Main page > Karelian forest info > Publications > Cypuk A.M., Rodionov A.V., Markovskiy A.V. To the question about old growth forest conservation

Proceedings of Moscow State Forest University: [Electronic resource]: Scientific journal / Moscow State Forest University. - Electronic journal - Mytischi: MSFU, 2003. - part 2 - http://www.mgul.ac.ru/journal/articles/000023r.zip

TO THE QUESTION OF OLD-GROWTH FOREST CONSERVATION

Cypuk A.M., Rodionov A.V., Markovskiy A.V.
Petrozavodsk State University (PetrSU),
ROO "SPOK"

Forest resources conservation problems

World industry development in 20 century had been accompanied by sharp expansion of wood consumption and its processing technology improvement. In current time raw wood material is the basis for producing more than 20000 different products.

Intensive destruction of ripe intact forest becomes one of the most important global modern ecological problems. The problem of old growth forest (OGF) conservation is one aspect of the global trouble.

22 % (810 million hectares) of world forests are located on the territory of the Russian Federation. Root timber reserve in these forests is 86 billion cubic meters. About 26 % of the total Russian forest area (289 million hectares) are presented by environmentally valuable OGF but only 5% (14.4 million hectares) are under state protection.

Total Russian raschyotnaja lesoseka is 550 million cubic meters.

In 1988 maximum in raschyotnaja lesoseka usage had been reached - 352 million cubic meters. In current time 250-280 million cubic meters of wood are cut annually from which about 190 million cubic meters belong to fellings and the rest part is lost during fellings and big forest fires.

It should be pointed out that about 50 % of Russian forest area are covered by rare Siberian larch forests on the permafrost, undersized pine forests on West Siberia bogs, cedar and alder elfin wood bushes in Far East mountains. In current time such forests are of little use for industrial exploitation considering all characteristics and geographical remoteness from national and international wood proceeding centers.

According to this, during the transitional period of Russian economic development exhaustible exploitation of Russian Federation European and Ural parts forest areas placed near wood proceeding and main export untreated wood channel centers has been formed as actual problem.

Such situation causes alarm from the side of national and international nongovernmental nature-protection organizations (NPO) which demand significant restriction and even stoppage of forest management on these areas from government of the Russian Federation and it regional districts.

Karelian example is a good demonstration for this case. The total area of forest land in Karelia is about 14.8 million hectares or 82% of common republican area including territory covered with forest - 9.4 million hectares. Wood reserve in these forests is about 1 billion cubic meters. From the total wood reserve about 435.8 million cubic meters are ripe and overripe forests with domination of conifers - 383.3 million cubic meters. Annual medium wood growth is 13.7 million cubic meters. Republican raschyotnaja lesoseka is 8.9 million cubic meters and the level of wood-cutting area development is 72 %.

Total area of strictly protected nature territories (SPNT) with limited nature management in Karelia is 0.8 million hectares that is more than 4% of Karelian territory. However forest cuttings are prohibited only on 50% of SPNT - in reserves, national parks and some game reserves.

At the same time intact natural taiga landscapes (which belong to old growth forests) have composed only 5-7% from the total Karelian forest area. Old growth forests (OGF) are situated near the Russian-Finland border, in Pudozh region, on Karelian part of White Sea coast and insignificant forests are in the central part of Karelia. In current time the most part of these forests is not protected and actively cut.

Existing situation caused lengthy conflict between Karelian government and different NPO which demand the stoppage of forest cutting on OGF areas by using felling rationalization in other less environmentally valuable Karelian forests. Positive result of this situation is Karelian government lobbing to Russian government for "Kalevalskiy" national park creation.

HISTORY OF NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION

Humanity realization that it present on the planet is inseparably linked with life and wealth of the whole biosphere and, particularly, with forest ecosystems became apparent in international and national nature protecting initiatives activation at the end of 20 century.

World-wide conference "Environment and development" organized in Rio-de-Janeiro (Brazil) on the level of States and Governments is a result of mentioned process. 178 States and more than 30 intergovernmental international organizations participated in the conference. 114 delegations were leaded by chiefs of states and governments. Two international agreements have been concluded and two statements about principles and plan of main activities with wide-world sustainable development purposes have been accepted.

At the same time with the conference, public meeting "Global-Forum" had been arranged in Rio-de-Janeiro. Meeting participants (about half a million of social organization representatives of the world which connected with ecological movement) express their opinion about perspectives of world sustainable development.

However the second world conference in Keiptaun (JAR) in 2002 established that during expired period no one of accepted documents of the first conference, including ones about OGF protection, has been realized.

In the former USSR resource using and protection were under the governmental power. Protection and using natural resources functions were belonged to different ministries and departments and there were not any independent from the government nature protection organizations.

During the transitional period to market economy state system of control for natural resources using and nature protection in the Russian Federation became the object of constant reformation.

