile soils prone to deep resulting from timber-processing wastes. frosts and permafrost.

F. Evaluate and monitor forest- C. Planning and conducting logging recreational values by region (using GIS) • For new logging areas, develop • Promote recreational tourism through innovative, multiple, forest-use systems fostering contacts between tour providers that take into account the specific and local communities. ecological characteristics of the region. • Strengthen the enforcement of existing G. Evaluate the carbon sequestration logging regulations by forest-management potential of forests, by region agencies. • Develop and introduce economic 4. Ways to diminish the biodiversity incentives to encourage low-waste impact of logging in forest ecosystems, logging technologies. including the use of criteria and • Develop system-based forest use plans. indicators of sustainable forest • Establish regional forest-use plans using management. landscape- and watershed-based approaches. A. Determine the suitability of proposed logging D. Other • Conduct system-based evaluations of • Inform the international community of forest and forest-resource values. the management of forests in the Russian • Study the influence of various logging Far East. methods on the composition, structure, • Recognize that boreal forests from the and dynamics of forest ecosystems. permafrost zone are especially vulnerable • Apply elements of biodiversity evaluation and unstable. and conservation in forest-inventory • Build a network of model forests in each efforts. eco-geographical region of Russia and • Invite the public and NGOs to participate progress with existing ones. in environmental impact assessments.

16 Russian Far East Workshop List of participants of the Russian Far East workshop

Participants from Russia: Khabarovskiy Krai: Participants from the Russian Far East: Mr. Gennadiy Baryshnikov, Head, Department of Environmental Protection, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia): Regional Committee on Environmental Ms. Valentina Dmitrieva, Chairperson, "Eige" Protection (Khabarovsk). Center for Ecological Education (Jakutsk). Dr. Igor Dalin, Researcher, Khabarovsk Dr. Alexander Isaev, Head of the Forestry Wildlife Foundation (Khabarovsk). Group, Institute of Biological Problems of Mr. Vladimir Nistratov, Chief, Department of the Permafrost Zone (Jakutsk). Forest Resources, Regional Forest Service Ms. Valentina Kirillina, Head, Gene Pool (Khabarovsk). Conservation Department, Ministry of Nature Dr. Vladimir Sapaev, Senior Staff Researcher, Protection, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) Laboratory of Animal Ecology, Institute of (Jakutsk). Water and Ecological Problems Mr. Nikolai Sedelnik, Deputy Director and (Khabarovsk). Chief Forester, Forest Service, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) (Jakutsk). Primorskiy Krai: Ms. Lyudmila Shmatkova, Deputy Minister of Dr. Vladimir Aramilev, Director, Institute of Nature Protection, Republic of Sakha Sustainable Nature Use (Vladivostok). (Yakutia) (Jakutsk). Mr. Yuri Bersenev, Chief Specialist, Regional Ms. Svetlana Sokolova, Editor-in-Chief, Committee on Environmental Protection Sakha TV (Jakutsk). (Vladivostok). Dr. Aleksander Dobrynin, Staff Researcher, Kamchatskaya Oblast: Botanical Garden of the Russian Academy of Ms. Olga Chernyagina, Staff Researcher, Sciences, Far Eastern Branch (Vladivostok). Kamchatka Institute of Ecology and Nature Ms. B.J. Chisholm, Co-Director, ISAR- Use (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii). Vladivostok (Vladivostok). Mr. Vladimir Zykov, Director, South- Mr. Anatoliy Lebedev, Director, Bureau for Kamchatka Nature Park (Petropavlovsk- Regional Public Campaigns (Vladivostok). Kamchatskii). Jewish Autonomous Oblast: Sakhalinskaya Oblast: Mr. Vasiliy Gorobeiko, Director, “Bastak” Mr. Dmitryi Lisitsyn, Director, Sakhalin Center for Ecological Initiatives Environment Watch (Juzhno-Sakhalinsk). (Birobidjan). Mr. Fyodor Malygin, Chief Protected Areas Ms. Nina Belonogova, Deputy Chairperson, Specialist, Department of Biological Regional Committee on Environmental Resources Conservation and Nature Protection (Birobidjan). Reserves, Regional Committee on Mr. Nikolai Dmitriev, Deputy Director, Environmental Protection (Juzhno- Regional Forest Service (Birobidjan). Sakhalinsk). Mr. Renat Sabirov, Staff Researcher, Amurskaya Oblast: Laboratory of Island Ecological Problems, Dr. Yuri Darman, Director, Amur Branch of Institute of Marine Geology and Geophysics the Socio-Ecological Union (Juzhno-Sakhalinsk). (Blagoveschensk).

17 Russian Far East Workshop

Mr. Anatoliy Koval, Chairman, Regional Krasnoyarskii krai: Committee on Environmental Protection Dr. Andrei Laletin, Programme Officer, (Blagoveschensk). IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Mr. Victor Yaborov, Chief Forester and Programme-Russia (Krasnoyarsk). Deputy Director, Regional Forest Service (Blagoveschensk). Participants from abroad:

Mr. Michael Beltz, GIS Specialist, The Participants from other Regions of Ecology Center, Inc. (TECI) (Missoula, MO, Russia: USA). City of Moscow: Dr. Andrew Deutz, Coordinator, IUCN Ms. Elena Fedorova, Chief Accountant, IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme European Program, Office for the CIS. (Montreal, Canada). Ms. Kirtida Mekani, Teacher, Anglo- Mr. David Gordon, Acting Executive American School of Moscow. Director, Pacific Environment and Resources Center (NGO) (Sausalito, CA, USA). Ms. Vera Mishenko, Director, “EcoJuris” Institute. Mr. Michael Jenkins, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation / The Ms. Natalia Moraleva, Program Manager, World Bank (Chicago, IL, USA). WWF Russian Program Office. Ms. Kheryn Klubnikin, Conservation Officer, Mr. Aleksei Morozov, Forest Specialist, IUCN – The World Conservation Union Greenpeace-Russia. (Washington, DC, USA). Mr. Vladimir Moshkalo, Head, IUCN Mr. Josh Newell, Project Manager, Siberia European Program, Office for the CIS. Hotspot Project, Friends of the Earth - Japan Mr. Evgeniy Simonov, Member, Committee of (NGO) (Tokyo, Japan). Experts for the Pan-European Ecological Mr. Eiichiro Noguchi, Coordinator, Siberia Network. (STRA-REP), Council of Europe Hotspot Project, Friends of the Earth – Dr. Pavel Sokolov, Chief, Department of Japan (Tokyo, Japan). Flora Conservation, State Committee on Mr. John Slocum, The John D. and Catherine Environmental Protection of the Russian T. MacArthur Foundation (Chicago, IL, Federation. USA). Mr. Vladimir Zakharov, Director, Center of Mr. Oleg Svistunov, Project Assistant, Siberia Coordination of Information, Socio- Hotspot Project, Friends of the Earth – Ecological Union. Japan (Tokyo, Japan). Ms. Susan King, Deputy Director, Moscow Ms. Emma Wilson, Newnham College, Office, The John D. and Catherine T. Cambridge University (Cambridge, MacArthur Foundation. England).

18 Siberian Workshop

19 20 Siberian Workshop Siberian Workshop

Krasnoyarsk (Central Siberia), Russian Federation 30-31 July 1998

Introduction The second of the regional workshops on 1. The need to reduce ecological and “Challenges Facing Siberian Forests and economic damage from forest fires. Strategies for their Solution” was held in 2. The need to inventory and protect old- Krasnoyarsk (Central Siberia) on 30–31 growth forests. July 1998. Like the Russian Far East 3. The need to adapt criteria and indicators workshop, the Krasnoyarsk workshop of sustainable forest management to brought together a unique group of local Siberian conditions. and regional NGOs, government officials, 4. The lack of public awareness of and scientists from different territories of ecological values. Siberia, as well as international NGOs active 5. The need to determine the impact of in this vast region. The Siberian workshop rocket fuels on forest health. followed the same participatory format as the Russian Far East workshop: it identified The detailed list of issues is included further priority issues for the region and developed below as well as the strategies developed by strategies for addressing them. Workshop the working groups. What follows highlights participants identified the following five some of the main points. issues as priorities for forest conservation and sustainable management in Siberia:

21 Siberian Workshop

Issue 1: Reduction of ecological and Issue 4: Improving public awareness economic damage from forest fires. of ecological values. The probability and dynamics of fires are The Ministry of Secondary and Professional difficult to predict; factors include the Education and the Russian Federal Forest effects of weather (drought and lightning) Service need to amend the forest and the fuel supply, the impact of local educational programmes, broadening the forest-management practices on wood courses to consider the ecosystem approach supply, the degree of recreational use of the to forest use, and to intensify activities in the forest during fire-hazard periods, and the field of public ecological education and number of fires of anthropogenic origins public awareness. (both criminal and accidental). To improve the situation, the public’s attitude towards Issue 5: The impact of rocket fuels on forest fires needs to be changed. New fire- forests management techniques need to be Rocket fuels seem to have a negative effect developed and the conditions of fire-fighters on forests; however, no assessment of their upgraded. impacts has yet been done. Furthermore, the public is not aware of the effects of these Issue 2: Inventory and conservation of chemicals on their health. Solutions old-growth forests. proposed were to develop ecologically To better appreciate old-growth forests, they friendly fuels, reduce the frequency of will first need to be better defined, mapped, flights, and establish legal mechanisms to and have their overall status described. monitor the activities of the relevant Then, the full benefits and/or services they governmental bodies responsible for the offer to the environment and their real contamination of forests. ecological value will need to be presented to the public.

Issue 3: Adapting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management to Siberian conditions. Forest-management policy needs to be oriented toward sustainable forest management, including the conservation of significant portions of forests. The use of non-timber forest resources will need to be promoted, as well as links and/or relationships between forest users and forest-management organizations.

22 Siberian Workshop Issues identified at the Siberian workshop

The participants of the workshop divided the issues into longer-term and shorter-term time frames.

Shorter-term issues Longer-term strategic objectives • Reducing the ecological and economic • Improving the general quality and socio- damage caused by forest fires. A partial ethical orientation of ecological solution to the problem is envisaged education. through the understanding of fire • Developing ideological and psychological dynamics and the development of a bases for ecological awareness-raising successful fire-fighting programme. aimed at changing traditional values. • The inventory and preservation of old- • Developing an information center for growth forests. public relations between environmental • Developing criteria and indicators for organizations and the public. sustainable forest management and use. • Evaluating the significance of the landing of space rocket stages and the dispersal of rocket fuel. • Determining and assessing possible underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation and their resolution. • Evaluating factors causing the degradation forest edges. • Using timber damaged by forest pests, diseases and fires. • Increasing the socio-economic role of the forest by increasing the range of forest resources used. • Assessing the impact of forest fragmentation and the disturbance of the hydrological regime as a result of interference in water courses. • Assessing the state of Siberian forests using GIS.

