Sustainable forest management alternatives for the carpathian mountain region... 109 Chapter 7 Sustainable Forest Management Alternatives for the Carpathian Mountain Region: Providing a Broad Array of Ecosystem Services William S. Keeton and Sarah M. Crow1 Abstract. International criteria for sustainable forest management (SFM) in temperate and boreal forests share a number of themes in common, as evidenced by similarities between the Montreal and Helsinki Processes. But translating these into meaningful implementation practices that differ from past approaches has been challenging in the Carpathian Mountain region of Eastern Europe. In this paper we explore contemporary science, emerging models, and innovative practices that offer guidance on implementing SFM criteria, with a focus on three criteria: 1) conservation of biological diversity, 2) maintenance of water resources, and 3) contribution to global carbon cycles. Particular reference is made to SFM options for the Carpathian Mountain region of Ukraine. The contribution of SFM to biodiversity conservation depends first on the establishment of fully representative reserve systems. On managed forestlands surrounding reserves, shifting stand age class distributions closer to the historic range of variability and recently developed silvicultural practices, such as disturbance based forestry, will help maintain ecological connectivity, landscape heterogeneity, and stand structural complexity. Strategically placed restoration of native species composition in areas dominated by spruce plantations will both enhance forest health and play an important role in biodiversity conservation. Conservation of aquatic resources is also significant concern in the Carpathian Mountain region. Broader use of contemporary watershed management approaches is recommended, including delineation of riparian buffers, riparian forest restoration, and ecologically informed forest road management. Expanding forest sector participation in carbon markets offers new opportunities and challenges for SFM in the Carpathians. Ukrainian afforestation/reforestation goals have the potential to sequester large quantities of carbon. This may have significant economic value as international carbon markets develop. The relatively long rotations currently required under Ukrainian forest code offer significant carbon storage benefits. Other innovative silvicultural options may provide future economic incentives for SFM in the Carpathians. On-going research suggests that structurally complex temperate forests, such as old-growth Carpathian beech and mixed conifer-hardwood forests, store very large amounts of carbon. Conservation of these systems can contribute to climate change mitigation efforts. Active silvicultural management for structurally complex, high biomass forests offers additional benefits. 1 W.S. Keeton and S. M. Crow Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. e-mail: [email protected] /Website: www.uvm.edu/envnr/wkeeton I.P. Soloviy and W.S. Keeton (eds.). 2009. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Forest Management, UNFU Press. Sustainable forest management alternatives for the carpathian mountain region... 110 7.1 Introduction Over recent decades common principles of sustainable forest management (SFM) have emerged internationally, as evidenced by similarities between the Montreal Process criteria and indicators (non-European temperate and boreal nations) and the Helsinki Initiative (European nations). Each agreement presents a set of criteria (general principles) and indicators (measureable or clearly identifiable objectives and requirements) intended to guide SFM policy development and planning in signatory nations. Both processes include ecological as well as socio-economic criterion (Table 7.1). Recent initiatives, such as the U.S. Forest Service's Local Unit Indicator and Development program, have scaled the global or continental scale indicators to regional and sub-regional scales. This helps increase applicability to specific forest systems and locales. Concurrently, scientific advances and creative SFM projects have explored a variety of innovative forest management approaches (see reviews in Keeton 2007). These help transform general principles and theory into practical guidance for multi-functional forestry that is applicable and feasible under real field conditions. This paper explores contemporary science, emerging models, and innovative practices that offer guidance on implementing SFM criteria in the Carpathians with a focus on Ukraine. In the Carpathian Mountain region of Eastern Europe, translating internationally recognized SFM principles into meaningful change and management strategies has been more challenging in the context of a post-Soviet transitional economy. In Ukraine, for example, there is a long history of well-trained, professional forest management within the State Forestry Enterprises (Nordberg 2007). However, forest management remains highly regimented, with most policy emanating from centralized planning at the ministerial level (Soloviy and Cubbage 2007). This contrasts with other Eastern European countries, where forest administration has decentralized but involved sweeping forestland privatization (Sikor 2003). While the relatively low rate of privatization in Ukraine has prevented some of the environmental problems and landuse conflicts occurring elsewhere (Sikor 2003), centralized forest governance and overall declines in forest sector investment since the collapse of the Soviet Union have limited innovation and policy reform at local, district, and regional administrative scales (Nordberg 2007). Illegal logging continues to stymie forest management efforts, remaining prevalent both within and outside of protected areas in Ukraine (Kuemmerle et al. 2007, Kuemmerle et al. 2009). While net forest cover increased slightly in the Ukrainian Carpathians between 1988- 2007, the area affected by illegal logging during this period was roughly equal in size to the total area of government sanctioned logging (Kuemmerle et al. 2009). Bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of public involvement mechanisms, and limited participation by non-governmental organizations have also impeded broader adoption of SFM principles in forest planning and governance (Soloviy and Cubbage 2007). These factors inhibit the ability of forest managers to respond effectively to new demands and opportunities, such as global carbon markets. Sustainable forest management alternatives for the carpathian mountain region... 111 Table 7.1 SFM criteria under the Montreal Process (non-European temperate and boreal forested nations) and Helsinki Initiative (European temperate and boreal forested nations). Check marks indicate principles shared by both agreements. Note that while the Helsinki Process does not explicitly address legal systems at the criterion level, the importance of legal frameworks for SFM is manifest in a number of specific indicators. There are also positive signs. Accords established by the Carpathian Convention (2003), expanding enrollment in sustainable forest certification, and non-governmental organization initiatives are bringing new attention to this region. There may be opportunities for application of new SFM implementation approaches, but this will require access and openness to new information as well as experimentation and demonstration. In this paper we review a selection of SFM approaches that have high potential and applicability in the Carpathian Mountain region. These are tiered to three (of several) international SFM principles: 1) conservation of biological diversity, 2) maintenance of water resources, and 3) contribution to global carbon cycles. The goal is build on the experience, innovation, and expertise already available within Eastern Europe through multilateral information sharing. This was the objective of our Atelier on Ecological Economics and Sustainable Forestry, held in Ukraine during September 2007 and reported in these proceedings. Sustainable forest management alternatives for the carpathian mountain region... 112 7.2 Creating a 21st Century Forestry in the Carpathian Mountain Region In thinking about progressive models for forest management in the Carpathian region a certain philosophical view of SFM seems especially relevant. In hard times and challenging economic circumstances sustainable development initiatives that build the social capital necessary for environmental protection become as important as the technical and scientific basis for forest management decisions. In the late 1990s a prestigious panel of scientists and economists in the U.S. described this philosophy as follows: "Sustainability …has three aspects: ecological, economic, and social…the sustainability of ecological systems is a necessary prerequisite for strong productive economies, enduring human communities, and the values people seek from wildlands. We compromise human welfare if we fail to sustain vital, functioning ecological systems. It is also true that strong economies and communities are often a prerequisite to societies possessing the will and patience needed to sustain ecological systems (Committee of Scientists 1999)." According to the committee's report forest management must start with an understanding of the capacity of an ecosystem to produce a full range goods and services, including biodiversity. Only then, and within these constraints, should targets for extractive or harvestable resources, such as timber