23 Siberian Workshop Strategies developed by the working groups at the Siberian workshop

1. Reduction of ecological and What opportunities exist: economic damage from forest fires. • Modify the legislation. The problem of forest fires is very serious; • Decrease the violation of laws by solutions must therefore be found quickly. organizations and people. • Raise public awareness of the What needs to be changed or done: consequences of forest fires. • Change the public’s attitude towards • Develop a data base for forest-fire forest fires. monitoring and safety. • Improve the system of fire detection, • Establish a competent forest-fire understanding fire dynamics and managerial staff. consequences, develop a data base and • Study the effects of fires on climate large scale maps of forest fuels. change. • Develop new fire-fighting methods. • Educate the public. • Provide better salaries for forest-fighters. • Develop an ecological consciousness and • Improve working conditions for fire- responsible behavior towards nature. fighters. • Exhibit children’s drawings and posters. • Construct effective fire-breaks. • Develop and strengthen the system of • Use fire-fighting equipment with anti- school forest units, the small forest sites spark devices. managed by school children. • Prescribe the burning of forest-floor • Cooperate with the mass media; debris (fuels). • Organize several workshops on fire • Develop a system of fire detection prevention. (through analytical services) and • Improve the training of fire-fighters. coordinate all bodies participating in • Train senior staff fire management. fire-detection and -fighting (Nature • Disseminate state-of-the-art information Preserve “Tchazy,” Khakassia; its deputy on prescribed burning techniques. director G.V.Devyatkin has interesting materials). What organizations or partnerships could • Define criteria to determine which forests be established to solve the problem? should or should not be allowed to burn. • Involve the V.N.Sukachev Institute of the • Increase funding for fire-fighting Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy organizations. of Siences: • Develop an early detection system/define - in developing a system where forest high-risk areas: fighters are regularly paid for their work; - develop inventory methods for assessing and forest fire hazards; - in establishing a data base to improve - develop a decision-support system – the understanding of fire dynamics and modeling efforts – mapping efforts; and its consequences on the ecosystem - develop maps of fuels and/or (A.V.Volokitina); flammability risks. • Involve the NGO “TESI” (Tomsk); Eco- initiative group “Borei” (Gornoaltaisk); ecological fund “Tchazy” (Khakassia), NGO “Viola” (Bryansk): - in raising ecological awareness of schoolchildren; and

24 Siberian Workshop

- in developing an effective fire awareness - describe the “protection status” of each (L.V.Blinov “TESI”). forest; and • “TESI”’s department “Regional Green - describe existing threats to old-growth Capital” and the Tomsk Regional Forest forests. Service: • Consider both the historic and current • To publicize their joint experience in fire- uses of old-growth forests by local fighting: peoples (both indigenous and non- - involve A.V. Volokitina and L.V.Blinov; indigenous). and • Increase local and regional control; - develop a legislative act regulating decrease Moscow’s control. prescribed fires. What opportunities exist: Threats: • Inventory and assess old-growth forests The probability and dynamics of fires are taking into account their representative difficult to predict. Factors influencing character with respect to the forest-type conditions include the effects of weather biodiversity of the region. (drought and lightning), the fuel supply, the • Make the map! For education, analysis, impact of local forest-management practices policy influence. Begin the data base on wood supply, the degree of recreational compilation: use of the forest during fire-hazard periods, - transfer all areas of old-growth forests and fires of anthropogenic origins (both to “first group forests”; criminal and accidental). - clarify various definitions of “old growth.” 2. The inventory and conservation of • Steps and directions for the old-growth old-growth forests. map production: Old-growth forests are not properly valued - Initial step: definition of “old growth” for their ecological functions and/or (principal and legal), and clarification of services; rather, they are only viewed for values; their economic value. - Research: compile information from regional and/or local sources; What needs to be changed or done: - Analysis: map generation and data-base • Define the primary and secondary values creation; of old-growth forests. - Output: create various output products: • Outreach at all levels: paper, digital (internet and CD-ROM – - develop ecological education at the local, regional and national versions); national/international level using internet education; media outreach; and publication; - Legislative: influence policy and/or - influence policy and legislation – legislation. change federal forest service policies; and - promote the enforcement of forest protection. • Create an old-growth map (GIS): - locate old-growth forests throughout Russia (including all sub-regions);

25 Siberian Workshop

What organizations or partnerships could Threats: be established to solve the problem? The Russian people have not been much NGOs could provide funding and incentives exposed to the negative impacts of the to produce the map and compile data. overuse of forest resources. Furthermore, Information specialists could provide the because of Russia’s size, the negative relevant data.Federal forest-service impacts have been somewhat diluted. In this managers.GIS and/or remote-sensing context, convincing the public to modify its specialists. Educators, the media, local practices and behaviors will be a challenge communities; oral history and/or local given its overall low environmental knowledge of logging histories. consciousness.

3. Adapting criteria and indicators of 4. Improving public awareness of sustainable forest management to ecological values. Siberian conditions. What needs to be changed or done: What needs to be changed or done: • Request the Ministry of Secondary and • Orient forest-management policy toward Professional Education and the Russian sustainable forest management Federal Forest Service to amend the • Increase the degree of conservation of forest educational programmes, forest ecosystems broadening the courses to consider the • Develop the sustainable use and/or ecosystem approach to forest use, and to production of non-timber forest intensify activities in the field of public resources ecological education and public • Develop links and/or relationships awareness. between forest users and forest- • Develop a program of ecological management organizations;What education and information by means of opportunities exist:Evaluate forest the mass media. conditions based on multiple forest-use • Establish a regional public coordinating patterns center for protecting forests from human • Develop stronger legislation governing activities: forest use Interested NGOs could include: • Improve professional training and the - the Krasnoyarsk branch of Socio- ethics of people commercially exploiting Ecological Union; the forest - Siberian squads for the protection of nature; What organizations or partnerships could - the Khakassky regional public be established to solve the problem? ecological fund “Tchazy”; • Research institutions (Forest Institute) - the Altay branch of the Socio-Ecological • Representatives of Regional Forest Union; Services - the Primorsky Union of all districts • Ecological NGOs (The Socio-Ecological “Cedar”; and Union) - all interested organizations and • Include local and regional ecological scientific institutions. issues in all educational programmes • Establish an inter-agency coordinating council.

26 Siberian Workshop

• Release—to the mass media, NGOs, and • Establish legal mechanisms for the public—information on the work of monitoring the activities of the relevant the regional public coordinating centers governmental bodies (Ministry of in the protection of forests from human Defense, etc.) responsible for the activities. contamination of forests. • Collect and analyze reliable information • Make an environmental impact on the health of forested areas, including assessment of rocket fuels on forests. data on pest outbreaks, diseases, and • Concentrate activities on a devastated forest fires. area of minimal ecological significance. • Provide the information to the mass media and NGOs. What organizations or partnerships could be established to solve the problem? 5. Impact of rocket fuels on forests. • Specialized scientific institutions and What needs to be changed or done: legislation bodies • Compile a scientifically sound data base • NGOs for the different activities aimed at • Local, grassroots organizations decreasing the ecological damage caused • Military representatives by rocket fuels. • International organizations • Assess the economic and ecological damage to forests while considering 6. General strategies social factors. • Shift the control of forest management to • Develop a regional public center to study regional authorities and away from the impact of the combustion products of distant (Moscow) authorities. rocket fuels on ecosystems and people’s • Support small businesses; develop local health (“TESI,” “Borei,” “Tchazy”). economies (non-timber forest products). • Reduce the frequency of flights. • Develop information resources (local to • Develop ecologically friendly fuels. satellite scale). • Consider the social and environmental What opportunities exist: effects of macro-economic policies and • Inform the public of the chemical negotiations with the International characteristics of pollutants and their Monetary Fund. associated health risks. • Raise awareness of old-growth issues and formulate working and legal definitions of “old growth” forests.

27 Siberian Workshop List of participants of the Siberian workshop

Participants from Russia: Dr. Viktor Ivanov, Senior Researcher, Participants from Siberia: V.N.Sukachev IF SB RAS. Ms. Ekaterina Matvienko, Deputy Chief, Krasnoyarskii Krai: Protected Areas Department, Regional Dr. Andrei Laletin, Programme Officer, Forest Service. Temperate and Boreal Forests Programme, Mr. Alexander Zabelin, First Deputy IUCN. Director, Regional Forest Service. Mr. Konstantin Yakovlev, Deputy Director, Dr. Alexandra Volokitina, Senior Researcher, Friends of the Siberian Forests (FSF). V.N.Sukachev IF SB RAS. Ms. Tatjana Baskanova, Deputy Director, FSF Dr. Valery Kuzmichev, Professor, Dr. Vladimir Shienok, President, GAIA, Ltd. Krasnoyarsk Technological University. Mr. Alexander Schepin, Senior Teacher, Mr. Konstantin Dunaev, Chief Associate, Krasnoyarsk State University for Architecture Institute of Biophysics SB RAS. and Construction. Mr. Andrei Bakharev), Main Forester, Ms. Tatjana Fedorova, Chief Associate, V.N. Regional Department of Goscompriroda - Sukachev FI SB RAS. Environmental Protection Agency (town Ms. Svetlana Stepanova, Senior Teacher, Nazarovo, Krasnoyarskii krai). Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical Institute. Ms. Olga Zabortseva, Teacher, Lesosibirskii Ms. Anna Laletina, Executive Director, FSF. Pedagogical Institute (town Lesosibirsk, Krasnoyarskii krai), Ms. Irina Pitirimova, Deputy Director, Central Library, Institute of Chemistry SB RAS. Altai Republic Dr. Dmitry Vladyshevsky, Professor, Mr. Roman Oparin, Chief Associate, Gorno- Krasnoyarsk State Technical University. Altaiskii Botanical Garden (Gorno-Altaisk). Ms. Natalja Mikhailova, Senior Specialist, Krasnoyarsk State University for Architecture Altaiskii Krai and Construction. Ms. Tatjana Kondrashova, Editor, TV-Radio complex “KATUN” (Barnaul). Dr. Rosa Babintseva, Professor, Krasnoyarsk Agricultural University. Irkutskaya Oblast Mr. Vladimir Soldatov, Director, Forest Ms. Eugeniya Ponarina, staff journalist, Pathology Enterprise. Newspaper “Sovetskaya Molodjozh” Dr. Galina Kuzmina, Manager, Regional (Irkutsk). Forest Service. Mr. Nikolai Zubov, Chairman, Krasnoyarsk Khakasia Republic Branch, International Socio-Ecological Ms. Irina Sannikova, President, Ecological Union. Fund “Chazy” (Abakan). Ms. Ludmila Kolesnikova, Chief, Revision Dr. Gennadii Devjatkin, Deputy Director, Commission, FSF. State Nature Preserve (zapovednik) “Malyi Dr. Vera Vlasenko, Senior Researcher, Abakan-Chazy” (Abakan). V.N.Sukachev IF SB RAS.

28 Siberian Workshop

Novosibirskaya Oblast Moscow City Dr. Nikolai Laschinskii, Chief of Laboratory, Mr. Vladimir Moshkalo, Director, Central Siberian Botanical Garden (CSBG) IUCN-CIS office. of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Ms. Elena Fjodorova, Accountant, Academy of Sciences (SB RAS) IUCN-CIS office (Novosibirsk). Ms. Eugeniya Chelaznova, Doctorate Student, Primorskii Krai CSBG SB RAS (Novosibirsk). Mr. Anatolii Lebedev, Director, Bureau of Ms. Maria Dubrovina, Deputy Director, Regional Public Campaigns (Vladivostok). Ecological Druzhina (NGO) of Novosibirsk Mr. Ivan Kyalunziga, Chief, Iman group of State University (Novosibirsk). indigenous Udege people (Novopokrovka village, Krasnoarmeiskii district). Tomskaya Oblast Mr. Lev Blinov, Chairman, Tomsk Ecological Students Inspection (Tomsk). Participants from abroad:

Tyva Republic Mr. Eric Beckwitt, President, Sierra Dr. Julia Nazarova, Chief, Administration of Biodiversity Institute (Nevada City, CA, USA). the President of Tyva Republic (Kyzyl). Mr. Thomas Dunklin, Doctoral Student, Geological Dept., Humboldt State University (CA, USA). Participants from other Regions of Mr. Michael Jones, Regional Director, Russia: Pacific Rim Taiga, Inc., (Portland, OR, USA). Bryanskaya Oblast Ms. Rosario Ortiz, Executive Representative, Mr. Oleg Markin, Executive Representative, Global Secretariat of the Initiative on NGO “Viola.” (Bryansk). Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Bogota, Colombia). Mary-El Republic Mr. Alexander Urushadze, Senior Specialist, Dr. Igor Jakovlev, Associate Professor, Ministry of Economy, (Tbilisi, Georgia Joshkar-Ola State Technical University Republic). (Joshkar-Ola).

29 30 European- Urals Region Workshop

31 32 European-Urals Region European-Urals Region Workshop Workshop EMC Golitsyno, Moscow 2. The need to extend the network of 19 – 21 October 1998 specially protected natural areas and to develop the ECONET forest programme. Introduction 3. The need to find workable solutions to the problem of forest fires. The third of these workshops, on the 4. The restoration of forests that have been challenges facing the forests of European polluted by radioactivity, and modification Russia and the Urals, was held in the town of of their traditional use to safeguard the Golitsyno, near Moscow, from 19 – 21 health of local communities. October 1998. Like its predecessors, the 5. The development of partnerships between workshop brought together a broad range of state bodies and public organizations. local, environmental, non-governmental 6. The need to balance the ecological, organizations (NGOs), government officials, economic, and social aspects of and scientists from different territories of sustainable development and to find European Russia and the Urals, as well as solutions to the problems of the forest federal government officials and national sector at the political level. NGOs from Moscow, and members of the donor and foundation communities. Participants then broke into three working groups, each of which was asked to develop The workshop was formally opened by strategies for addressing each priority issue in Andrew Deutz, Coordinator of the IUCN the context of European Russia and the Urals. Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme, and The participants were asked to reflect on Vladimir Moshkalo, Director of the IUCN-CIS three strategic questions: 1) What needs to office. The workshop began with a change to address the issue? 2) Where do presentation on the sector-wide changes opportunities exist for influencing that needed to achieve sustainable forest change? and 3) What partnerships need to be management and an overview of the All developed to bring about this change? Russian Research and Information Centre for Workshop participants produced the Forest Resources (ARICFR) paper on the following sets of recommendations for forests of European Russia and the Urals strategies and approaches to address each of presented by one of its co-authors, Dr. Andrei the priority issues: Filipchuk. The workshop then employed participatory methods to enable the Russian Issue 1. Problems with developing stakeholders to articulate what they saw as the regional legislation and coordinating it major obstacles and opportunities facing with the federal forest legislation. forest conservation and sustainable In addressing this issues, workshop development in this region of Russia. After participants focused primarily on the generating a list of twenty “urgent forest practices of the Federal Forest Service, issues” the participants prioritized these suggesting that it should increase the weight issues. They ranked the following six issues as that it gives to the ecological benefits of top priorities: forests relative to the economic benefits; that it should revise downward its calculations of 1. Problems with developing regional forest the annual allowable cut; and that it should legislation and coordinating it with the require better forest restoration practices federal forest legislation. following harvesting. The participants also recommended that regional authorities

33 European-Urals Region Workshop

should better incorporate sustainable forest Issue 4. Restoration of radioactively management principles into their legislative polluted forests and modification of its and regulatory frameworks. traditional use to protect local communities. Issue 2. Extension of the Specially Radioactively contaminated forests were also Protected Natural Areas (SPNAs) an issue of great concern to the workshop network and development of the participants. Even more than a decade after ECONET forest programme. the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Participants discussed several issues related contamination is still a serious problem in to protected areas in Russia. First, they some areas of European Russia. As a result address Specially Protected Nature Areas of the economic difficulties in Russia, many (using Zakazniks as an example) which are rural communities have become increasingly reserves that are often established dependant on forest resources for food and temporarily. Participants called for greater fuel, thus increasing their risk of exposure transparency in and financing for their from secondary sources. Participants operation, and called for an evaluation of recommended a series of strategies to their protective status. The participants also address these issues, including improved called for the establishment of an monitoring of contaminated sites and ecologically representative system of forest exposure levels, renewed public awareness protected areas which could be integrated efforts, forest restoration activities, and into the European ECONET structure. certification of “radiation-free” forest products. Issue 3. Finding workable solutions to the problem of forest fires. Issue 5. Developing partnership Almost all forest fires in the European part of between state bodies and public Russia are caused by human activity. organizations. Workshop participants noted with alarm that the incidence of forest fires have been Issue 6. The need to balance the increasing in Russia, while at the same time, ecological, economic, social, and funding for fire prevention and control has cultural aspects of sustainable been declining. Participants recommended a development and to find solutions to number of critical actions to address this the problems of the forest sector at the situation, including conducting an analysis of political level. the underlying causes of forest fires, improving ways to assess the economic, The Workshop participants considered these social and health impacts of forest fires, two issues to be interconnected, and therefore launching a public education campaign, and treated them together. They recognized the building new partnerships with local need to increase the transparency and communities and the international accountability of decision-making with respect community. to both the objectives and the means of forest management in Russia. To accomplish this, they recommended the development of a stronger legislative framework and the development of administrative practices to foster dialogue and cooperation between government agencies and the civil society.

34 European-Urals Region Workshop Issues identified at the European-Urals workshop

They also called attention to the need for a • Combat the degradation and decline of stronger and better financed NGO movement spruce and oak forests. in Russia that would be able to engage more • Make the data on forests available to the constructively with government agencies and public. the public. • Define, map, and protect old-growth The need to: forests. • Improve the coordination and integration • Separate the joint forest management and of regional and national forest legislation. forest conservation functions of the • Extend the network of specially protected Federal Forest Service. forest areas, and to develop the ECONET • Protect forests on mountains. forest programme. • Combat corruption in the forest sector. • Find workable solutions to the problem • Increase the use of non-timber forest of forest fires. products. • Restore radiation-contaminated forests • Create incentives for the sustainable use and bring about changes in the of forests. traditional use of timber and non-timber • Coordinate the multiple use of forests to forest products by the local population. decrease the negative impacts on them. • Improve partnerships between state • Develop appropriate methodological bodies and public organizations. approaches, classifications and • Make the transition from “industrial” terminology in forestry, forest forest management to “ecosystem” management and conservation. management. • Study the ecology of temperate and • Balance the ecological, economic, social, boreal forests. and cultural aspects of sustainable • Allocate more funds to scientific research development and find solutions to the on forests. problems of the forest sector at the political level. • Consider non-commercial interests in the process of forest use.

35 European-Urals Region Workshop Strategies developed by the working groups at the European-Urals workshop

Issue 1. Problems with developing • Include the volumes of wood lost due to regional legislation and coordinating fires and pests in the calculation of it with the federal forest legislation. annual allowable cuts. The result will be a decrease in the annual allowable cut. What needs to be changed or done: • The National Parks should not be • Remove perverse incentives such as low managed by the Federal Forest Service payments for forest-resource use (for because its primary mission is the example, stumpage fees that are too economic development of forests rather low). than their protection. • Improve forest protection. • Improve the quality, growth and surface Participants also proposed the following of the forest that is restored: recommendations to improve the situation: - the volume of major areas logged is concentrated in natural and secondary • Involve the public in discussions forests; concerning the legislation: - eliminate falsification in the accounting - collect critical, constructive remarks; of forest restoration efforts. - analyse negative experiences and their • The Federal Forest Service should value underlying causes; the ecological services of forests as much - use positive experiences as models. as they value the economic benefits from • Develop mechanisms to add or amend logging the forest. legislation. • Large areas of forests are lost each year • Encourage regional governments to due to fire and pests. Even though these improve their forest legislation by adding areas are greater than the area harvested norms for sustainable forest annually, they are not adequately management. accounted for in the calculation of • Share recently developed regional forest annual allowable cuts. legislation that include norms of • Ecological functions in the national parks sustainable forest management with the are not always well-protected; national federal and regional forest services. parks are managed by the Federal Forest Service. Issue 2. Extension of the Specially Possible solutions: Protected Natural Areas (SPNAs) • Revise stumpage fees for logging standing network and development of the wood. ECONET forest programme. • Develop legal mechanisms that promote priority for forest protection within all What needs to be changed or done with forest-service divisions. regard to the SPNA network: • Develop a mechanism whereby forest • Many SPNAs (i.e., Zakazniks) exist only users are responsible for restoring the on paper. forest following their activity. • Some SPNAs (i.e., Zakazniks) are only • Separate the functions of forest temporary. protection from that of timber harvesting. • SPNAs are inadequately financed.

36 European-Urals Region Workshop

Possible solutions: Issue 3. Finding workable solutions to • Ask the State Committee of the Russian the problem of forest fires Federation on Environmental Protection to evaluate the protective status of SPNAs. • The number of ignitions in forests has • Finance SPNAs with a separate budget increased. line; financing must be increased as • Forest fires result mostly from current support is inadequate. anthropogenic activities. • Ask for more transparency and public • There is a lack of financing for participation in the development of the preventing and controlling forest fires. SPNA network. What needs to be changed or done? What needs to be changed or done with • Approve the Federal Target Program: regard to old-growth forests: “Protection of Forests from Fires.” • Lack of an adequate protective status of • Absence of specific budget allocation for these territories; absence of ECONET fire-management. programme in Russia. • Finding the underlying causes of forest • The public ignores the ecological role fires and raising the awareness of local and status of old-growth forests. They people. need to be informed that the old-growth • Awareness of the public concerning the forests of Russia are an important part of negative impacts of forest fires. the world’s heritage. • Involvement of local communities in fire prevention activities. Possible solutions: • Sensitizing local communities to the • Develop and adopt legal mechanisms for overall state of surrounding forests. setting aside ecologically valuable • Interagency cooperation needs to be territories for establishing SPNAs. strengthened. • Involve both government officials and the NGO community in reviewing the Possible solutions: proposed laws on SPNAs and projected • Encourage additional research on protected territories to be established. monitoring, including remote sensing • Develop a conceptual framework for the techniques and implementing these establishment of ecological networks techniques in the field. wherein SPNAs would be the main • Improve the methodology for accounting element, interconnected with ecological and assessing damage from forest fires. corridors. Criteria for the selection of • Provide the forest fire-prevention service corridors and the use of natural with new technical facilities. resources in the SPNAs need to be • Establish new types of partnerships, developed. especially at the international level. • Fund-raise for items 1-3

37 European-Urals Region Workshop

What partnerships need to be developed to Possible solutions: bring about this change? • Raise public awareness through the • International partnerships in the field of mass-media and by participating in monitoring. public hearings. • Implementation of joint educational • Supply the population with individual projects on fire-prevention. monitoring equipment (meters). • Finance specific forest activities in Issue 4. Restoration of radioactively contaminated areas. polluted forests and modification of its • Encourage scientific research on the traditional use to protect local effects of radioactivity on human health communities. and the environment.

• Absence of relevant control by What partnerships need to be developed to governmental forest agencies of bring about this change? increased radioactive contamination from • International partnership in the field of secondary sources. monitoring. • Absence of a long-term integrated plan • Implementation of joint educational addressing radioactive contamination of projects on radioactive issues. forests. • Use of forest products, including edible Issue 5. Developing partnership ones, that were not “radiation-free” between state bodies and public certified, inside and outside the organizations. contaminated zone. • Accelerated decline of forests exposed to Issue 6. The need to balance the radiation. ecological, economical, social, and • Increased danger of fire in contaminated cultural aspects of sustainable forests. development and to find solutions to the problems of the forest sector at the What needs to be changed or done? political level • Strengthen the coordination of the activities of various agencies addressing The workshop participants found that these the issue of the radioactive contamination problems were interconnected and of forests. consequently decided to tackle them • Implement the “radiation-free” together. The following problems were certification of forest products. identified: • Assess the implementation of the current • Forests have multiple functions and system for the radiological monitoring of different groups have different interests forests, including the regular notification in them; therefore, mechanisms of of local populations about associated cooperation should take these interests health risks. into account. • Improve and implement norms for forest • There is a need for a balanced approach use in contaminated areas. to sustainable forest management (SFM); i.e., one that incorporates ecological and social as well as economic aspects.

38 European-Urals Region Workshop

• Given the present economic situation, the • Reintroduce a balance between the problems of the forest sector surpass the social, economic, and ecological aspects technical competency of forest- of sustainable forest management and management agencies and require the especially re-emphasize the social and political will, understanding, and ecological aspects at all levels, including commitment to tackle legislative and the political level. regulatory issues. • Non-governmental partners need to be • Nongovernmental partners (NGOs, local politically and financially strengthened. communities, indigenous groups) • Build political and administrative will for generally lack domestic financial support implementing legislative/policy changes. and large constituencies, are usually poorly organized, and don’t have much Possible solutions: bargaining power. Relations between the • Use the mass media to raise public state and nongovernmental partners are awareness. often poor. • Encourage NGOs to be more aggressive and constructive in their confrontation What needs to be changed or done: with governments. • Develop a legislative framework to foster • Use independent lawyers to resolve cooperation between governmental and environmental disputes. nongovernmental actors. • Rely on the dynamic scientific - defining rights and responsibilities in community. the decision-making process about forest • Take advantage of the multiple interests conservation and management between different governmental agencies - rights to information and transparency and different levels of government. in decision-making. • Use international pressure and processes, - lack of incentives, especially financial as well as markets for certified products and tax incentives, for supporting (e.g., 1998 Lisbon Ministerial nongovernmental actors. Declaration). - need for accountability and • Promote and replicate successful small- transparency in the dialogues and scale partnership experiences. negotiations between the private sector, • Build capacity for non-governmental the government, and other actors. actors. • Raise public awareness and/or • Find advocates within governments. environmental education, including information about the rights and However, changing stakeholder behaviour responsibilities of various partners (such requires funding, training people, finding as nongovernmental actors and sympathetic ears in governments, and politicians). technical competence.

39 European-Urals Region Workshop List of Participants of the European Russia and Urals Region

Participants from Russia:

Participants from Moscow: Participants from other regions of Ms. Tatiana Butylina, Project Officer, Centre Russia: for International Projects (CIP), State Committee of the Russian Federation on Dr. Lydmila Zhirina, President, NGO Environmental Protection (SCRFEP). “Viola”, (Bryansk). Dr. Andrei Volkov, Project Manager, Institute Dr. Andrei Laletin, Programme Officer, of Sustainable Communities. IUCN Programme on Temperate and Boreal Dr. Mikhail Karpachevskiy, Project Officer, Forests–Russia, (Krasnoyarsk.) Biodiversity Conservation Center. Dr. Roman Yushkov, Assistant Professor, Ms. Susan King, Deputy Director, Moscow Geography Department, Perm State Office, The John D. and Catherine T. University, (Perm). MacArthur Foundation. Dr. Igor Yakovlev, Mariy State Technical Ms. Kirtida Mekani, Teacher, Anglo- University, (Yoshkar-Ola). American School. Mr. Yakov Yushkov, Coordinator, Association Ms. Liya Korobova, Staff Officer, Know How of Kolskyi Saams, (Murmansk). Fund, British Embassy. Dr. Vladimir Krever, Project Officer, Biodiversity Programme, WWF - Russia Participants from abroad: Programme Office. Mr. Jon Anderson, Staff Officer, Forestry Ms. Olga Krever, Volunteer, IUCN Office for Department, UN Food and Agriculture the CIS, IUCN European Programme. Organization, (Rome, Italy). Mr. Vladimir Moshkalo, Director, Office for Dr. Andrew Deutz, Coordinator, Temperate the CIS, IUCN European Programme. and Boreal Forest Programme, IUCN- Ms. Marina Nezhlukto, Staff Editor, All- Canada, (Montreal, Canada). Russian Research and Informational Centre Mr. Henrik Holst Zeltner, Officer, Danish on Forest Resources. Ministry for Environment and Energy, Dr. Oleg Saveliev, Assistant Professor, Danish Forest and Nature Agency Moscow Academy of Agriculture. (Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Pavel Sokolov, Head, Department of the Ms. Virpi Sahi, Project Officer, WWF- Fauna Protection, SCRFEP. Finland/Finnish Association for Nature Dr. Andrei Filipchuk, Deputy Director, All- Conservation, (Helsinki, Finland). Russian Research and Informational Centre on Forest Resources. Dr. Alexei Yaroshenko, Forest Campaigner, Greenpeace-Russia.

40 National Workshop

41 42 National Workshop National Workshop

EMC Golitsyno, Moscow, Russian Federation State Committee on Ecology and Victor 21-23 October 1998 Teplyakov, Chief of the Research and Technology Department of the Federal Introduction Forest Service of Russia. The workshop The final IUCN workshop in the series, on then proceeded with presentations from “The Future of Forest Conservation in Andrei Filipchuk of the All-Russian Research Russia,” was held in Golitsyno (near and Information Center for Forest Moscow) from 21-23 October 1998. Like Resources on the state of Russia’s forests, the previous workshops, this one brought and by Julia Gorelova of the Biodiversity together a group of regional and national Conservation Center on legal and political NGOs, Russian government officials, and challenges of forest conservation in Russia. scientists, as well as representatives from Finally, representatives from each of the donor agencies and international NGOs three regional workshops provided active in Russia. The workshop included overviews of the results of the previous key participants from each of the previous workshops. regional workshops held in the Russian Far East, Siberia and the European-Urals region At this point, the workshop turned to a to ensure continuity in the discussions. facilitated discussion of the results of the regional workshops to examine the The purpose of the overall series of following strategic questions: Did the workshops for IUCN was to determine what regional workshops identify the right issues? IUCN's niche could be in improving forest Are there additional priority issues that conservation and management in Russia. should be added? Were there some issues The first three regional workshops had that were identified in one region that apply generated lists of priority issues for each to other regions as well? The participants region and mapped out general strategies to agreed that the regional workshops had address these issues. The final, national indeed identified the right issues, though level workshop was designed to: several pointed out that many of the 1. Synthesize the results of the previous priorities in only one region should be workshops; considered trans-regional priorities. 2. Verify that the regional workshops had identified relevant issues for the regional For the rest of the workshop, participants and national levels; were asked to work in small working 3. Examine the feasibility of the strategies groups, based on their interests and developed at the regional workshops; expertise, to examine the feasibility of and making progress on the various priorities 4. Identify next steps for IUCN and other and what the next steps should be for IUCN partners. and others. In order to better organize their work, the participants grouped the The meeting was chaired by William individual priorities from each of the Jackson, IUCN Forest Conservation Program regional workshops into four “super- Coordinator and Vladimir Moshkalo, categories” and then assigned themselves to Director of IUCN’s Office for the one of the “super-categories.” The issues Commonwealth of Independent States. The were broken down as follows: opening session was addressed by Amirkhan Amirkanov, Deputy Chairman of the Russian

43 National Workshop

1. Assessment of Forest Benefits 4. What are the next steps for addressing • Forest use diversification and NTFPs (Far the issue? East) • Improving public awareness of ecological The detailed results of these discussions are values of forests (Siberia) presented below. • Improving stakeholder involvement in forest management (European-Urals) Based on the results of this series of workshops, it is clear to IUCN that our 2. Lessening Damage from Fire and potential niche in forest conservation and Pollution management in Russia revolves around our • Forest Fires (Far East, Siberia, European- ability to serve as a catalyst and a convener. Urals) • Impacts of rocket fuel (Siberia) The first potential role for IUCN is as a • Impacts of radiation (European-Urals) networker. As a global Union, IUCN has the ability to mobilize technical expertise in 3. Developing an Ecosystem Approach to other countries as well as the expertise of a Forest Management small but growing network of IUCN • Incorporating ecological values into institutional members and individual forest inventories (Far East) commission members within Russia, which • Application of criteria and indicators can be engaged to support forest (Far East, Siberia) conservation. • Coordinating federal and regional forest legislation (European-Urals) The second role for IUCN is to function as a facilitator in helping to build new 4. Old-growth Forests and Protected Areas partnerships with an increasingly mobilized • Lessening the biodiversity impacts of civil society within Russia, as well as with logging (Far East) organizations outside of Russia. • Conservation of old-growth forests (Siberia) And a third potential role for IUCN is to • Developing a network of Specially make the connections between policy and Protected Nature Areas (ECONET) practice by learning from field experiences (European-Urals) in Russia and sharing these lessons learned with Russian stakeholders and the rest of After reviewing the strategies developed the world. This may be particularly valuable during the regional workshops to address to IUCN members and partners considering priority issues, each working group was or reconsidering how best to deploy their asked to consider the following questions: financial and technical resources for 1. Is it feasible to make progress on the conservation in Russia. issue within 3-5 years? 2. Are others already working on the problem? 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on the issue? What role is there for others? How can IUCN support the work that others are doing?

44 National Workshop

Issue 1. Economic valuation of However, it will be possible to make ecological functions of forest progress on this issue within 3-5 years, if resources significant obstacles are overcome in Russia. The understanding of the value and proper 1. Foresters are not instructed to collate use of non-timber forest resources (benefits appropriate data on the ecological value from the forest) has not been well of forests; documented in Russia. Furthermore, 2. Foresters are not interested in valuating forests in the past have not always been non-timber forest products and wildlife used sustainably and a significant network because they only make profit from of protected forests has not yet been timber. established. 3. Difficulty in changing mentality of government officials and industrials The working group considered the following regarding the value and use of natural benefits from the forest and assessed the resources. possibility for their use on the basis of economic sustainability. 2. Are others already working on the 1. Protection of the ecological functions of problem? forests, including their use by the public Yes, some workshop participants and other for their spiritual asset. groups are collecting data on the state of 2. Non-timber forests products. forest resources; trying to protect forests 3. Protection and enhancement of from fire; coordinating the interests of biodiversity. different groups of forest users, are trying to improve the forest legislation. Many are There are different ways to value forests. If working on the ecological education of all they are valued for their carbon forest users and improving skills of sequestration potential, they will be professional foresters. considered the main component of the biosphere, because they regulate the carbon 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on cycle. In this context, organizing workshops the issue? What role is there for others? within the framework of IUCN on the How can IUCN support the work that development of agreements on the carbon others are doing? sequestration potential of forests would be useful. IUCN • Organization of workshops on valuation 1. Is it feasible to make progress on the of the ecological functions of forests; issue within 3-5 years? • Analysis and constructive criticism of the The feasibility of achieving these goals existing criteria and indicators of depends to a great extent on the general sustainable forest use. economic situation in Russia and in the world; as well as on the increasing Partners ecological crisis and progress in the • Identification of personal interest and ecological thinking. self-promotion in managerial structures; • Finding solutions to environmental vandalism (such as cutting down a tree to collect cones);

45 National Workshop

• Analysis and constructive criticism of the • Obtain access to reliable information on existing criteria and indicators of impacts of rocket launching and rocket sustainable forest management. fuel on forest ecosystems and population • Achieve external audits to evaluate the health; economic management of forests. • Implement scientific measures for decreasing damage to forests, caused by 4. What are the next steps for addressing rocket waste. the issue? 1. Evaluate how users of the forest benefit 2. Are others already working on the from it. problem? 2. Assess objectively the ecological values of • Committee on Ecology of the State Duma forests and identify the different methods of the Russian Federation; used to evaluate them. • Russian Space Agency; 3. Estimate the costs of developing activities • Military-Space Forces; that will increase the ecological and • Regional and local state environmental economic benefits from the forest. organizations; 4. Develop marketing studies, to determine • Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); what price different consumers are ready • Scientific organizations; to pay for non-timber forest values. • Mass media; 5. Divide benefits into three groups: those • Local population. that need subsidies, those that are the self-supporting and the profitable ones. 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on 6. Assessment of the type of non-timber the issue? What role is there for others? forest values that might need subsidies. How can IUCN support the work that others are doing?

Issue 2. Decreasing the negative IUCN: impacts of forest fires and pollution. • Fund-raising for other groups; I) Impacts of rocket fuel on forests: • Coordination role for other groups; • Organization of conferences and 1. Is it feasible to make progress on the seminars; issue within 3-5 years? • Preparation and publishing of materials It is realistic to make the following progress on the issue; within 3-5 years: • Involve experts such as scientists, private • Assess the area of forests damaged by the firms, and organizations to help find long-range transport of pollutants; solutions or build capacity in Russia. • Assess the damage to health of wildlife and local populations; 4. What are the next steps for addressing • Hold a workshop on impacts of pollution the issue? on environmental and human health; 1. Develop and implement regional pilot • Propose changes in the legislation so that projects; the Russian Space Agency (RSA) will pay 2. Develop a strategic plan and programme for restoring the ecological damage to improve the situation; caused by its activities; 3. Establish a special fund to help local groups and State Committee for the Environment to resolve the issue.

46 National Workshop

II) Improving the use of forests on • Scientific and educational organizations; radioactively polluted National • NGOs; lands (Forest Fund) • Mass media.

1. Is it feasible to make progress on the 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on issue within 3-5 years? the issue? What role is there for others? Within 3-5 years, it will be possible to: How can IUCN support the work that • Increase the coordination of the others are doing? activities of different stakeholders in the IUCN: process of finding solutions to the use of • Fund-raising; radioactive polluted forests; • Coordination role; • Establish a “radioactive–free” • Organization of conferences and certification process for the forest seminars; products; • Preparation and publication of materials • Develop the system of radioactive on the issue; monitoring with associated population • Involve experts such as scientists, private awareness raising according to its firms, and organizations to help find results; solutions and build capacity in Russia. • Improve the legislation concerning forest management on territories radioactively 4. What are the next steps for addressing contaminated; the issue? • Raise public awareness on impacts of 1- Develop partnerships at the international radioactivity on public health through level in the field of monitoring, carrying public hearings, and with the help of the out additional scientific research, mass media; including methods for remote sensing; • Provide the public with individual means 2- Implement joint educational projects on of radioactive control (dosimeters); nuclear themes; • Fund-raise to restore polluted forests; 3- Develop regional pilot projects; • Encourage scientific research on impacts 4- Develop a concept paper and programme of radioactivity on human and to improve the situation; environmental health; 5- Establish a special fund to help local groups and State Committee for the 2. Are others already working on the Environment to resolve the issue. problem? • Committee on Ecology of the State Duma III) Finding an integrated solution of the Russian Federation; to the problem of forest fires • Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation; 1. Is it feasible to make progress on the • Russian Scientific Institute for the Use of issue within 3-5 years? Chemicals in Forestry; Within 3-5 years, it will be possible to: • Units of civil defense; • Determine whether available funds to • Bodies (Goskomecology, Rosleskhoz, combat forest fires were adequately used; Minatom, Minzdrav, Gossanepidnadzor of • Determine whether funds from foreign Russia, etc.); help were efficiently used; • Fund-raise to prevent forest fires;

47 National Workshop

• Lobby for the adoption of the State IUCN : programme "Protection of forests from • Organize a workshop on protecting fires" and analyse the efficiency of the forests from fires, tentatively in early programme; 1999, with participation of all interested • Improve the coordination of stakeholders: state services, industries, governmental and NGOs; scientific and public organizations; • Develop partnerships between different • Coordination role; types of organizations, especially in • Preparation of material to be published regions; on the issue; • Raise awareness of the public to the • Involve experts such as scientists, private importance of protecting forests from firms, and organizations to help find human-induced fires; solutions and build capacity in Russia. • Monitor forest fires using remote sensing methods; 4. What are the next steps for addressing • Improve the method to determine fire the issue? damage to forests; 1. Develop concept papers and • Upgrade the fire prevention and control programmes; equipment of forest protection services; 2. Partnership at the international level in • Determine criteria to select which forest the field of monitoring, encouraging fires to combat in a given region. scientific research, especially on remote sensing methods; 2. Are others already working on the 3. Develop joint educational projects with problem? all stakeholders. • Committee on Ecology of the State Duma of the Russian Federation; Issue 3. Ecosystem approach to forest • Russian Federation Government; management • Federal Forest Service; • Aviation base for the prevention of forest The factors determining the need to use an fires; ecosystem approach in forest management • Ministry of Emergency Situations of the are as follows: Russian Federation; • forest ecosystems are in a critical state in • Ministry of Defense of the Russian several regions due to intensive industrial Federation; forest activities; • State Committee for the Environment; • there is a need to integrate the multiple • Scientific organizations; uses of forests and increase forest • Public organizations; productivity; • Partnerships on experience and • need to implement the international information exchange between the agreements and Russian national corresponding Russian and foreign legislation in the field of environmental organizations; protection and use of natural resources; • Educational organizations. • develop a certification system to prove the forestry products were harvested 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on legally and according to specific the issue? What role is there for others? standards; How can IUCN support the work that others are doing?

48 National Workshop

• the need to protect the ecological We can only provide a preliminary list of functions of the forest ecosystem as well international partners. Unfortunately, the as the integrity of the genetic diversity of lack of knowledge of the different animal and plant species; stakeholders working on this issue can often • the necessity to use forests sustainably, result in duplication of efforts. The integrating the multiple use of natural international organizations can be grouped resources, both at the industrial level and into four categories according to the nature from the point of view of Indigenous of their help or cooperation: people; • the necessity to maintaining the balance • Technical Assistance for the of nature. Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) (project with Finnish experts 1. Is it feasible to make progress on the regarding the management of national issue within 3-5 years? parks and forests), USAID (Buryatian, We expect that gradually, progress in Baikalsky and Ussuriisky projects), managing forests from an ecosystem Government of Finland (project on approach will occur but it will be an on- sustainable forest management and going process. We think that improved biodiversity for the North-East of Russia. management will first be observed in the The objective of this project is to traditional use of resources and in the harmonize forests and environmental management of ecological disasters. The interests), UNEP, GTZ, etc. greatest challenge will be to manage the • Working groups of international whole Russian territory covered with forests environmental agreements; in a sustainable manner. • World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, etc. 2. Are others already working on the • WWF, IUCN, etc. problem? Several national and international 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on organizations are working in Russia and the issue? What role is there for others? trying to introduce the ecosystem approach How can IUCN support the work that to forest management. others are doing? The Russian organizations working in this IUCN: field include: • Raise awareness and analyse the • Federal Forest Service and the State situation; Committee for Environmental Protection • Participate in the development and and their territorial units; implementation of environmental • Committee on Ecology of the State Duma strategies; (Lower Chamber of the Russian • Fund-raise; Parliament); • Help in setting priorities; • academic and departmental research • Ecological educational; organizations (institutes); • Develop new policies; • Russian national and regional groups. • Negotiate at the governmental and intergovernmental level.

49 National Workshop

It is through these functions that IUCN could programmes for improved forest use support the work of other partners. including mechanisms for their implementation, that are regionally and At the same time the role of other partners in environmentally acceptable. the solution of this problem could be both strictly oriented to their main professional or Issue 4. "Old-growth Forests and public activity and include temporary and ECONET". non-specific activities. In particular, research I) Old-growth forests. institutions could 1) develop scientific principles for using the ecosystem approach At present, the concept of “old-growth in forest management, but also 2) select, in forests” include both the slightly disturbed collaboration with the specialists of the forests and the large natural tracts of boreal forestry service and forest users, the most forests (taiga). They can be defined in the efficient, feasible and regionally acceptable following way.: way of implementing this approach. Research organizations could also raise public Slightly disturbed forests awareness with the assistance of the mass These are forests that develop over a long media. period of time without human-induced catastrophic disturbances. These patches of 4. What are the next steps for addressing natural forests are surrounded by secondary the issue? forests or cultivated lands. Two types of 1. make a literature review of the existing disturbances shape the landscape of these Russian and international experience on forests: large disturbances such as fire and ecosystem approach to forest insects and smaller-scale disturbances such management, as wind-throw and natural death of trees. 2. review the existing and planned forest Furthermore all layers of forests are present use, in the forest. 3. raise environmental awareness and increase skills of professional forests, Large natural tracts of boreal forests 4. raise environmental awareness of the (taiga) public using the mass media, These vast boreal forests preserve the 5. develop scientific methods for mosaic of landscapes and allow for the implementing the ecosystem approach, survival of populations of large vertebrates. 6. develop scientifically-sound The local population is not involved in the recommendations for specialists in industrial use of natural resources. There is forestry and forest users, not an extensive road network in the area. 7. establish a network of model forests using the ecosystem approach for their Both categories of forests are important for management, their protection of biological and landscape 8. establish public institutes to assess the diversity. Because the anthropogenic impact impacts assessments of potentially on these areas is low, they can be used as harmful projects, “control” forests. Data from these forests 9. determine parameters and organize a could be used to compare effects of logging federal network for monitoring the state in intensively managed forests. of forest ecosystems, 10.develop a forest legislation, projects and

50 National Workshop

1. Is it feasible to make progress on the Investigate what are threats to the old- issue within 3-5 years? growth forests and prioritize certain actions Yes, but there is an urgency to protect old- for their protection. growth forests because in a number of 2. Elaborate a legislative mechanism for regions they are threatened by the mining protecting significant portions of old- and forest industries. Within five years, growth forests from 1) industrial forest many could have disappeared. and natural resources extraction, 2) the construction of a permanent network of 2. Are others already working on the roads, 3) the establishment of permanent problem? settlements. Besides the workshop’s participants, the 3. Conferring a protection status to following groups are involved in protecting significant old-growth forests and old-growth forests: monitoring their state (integrity). • The Buddhist Asian-Pacific Conference 4. Keeping the public and the media for Peace; informed of the development of the • The Association of Shamans (Buryatia); protected old-growth forests network. • The Association of the Green Movement of Karelia; II) The Network of Specially • The World Resources Institute; Protected Natural Areas (SPNAs) and • The Forest Institute of the Siberian forests fulfilling predominantly Branch of the Russian Academy of protective functions Sciences; • Local NGOs. Statement of the Problem • Most SPNAs are made up of reserves 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on (“zakaznik”). However, many of these the issue? What role is there for others? exist only “on paper”(i.e. they are not How can IUCN support the work that really protected), or were established others are doing? temporarily. The role of IUCN and its partners can • The “norms of intervention” for forest consist in: management (in particular pre-harvest • Coordinating activities to locate, protect, thinning of the stands) allows for and map certain tracts of slightly intensive forest management in SPNAs. disturbed forests; • The norms of intervention and their • Raising governmental awareness of the enforcement in protected areas do not importance of protecting a network of protect them from intensive industrial slightly disturbed forests. exploitation in these forests. • In many specially protected natural areas 4. What are the next steps for addressing (“zakazniks”) and other specially the issue? valuable natural areas, the forest industry 1. Compiling data on the state of old-growth is present and harvests a substantial forests using large-scale and regional volume of wood. Mining and agricultural maps. activities are also allowed in some others.

51 National Workshop

1. Is it feasible to make progress on the 6. To develop and adopt a legal mechanism issue within 3-5 years? to protect exceptional natural areas from The issue can be solved within 3-5 years. industrial activities. Such natural areas could be turned into SPNAs once SPNAs 2. Are others already working on the legal status has been addressed and problem? adequately protected. The issue is one of the most popular among environmental NGOs. III) The Ecological Network (ECONET) 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on the issue? What role is there for others? There is a need in Russia to develop the How can IUCN support the work that ECONET programme. The network will others are doing? include the existing SPNAs, slightly disturbed IUCN: forests, and large tracts of boreal forests • To coordinate NGOs’ efforts to sustain the (taiga) connected by ecological corridors. existent network of SPNAs. Raising The criteria for their establishment and the public’s awareness to the issue of legal status of these protected areas must be protecting of specially valuable forest developed. areas. Lobbying for the sake of SPNAs ECONET will include: and other specially valuable forest areas. 1. SPNAs • The World Resources Institute could 2. Slightly disturbed forests and large monitor the state of specially protected natural tracts of boreal forests (taiga); areas with the help of local NGOs. 3. Natural sites having a high ecological, cultural, historic or aesthetic value from 4. What are the next steps for addressing the view point of the local population. the issue? 4. Pre-tundra forests. 1. Convince the Russian Federal Forest 5. Mountainous forests. Service not to allow the forest industry to 6. Water-protection and spawning grounds log in SPNAs. protective areas. 2. Divide the functions of forest protection and timber harvesting and marketing to Unfortunately, many local NGOs are unaware avoid the commercial interest of forest of the ECONET programme. Some efforts industries to lobby for more wood will be needed to raise awareness of these resources in protected areas. NGOs and include them in the process. 3. To involve NGOs in elaborating and monitoring the protective status of SPNAs. 1. Is it feasible to make progress on the 4. To elaborate and improve the protective issue within 3-5 years? status of SPNAs, particularly the Progress is expected at the level of “projected” reserves and the temporarily individual regions. established areas. 5. To remove the task of protecting SPNAs and other protected areas from the Russian Federal Forest Service.

52 National Workshop

2. Are others already working on the 4. What are the next steps for addressing problem? the issue? Not enough NGOs (and workshop 1- Resolving the protective status of existing participants) are involved in the issue. SPNAs. 2- Improve the protection and number of 3. What possible role is there for IUCN on slightly disturbed forests and of large the issue? What role is there for others? tracts of natural boreal forest (taiga). How can IUCN support the work that 3- Establishing the ECONET programme in others are doing? Russia. The development of ecological IUCN: corridors linking protected areas. The coordination of the ECONET 4- Establishing the information-coordination programme and of an information center of the ECONET programme. clearinghouse (center). Local NGOs could 5- Keeping the public of regions informed of gather information on the regional network the development of the ECONET of SPNAs and other valuable forest areas programme. according to ECONET criteria. 6- The production of maps (within individual regions) of SPNAs and other potential components of the ECONET.

53 National Workshop List of Participants of the National workshop

Participants from Russia: Ms. Marina Nezhlukto, Staff Editor, All- Russian Research and Informational Centre Participants from Moscow and on Forest Resources (Moscow). European- Urals Region: Dr. Oleg Saveliev, Assistant Professor, Moscow Academy of Agriculture (Moscow). Mr. Dmitry Aksenov, Director, Biodiversity Dr. Pavel Sokolov, Head, Department of the Conservation Center (Moscow). Fauna Protection, SCRFEP (Moscow). Dr. Amirkhan Amirkhanov, Regional Dr. Victor Teplyakov, Head, Research Councilor for IUCN; Deputy Chairman, State Department, Federal Forest Service of the Committee of the Russian Federation on Russian Federation (Moscow). Environmental Protection (SCRFEP), (Moscow). Mr. Andrei Terentiev, Staff Officer, (CIP, SCRFEP) (Moscow). Ms. Tatiana Butylina, Project Officer, Centre for International Projects (CIP), SCRFEP, Dr. Andrei Filipchuk, Deputy Director, All- (Moscow). Russian Research and Informational Centre on Forest Resources (Moscow). Dr. Andrei Volkov, Project Manager, Institute of Sustainable Communities (Moscow). Mr. Vladimir Chuprov, Deputy Campaigner, Greenpeace-Russia (Moscow). Ms. Yulia Gorelova, Project Officer, Biodiversity Conservation Center (Moscow). Dr. Evgeny Shvarts, Deputy Director, WWF- Russia Programme Office (Moscow). Dr. Lydmila Zhirina, President, NGO "Viola" (Bryansk). Dr. Roman Yushkov, Assistant Professor, Geographical Department, Perm State Mr. Vladimir Zakharov, Director, Center for University (Perm). Coordination and Information, Socio- Ecological Union (Moscow). Dr. Igor Yakovlev, Assistant Professor, Mariy State Technical University (Joshkar-Ola). Dr. Mikhail Karpachevskiy, Project Officer, Biodiversity Conservation Center (Moscow). Dr. Alexei Yaroshenko, Forest Campaigner, Greenpeace -Russia (Moscow). Ms. Susan King, Deputy Director, Moscow Office, The John D. and Catherine T. Ms. Irina Bredneva, Officer, (CIP, SCRFEP) MacArthur Foundation (Moscow). (Moscow). Ms. Liya Korobova, Staff Officer, Know How Mr. Alexei Ivanov, Officer, (CIP, SCRFEP) Fund, British Embassy (Moscow). (Moscow). Dr. Vladimir Krever, Project Officer, Mr. Anatoli Kutakhov, Officer, (CIP, SCRFEP) Biodiversity Programme, WWF- Russia (Moscow). Programme Office (Moscow). Mr. Valerian Naumov, Officer, (CIP, SCRFEP) Ms Olga Krever, Volunteer, IUCN Office for (Moscow). the CIS, IUCN European Programme Mr. Ilia Shabrin, Officer,(CIP, SCRFEP) (Moscow). (Moscow). Mr. Boris Morozov Project Officer, (CIP, SCRFEP) (Moscow). Mr. Vladimir Moshkalo, Director, Office for the CIS, IUCN European Programme (Moscow).

54 National Workshop

Participants from Siberia: Participants from abroad:

Dr. Andrei P. Laletin, Programme Officer, Mr. Jon Anderson, Staff Officer, Forestry IUCN Programme on Temperate and Boreal Department, UN Food and Agriculture Forests- Russia (Krasnoyarsk). Organization (Rome, Italy). Dr. Vladimir Makarov, Staff Researcher, Mr. Dirk Bryant, Project Coordinator, World Chita Institute of Natural Resources (Chita). Resources Institute (Washington, DC., USA). Dr. Mikhail Shishin, Director, "Altai - 21 Mr. William Jackson, Coordinator, Forest Century" Fund (Barnaul). Conservation Programme, IUCN (Gland, Ms. Yanzhima Vasilieva, Deputy Director, Switzerland). Regional Association on Baikal in Buryatia Dr. Andrew Deutz, Coordinator, Temperate (Ulan-Ude). and Boreal Forest Programme, IUCN-Canada Dr. Dmitryi Vladyshevskiyi, Professor, (Montreal, Canada). Krasnoyarsk State Technical University Mr. Henrik Holst Zeltner, Officer, Danish (Krasnoyarsk). Ministry for Environment and Energy, Danish Forest and Nature Agency Participants from the Russian Far East: (Copenhagen, Denmark). Ms. Elisa Peter, Coordinator, Taiga Rescue Mr. Anatolyi Lebedev, Director, Bureau for Network (Jokkmokk, Sweden). Regional Public Campaigning (Vladivostok). Mr. William Pfeiffer, Director, Sacred Earth Ms. Olga Chernyagina, Researcher, Network (Petersham, MA, USA). Kamchatka Institute of Ecology and Nature Ms. Pat Rasmussen, Officer, Russian Use, Far East Branch of the Russian Projects, Counterpart International Academy of Sciences (RAS) (Petropavlovsk- (Peshastin, WA, USA). Kamchatsky). Mr. Joseph Weber, Member of European Dr. Alexander Isaev, Head, Forestry Group, Parliament (Luxembourg, Luxembourg). Institute of Biological Problems of Cryolithozone (Jakutsk). Ms. Marie-Sylvette Leclercq, Staff Officer, European Parliament (Brussels, Belgium). Dr. Boris Voronov, Director, Institute for Water and Ecological Problems RFE RAS (Khabarovsk).

55 56 Annex 1. The State of Russian Forests

A.N. Filipchuk, V.V. Strakhov All-Russian Research and Information Centre for Forest Resources, Moscow

57 58 Annex 1. The State of Annex 1. The State of RussianRussian Forests Forests Introduction Forest areas Russia’s forest sector is of global In 1993, the total area of the national importance because of its size, carbon- forests in Russia, hereafter called the Forest storage capacity, biodiversity, and extent of Fund, covered 1,186 x 106 hectares (ha). its forest products (timber and non-timber). Boreal1 forests cover most (87 %) of all It is equally important nationally for its Russia’s stocked forest lands. Percentage of contribution to the gross domestic product, forest cover averages 45 % across the whole export earnings, and employment, as well as country and 57 % across the boreal zone. for its vital role in the lives of indigenous The Federal Forest Service of Russia and the peoples. A long history of forest State Committee of the Russian Federation management has made Russia a recognized on Environmental Protection manage leader in forest conservation, research, and respectively 94 % and 1.3 % of that area, development. However, the centralized while 3.8 % is managed by the Ministry of planning policies and the recent transition Agriculture and other agricultural to a market economy have affected the organizations and the remaining 0.9 %, by situation. other Ministries and public departments. Despite vast resources and the global Only 55 % of the forest area is of demand for forest products, the Russian commercial value. More than half of forest sector has been experiencing severe Russian forests are growing on permafrost management problems that threaten socio- soils, especially in Siberia and the Far East, economic stability and the ecological and are consequently of low productivity. integrity of the forests. These problems are Moreover, the economically accessible further compounded by insufficient public forests of the European North and those access to information and by the lack of located along the Trans-Siberian main line mechanisms for public participation in have been severely depleted as a result of decision making. These issues are severe their overuse during the last hundred years. impediments to the conservation and From 1966 to 1993, the total area of the sustainable development of Russia’s forests, Forest Fund changed only slightly, the main and they urgently need to be addressed. changes being caused by allocation of forest This paper presents the state of Russian lands to industrial and agricultural forests by first describing their area, development, and by applying more precise standing volume, age, composition, methods for measuring areas. Non-stocked productivity and uses. Then, it describes forest area decreased considerably in 1993, major human and natural disturbances and mainly due to methodologicl changes in associated forest losses, and portrays the accounting: the State Forest Account created use of non-timber forest products. Finally, it the category “natural open woodlands” discusses the fate and future development of (46.8 x 106 ha), formerly included among the Russian forests, and argues for the need non-stocked forest lands (see Table 1 for for a new national forest policy, recognizing more detail). the challenges of its implementation.

1 In Russia, the boreal forest is called the taiga.

59 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Forest areas per type of resource uses Forests for light extensive uses (the Russian forests are subdivided into three Second group) include all forests within types according to the main goods and densely populated areas that provide both services they provide: environmental protection and goods from limited exploitation. They also include Forests for ecosystem services (the First forests with insufficient timber resources group) include all forests providing for and in which strict exploitation rules apply. water regulation, environmental protection, These forests cover 61 x 106 ha, or 6 % of and for important sanitary or health- all State forest areas. improving functions. They also include those from other protection categories that Forests for intensive uses (the Third are of scientific, historical, social, or group) include all forests of richly wooded cultural value. These forests cover regions that are mainly managed for 222x106 ha, or 20 % of all State forest exploitation. They are expected to areas. Between 1993 and 1996, this type of sustainably provide the national demand for forest expanded by more than 8 x 106 ha, timber, while preserving some of their because of the creation of new protected broader ecosystem services. These forests areas (national parks, special purpose cover 828 x 106 ha, or 75 % of all State reserves, strict nature reserves, etc). This forest areas. shows a change in the priorities of the national forest policy towards preserving forest ecosystem services.

Figure 1. Percentage of total State forest area by forest type in Russia, 1966-96.

100 81.2 79.1 80 77.2 76.4 75.8 74.5 73.7 60 % 40 18.4 20 20.8 20 15 12.7 17.5 16.2 3.8 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.5 0 1966 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1996

First group Second group Third group

60 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Table 1. Areas ( x 106 ha) of major forest categories and total forest area in Russia, 1966-1993.

Forest categories Years 1966 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 Total 1,161 1,165 1,170 1,172 1,179 1,187 Forest Fund Forests under the 1,106 1,103 1,123 1,120 1,116 1,111 jurisdiction of the State Stocked 658 679 694 709 713 706 forest lands Forest 2.8 6.2 8.2 10.6 12.7 13.5 plantations Free-growing 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.8 forest plantations Non-stocked 144 125 116 107 106 116 forest lands Clear cut 13.3 9.5 10.2 8.6 8.6 8.5 areas Coniferous 488 508 519 527 526 508 forests Hardwood 16.4 17.6 17.3 17.5 17.1 17.3 deciduous forests Softwood 108 108 110 111 110 113 deciduous forests Siberian stone 37.3 39.4 40.9 41.4 40.2 39.8 pine forests Mature 386 407 396 376 357 341 stands Mature conifer 331 324 319 308 291 267 stands Conifer young 21.4 36.5 45.3 47.2 46.1 44.1 growtha Hardwood deciduous 1.76 2.00 1.59 1.37 1.09 1.00 young growtha Softwood deciduous 22.7 24.6 24.9 25.5 23.5 24.4 young growtha Non-forest 301 296 309 301 292 286 lands Arable 26.6 21.6 21.5 22.2 20.5 20.1 lands a - Up to 20 years old

61 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Forest areas per composition types Forest areas per stand age classes Larch, pine, spruce, fir, birch, and aspen, Among conifer stands, mature and old account for most of the timber species in stands account for about half of the the Forest Fund. They collectively cover coniferous forest area. Over the last 20 90 % of the total stocked area, which years, distribution of conifer stands among includes the forests allocated for long-term age groups have become more uniform. In use. Other timber species, such as pear, 1993, young growth covered 17 % of the chestnut, European and Manchurian walnut, coniferous forest area, middle-aged 22 %, and shrub species, such as the dwarf ripening 10 %, and mature and old forests Siberian pine and a birch (Betula 51 %. Over the past five years, the average fruticosa), cover respectively about 0.2 % age of conifer forests has decreased from and 9.4 % of the total stocked area. 114 to 106 years. Among softwood Larch is the most abundant timber species. deciduous stands, the age distribution It is mainly located in Siberia and the Far appears more even, but mature stands East, where it covers half of the conifer generally dominate. Over the past five years, forest area, and accounts for 40 % of the the average age of stands has increased total conifer standing volume. Second in slightly from 48 to 50 years. These changes abundance, pine stands are located mainly in average age of stands reflect an increase in the Asian part of Russia and cover 23 % in conifer harvesting and a decrease in of the conifer forest area. They account for deciduous tree harvesting. a quarter of the standing volume of all The 1993 State Forest Account estimated the conifer stands. Spruce and fir stands, total standing volume of the main timber located mainly in the European-Urals part of species to be 73 x 109 m3, with 42 x 109 m3 Russia, cover 17 % of the conifer forest in mature and old stands. The economically area, and account for 21 % of the total accessible forests amounts to 62 % of the conifer standing volume. Finally, Siberian mature and old stands, with 20 x 109 m3 of stone pine stands, located mainly in Siberia coniferous timber, 5.4 x 109 m3 of which and the Far East, cover 8 % of the conifer are located in the European-Urals part of forest area and account for 13 % of the total Russia. conifer standing volume. Stone birch stands, located in the Far East, cover half of the total deciduous hardwood 2 forest area. Stands of high stemmed oaks and beeches, the most valuable hardwood species, collectively cover a quarter of the total area of deciduous hardwood forests. The birch and aspen stands cover respectively 78 % and 17 % of the total area of deciduous softwood forests, and account respectively for 70 % and 22 % of the total standing volume of those forests.

2 Classification of deciduous trees in Russia is based on wood density. Hardwood species include oak, beech, and stone birch, while softwood species include aspen, other birches and alder.

62 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Table 2. Standing volume (x 109 m3) and annual increment (x 106 m3) of major forest account categories and total forest area in Russia, 1966-1993.

Forest categories Years 1966 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 Total Forest Fund (x 109 m3) 73.5 74.0 74.7 75.4 74.6 73.0 Conifer stands 61.2 61.0 61.2 61.3 60.1 57.7 Softwood deciduous stands 9.6 10.1 10.7 11.0 11.3 12.1 Mature stands 52.8 52.5 51.5 49.1 46.3 41.6 Mature conifer stands 45.6 44.6 43.8 41.8 38.9 33.9 Mature softwood stands 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.8 6.3 Gross annual increment (x 106 m3) 792 821 855 874 844 830 Mean annual increment per ha 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.18 1.18

Productivity and yield The AAC has decreased since 1990 as the Russian forests produce timber of various area excluded from commercial exploitation specifications and grades, valuable for both has expanded. The decrease in the actual domestic and world markets. From 1996 to harvested volume may have negative impacts 1997 there was a 19% decrease in on the forest resulting from a modification merchantable wood harvested in the forest of the age structure, deadwood (fuel) fund (102 x 106 m3 and 83 x 106 m3 accumulation, and, consequently, increased respectively). End-use products include risk of fires. These impacts could be offset, round-wood, soft-wood lumber, pulp and to a certain extent, by sylvicultural practices paper products (Table 3). Russia has such as precommercial thinning. However, annual allowable cut (AAC) targets to in recent years, the area of precommercial ensure a sustainable harvest (Fig. 2). thinning has decreased (Fig. 3).

Table 3. Wood-end products of merchantable wood harvested in Russia (m3 and metric tons)

1997 End-use product Produced Exported Round-wood 84 x 106 m3 18.7 x 106 m3 Sawnwood 23 x 106 m3 5.8 x 106 m3 Pulp 3.9 x 106 tons 0.98 x 106 tons Paper and paper board 3.3 x 106 tons 1.4 x 106 tons

63 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Figure 2. Allowable annual cut compared to actual timber volume harvested in Russian forests, 1965-96

700 600 604 606 620 619 617 603 500 529 505 400 330 326 336 300 310 303 284

million Cu.m. 200 174 100 102 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 1996

Allowable annual cut, total Actual harvested volume, total

Figure 3. Trend in the area of precommercial thinning vs the volume of merchantable wood harvested in Russian forests, 1965-1996

29.6 25.4 25.4 26.2 22.8 20.3 19.1 15.1

1.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.8 0.7 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.7

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 1996

Thinning and sanitary felling, Merchantable wood harvested, Including young growth tending, million ha million m3 million ha

64 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Both standing volume and final yield show In 1983, the Russian Federation began to important variation between the European- establish national parks. The Federal Forest Urals and Asian regions of Russia. Although Service of Russia now manages 30 national the European-Urals region contains only parks covering a total area of more than 6.5 19 % of the total volume of mature and old x 106 ha. This network of protected areas stands available in Russia, 57 % of the wood plays different roles, including the harvested in the country comes from this protection of natural and cultural heritage, region.Over the past 25 years, the quantity tourism, and research opportunities for the of the wood harvested in the Asian region sustainable development of forests. The increased by 10 %, but has been decreasing State Committee for Environmental over the last decade because of a decrease Protection also manages protected areas, in governmental subsidies to wood such as the biosphere reserves. In 1997, the transport. Federal Government adopted a legislation for mapping protected areas, thus allowing Reforestation and protected forests the collection of various data on protected areas, regardless of their jurisdictions. The Forest Fund is mostly made up of natural forests; however, since 1965, Forest losses through natural and plantations have continuously expanded and human disturbances presently account for a quarter (17.3 x 106 ha) of all stocked forest lands (Table 1). Fires From 1988 to 1993, 37 % of reforested Each year forest fires affect on average lands were planted or sowed. The 1x106 ha, with yearly variations depending governmental reforestation program has on climatic conditions. While more than persisted despite a major economic 25,000 forest fires were recorded in 1995, recession and scarce governmental financial which is 33 % more than the number support to activities. recorded in 1994, the total area exposed to fire in 1995 was 1.5 times less than in 1994. About 3 % of the Forest Fund area is The fire season of 1996 was particularly presently protected. Protected forests are disastrous, with about 2 x 106 ha of forest part of the natural-reserve fund, a network lands burned (Table 4). Forest lands are of areas under particular State protection. classified according to fire occurrence : They include forests of various protection 35 % are of low fire occurrence (classes I categories, such as national and natural and II), 31% of moderate fire occurrence parks, strict nature reserves, especially (class III), and 34 % of high to extremely valuable forest tracts, national monuments, high fire occurrence (classes IV and V). forests of scientific or historical value, and genetic reserves (for the production of Ground fires occur most frequently and quality tree seeds). account for 90 % of the total burned area. Human activities are considered to be the main causes of more than 80 % of all fires recorded in Russia and up to 100% in its European-Urals region. Climatic factors remain a major precondition for the starting and spreading of forest fires.

65 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Table 4. Number of forest fires and total burned area (x 103 ha) in Russia, 1993-1997

Years 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Number of fires 18 428 20 287 25 951 32 833 31 300 Burned area 748.6 536.8 360.1 1853.5 726.7

Radioactive contamination Pests and diseases Complete data on radioactive contamination Forest damage and dieback caused by pests of forest lands were obtained for the first and diseases also contribute to the time in 1995. Expert assessments concluded reduction in the productivity of forests. that overall Russia, the area contaminated However, they usually act on a local scale with long-lived radionuclides may exceed and annually affect no more than 0.03 % of 3.0x106 ha. Despite the fact that areas the stocked forest area in Russia. In 1995 contaminated with radionuclides represent for instance, pests and diseases contributed no more than 0.5 % of the stocked forest to the loss of 162 000 ha of forests. lands, their existence is perceived as a Still, some years forest dieback caused by major social and political problem. outbreaks of pests and diseases affects Twenty three out of eighty nine regions of larger areas. Since 1993 infestation centers Russia have contaminated forests. As a of the Siberian moth insect (Dendrolimus result of the Chernobyl accident, 958,700 ha sibiricus) has increased. The 1996 forest of Russian forests were exposed to health survey reports a sharp increase in its radioactive contamination, mainly in the populations, total affected area, and number Bryansk, Kaluga, Orel, Tula and Leningrad of infestation centers. Available forecasts regions. In the Urals area, the Chernobyl predict that if no adequate controls are accident together with the defense industries applied, hundreds of thousands of hectares contaminated 647,000 ha of forests in the of conifer stands may die out in the next few Chelyabinsk, Sverdlovsk and Kurgan regions. years. The Federal Forest Service of Russia Moreover, nuclear tests conducted before has substantially increased the allocations the ban on surface and atmospheric nuclear for the control of this infestation in the last explosions dispersed radionuclides over two years, with the financial participation of 271,500 ha in the Altai Territory and the the Forest Service of the United States Republic of Altai in Siberia. Department of Agriculture.

Table 5. Annual commercial yield of non-timber forest products (in 106 tons)

Non-Timber Forest Product Yield Berries (cranberries, cloudberries, boug bilberries) 4 x 106 tons Pine nuts 1 x 106 Mushrooms 1.7 x 106

66 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Non-timber forest products Young conifer forests are mostly located in Non-timber forest products and hunting Siberia and the Far East. By 2005, the contribute to the economy and welfare of expansion in the area of these stands is not many local forest-dependent communities. expected to exceed that of European Russia, Non-timber forest products traditionally used where forests are more intensively managed. are mostly tannins and plant products such as The areas covered with young conifers is berries, dyes, flour produced from twigs of expected to increase by up to 50 % coniferous trees used as an additional forage throughout Russia where there is natural for cattle, pine nuts, mushrooms, medicinal regeneration, and even more so in plants in demand both in Russia and abroad, European Russia because of forest such as ginseng, Eleutherococcus, and plantations. In some regions of the Central Schizandra and raw materials used in Economic Area, the area covered by young handicraft. Recently, handicrafts have conifers is expected to increase because of broadened their market, particularly those precommercial thinning in the young produced by skilled artists, some of which deciduous-conifer stands, classified as are being exported. conifer stands. In those regions however, Present uses of non-timber forest products the area covered by young conifers will not are symptomatic of the economic and social increase as much as elsewhere because of a situation in Russia rather than of their full continuous decline in harvested volumes potential. A study showed that only 30 % to and an almost complete lack of lands 40 % of the economically accessible yield of suitable for reforestation. these products is actually harvested (Table Natural regeneration is of great importance in 5). In some regions, especially in Siberia, Siberia, the Far East, as well as in the well- the economic value of forest food products forested areas of the European-Urals part of exceeds that of wood. Therefore, excluding Russia. Because of their natural them from the final yield calculation, during characteristics, forests in the Krasnoyarsk many years, and allocating these forests for Territory are expected to successfully non-timber goods and services, is an urgent regenerate in 90 % of the harvested areas in task not only for Russian forestry authorities the Angara-Yenisei taiga (boreal) logging but for all governmental organizations. This region, and in 60 % of the harvested areas in task will require a revision of the whole the South mountain-taiga (boreal) logging forest policy and forest use classification. region. In these regions, natural regeneration of economically valuable species Fate and future development of the is assumed to occur if harvested according to Forest Fund harvesting rules and methods. For the next 50 years the present distribution of forests among land The need for a new national forest categories is not expected to change policy substantially. Mature and old stands will As the owner of the largest share of the account for 45 % of the stocked forest area, world’s forests, Russia should secure its with 48 % of that covered by conifer stands. present and future interests regarding the Areas of mature and old stands are expected use and renewal of its forest resources. to decrease, compared with those of 1993, Therefore, the country needs an efficient by no more than 2 %. Over all of Russia, the forest policy that will take into account the age of stands will become more evenly global trends in the world trade of forest distributed. products. One of the problems in Russia is

67 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

that people and the government still It is important to improve the forest perceive forests as an unlimited and free gift management system so as to conciliate of nature. Only a change in this attitude will interests and combine all useful forest allow for social development. Efforts should functions at different levels. This may be be directed towards the enhancement of achieved by the development of long-term forest functions that provide socio-economic forest programs directed at making use of and ecological benefits, especially in poorly market mechanisms. These mechanisms forested regions and in regions with must, however, meet governmental inaccessible forests or with forests located regulations of forest management, using on permafrost, such as those located in the economic incentives and sanctions. taiga, the zone north of the boreal forest Protecting forest biodiversity and preventing and south of the tundra. dramatic global change by means of sound The Federal Forest Service, a 200 year-old use of the Forest Fund lands are some of the institution, is now facing drastic social and goals of a sustainable development of the political reforms that have impeded the Russian forest sector. Too often, industrial development of the national forest sector. development damages forest ecosystems. To The country’s efficiency in forest use is prevent negative impacts of industry, the much less than that of developed countries. Russian government revised the annual Some 30,000 logging and woodworking allowable cut (AAC) according to companies account for 5.6 % of Russia’s recommendations from experts. The AAC total industrial production. Concerted has been determined for most logging actions are needed for all components of companies. the forest sector to be profitable. At the regional level, data on forests are being Policy-making for improved forest used to sustainably develop the sector and to management is a top priority for the Federal equitably share it between different users. Forest Service. The development of forest These data can be used for the settlement of programs with adequate financial support disputes between economic interests and the must be based on diversified, coordinated general population. The use of criteria and approaches that include the consultation of indicators for sustainable forest management all interested parties, such as land users, may be another tool to help in the sustainable harvesters and gatherers of timber and non- development of the forest sector, as well as a timber forest resources. national system for the certification of the origin of forest products. Principles and elements of a new According to the “National Strategy of the national forest policy Russian Federation for Environmental The history of forest management in Russia Protection and Sustainable Development”, and elsewhere has shown that forest the State has the responsibility to protect management based exclusively on the forests from major disturbances and to maximization of forest income, without ensure their proper regeneration. Finally, maintaining environmental and non-market forests should not only be perceived as forest benefits, has negative consequences, providers of resources but also as providing such as radical changes in forest landscapes various ecosystem services. and species composition, an overall impoverishment of the natural environment, a reduction of biodiversity, and a sharp decline in the stability of forest ecosystems.

68 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Implementation of the new forest specialized in research, planning and forest policy management. Social data will also need to be Implementing and improving the Forest Code included in the database. of the Russian Federation consists of The new organizational structure of the harmonizing federal plans and financial forest service will draw more often upon priorities with 1) the actions to be taken by institutions and businesses of the forest forest administrations, 2) the decisions of sector for research, design, protection and the international community regarding the forest management planning. It will be Earth’s forest cover, and 3) the political responsible for the continuous acquisition agenda of the Russian Government. The and analysis of data on markets of forest ongoing reforms are substantially changing products, and data on regional and national the public’s attitudes towards forestry. As the forests, including data on technology and central executive body in forestry, the Federal costs for the extraction and transformation of Forest Service of Russia is responsible for forest resources. setting norms and providing organizational In summary, taking into account various and economic conditions for sustainable constraints, measures brought by the new forest management. Its major task is to forest policy should aim at: develop and consistently implement an • protecting forests from major efficient forest policy, including state-of-the- disturbances and ensuring their art management methods within the Forest regeneration; Fund structure. • protecting biodiversity in the Forest Fund; In implementing this new forest policy, the • promoting scientifically sound, sustainable Federal Forest Service will : 1) consult the and multi-purpose forest uses; population, including minorities, before • improving ecological and resource taking any forest-management decisions, 2) potentials of the Forest Fund; stimulate active cooperation among local • satisfying the social needs for forest people and the forest service administration, resources; and 3) conciliate diverging interests. To • increasing the profitability of forests; attain all of their objectives, the forest • improving forestry and forest management management authorities will need to develop through scientific and technological a comprehensive database on forests. This achievements; will include stand conditions, programs of • raising the social and economic status of forestry practices aimed at enhancing the foresters; potential of sustainable forest use, and • promoting continuous education in forest assessments of the impacts of forest ecology and forestry; practices on the economic output. Data will • consulting the population for planning come from organizations and institutions forest uses and reforestation.

69 Annex 1. State of Russian forests

Protection and restoration of forests for regional programs aimed at increasing Specially protected natural areas play a the number and coverage of protected forest major role in the sustainable development areas. Local populations should be allowed of forests in Russia. A significant part of to sustainably use resources from these these protected areas (about 70 % of their areas and representatives of the local nature total area) is located within the Forest Fund conservation authorities should be involved lands, under the jurisdiction of the Federal in the process. Forest Service. Subsequent development of The conservation of biodiversity in the specially protected natural areas will likely Forest Fund will demand that forest occur mainly on the Forest Fund lands. management gradually evolves from a forest The ecological restoration of lands should stand to an ecosystem based approach and become one of the priorities of national will require improved ecological norms for forest policy, and should be directed first to resource harvesting. lands exposed to a high risk of degradation Improving the sustainability of the forest as a result of forest clearance caused by sector will require that regional forest human activities. Some of these lands are administrations promote new attitudes and located in regions of extreme climatic and provide professional training to their staff in soil conditions. basic forest administrations (leskhozes). Implementating the Forest Code (of the new Share of responsibilities among forest policy) will build the foundation for administrative levels and other sustainable forest management. The policy organizations of the Federal Forest Service of Russia The forest administrations of the Russian assumes that all socio-economic and Federation will need to consider biodiversity ecological processes in Russia should as a value in their forest plans. They could develop, in the next few years, in use recommendations from international compliance with the “Concept of the organizations relating to biological Russian Federation’s Transition to conservation. Forest administrations of the Sustainable Development”. Russian Federation will also be responsible

70 IUCN The World Conservation Union

Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings together States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-governmental organizations in a unique world partnership: over 900 members in all, spread across some 138 countries.

As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. A central secretariat coordinates the IUCN Programme and serves the Union membership, representing their views on the world stage and providing them with the strategies, services, scientific knowledge and technical support they need to achieve their goals. Through its six Commissions, IUCN draws together over 8000 expert volunteers in project teams and action groups, focusing in particular on species and biodiversity conservation and the management of habitats and natural resources. The Union has helped many countries to prepare National Conservation Strategies, and demonstrates the application of its knowledge through the field projects it supervises. Operations are increasingly decentralized and are carried forward by an expanding network of regional and country offices, located principally in developing countries.

The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its members, networks and partners to enhance their capacity and to support global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local, regional and global levels.

IUCN Temperate and IUCN Office for the Commonwealth Boreal Forest Programme of Independent States IUCN Canada Office IUCN European Programme 380 Saint Antoine St. West, Suite 3200 P.O. Box 265 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 3X7 125475 Moscow, Russia tel: +1-514-287-9704 tel.: +7(095) 190-7077/4655/1604 fax: +1-514-287-9057 fax: +7(095) 490-5818 [email protected] [email protected] www.iucn.ca