At the same time (80-90 years of 20 century) the most part of Russian NGOs had been formed. "Veterans" of nature protection movement such as "All-Russian nature protection society" (VOOP) and student druzhinas of nature protection prolonged their activities successfully. On the territory of the Russian Federation such branches of international NGOs as IUCN, WWF, Greenpeace and others had been appeared.

At present time in the Republic of Karelia following NGOs act successfully:

• Karelian branch of VOOP;
• Association of greens of Karelia;
• ROO "SPOK".

In present time activity of nature resources Ministry (MNR), which concern protection of forest resources including Russian European and Ural part with last Europe OGF, is criticized by international and national NGO.

CLASS ASPECT OF OGF CONSERVATION

Absence of significant results from environmental initiatives on international and national level demand analysis of current situation reasons.

In modern highly developed capitalistic states possibilities for increasing incomes of capitalists by strengthening of their wage earner exploitation are exhausted and even additionally restricted by government for softening of antagonistic class opposition. Possibilities for increasing incomes by enlarging of inside nature resource exploitation are also exhausted.

In such conditions the main method of capital conservation and increasing is capturing and exploitation of relatively cheap resources from other less developed countries.

Striking modern example of such policy is OGF exploitation in tropic forests of Asia, Africa and South America. Stored round timbers are exported to economically developed countries which provide world market by cellulose, papers and other products of deep wood proceeding.

Thus highly-developed capitalistic states are interested in neither protection of these OGF nor sustainable exploitation because it contradicts with their economical interests.

In these conditions statements from country-exploiter representatives that developing countries should act for their forest conservation are looked like mockeries.

Example of such statements could be "moratorium on OGF cutting" on the Karelian territory declared by international corporations "Stora-Enso", "UPM-Kymmene" under international NGO initiative.

MORAL ASPECT OF OGF CONSERVATION

The main question of OGF conservation is question "for whom?"

Undoubtedly OGF existence promotes protection natural biodiversity and leads to stability of our planet biosphere. However for whom OGF should be saved if its including to management gives significant economical effect while its protection means additional unproductive expenses for government on the territory of which they are located?

In capitalistic society method of product consumption is determined by it costumer. Thus OGF could be offered for selling equally with other goods and fixed it price. At that the problem of OGF conservation could be transferred from the sphere owner and non-owner dispute to the sphere of selling between salesmen realizing OGF as timber and costumers buying OGF for future protection.

And it is an objective process for modern society.

ECONOMICAL ASPECT OF OGF CONSERVATION

It should be pointed out that industrial civilization has a tendency to accelerating exhaustion of all natural resources, pollution and destruction of planet biosphere.

However, since humanity could exist only in relatively closed biosphere of the Earth, it destruction will mean reduction (and even absence) of material product consumers with common worsening of product quality. It contradicts purpose of humanity existence.

Highly-developed states will be impartially forced to make increasing of their expenses for saving of their reached consumption level by paying for nature resource and all biosphere protection activity.

Example of such method formation for nature protection is "Kyoto protocol" (1997) supposed world market by quotas for waste emission.

Other striking example is activity of "ECONET Action Fund (EAF)" created by European Union organizations in 1995: "Eurosite", "EUCC", "Euronature" and others. This fund gives financial support to NGOs and some governmental organizations (for example, national parks) for OGF buying or rent making contribution to "Pan - European ecological net". Factually, valuable nature protection territories are redeemed by using European Union money.

At present time the total OGF area protected by 56 EAF projects in 15 countries is about 150 thousand hectares.

Overall size of fund grants till present time is about 6 million Dutch guilders (more than 2.5 million USA dollars). So protected OGFs are becoming "public good" analogue and interested countries are paid for it protection.

TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECT OF OGF CONSERVATION

In 1978 "World-wide strategy of nature protection" had been ratified. One of strategy ideas is that in modern conditions nature protection is possible only with rational using of nature resources.

It could be claimed that forest lands containing OGFs will inevitably be included into social management process.

Consequently, the problem of developing forest management technology with OGF protection is arising.

The purpose of forest management is satisfaction of human needs in forest products taking into account nature possibility to satisfy such and increased needs in the future.

At present time process aggregation of forest resources consumption, restoration, protection and maintenance is meant under the forest management.

Different types of raw wood materials and semi-products which differ from each other energetically (growth trees during fellings, youth trees, seedlings and others) are participated in these processes.

Connections should be determined between these processes for transformation of simple process aggregation to united technology of forest management with common purpose - uninterrupted and inexhaustible satisfaction in different forest products.

Solution of the task is possible if object forest management conception is used.

Forest area as land (raw material analogue) which quality is changed during technological processes is considered by this conception in capacity of forest management object. The main product is the same forest area but with ripe forests which presence indicates a completion of next technological cycle.

Inside forest management on the basis of object conception several types of forest areas could be determined:

• Exploited areas - aggregation of forest areas used for forest good production to satisfy current needs. Such areas are often provided by transport net;
• Reserve areas - aggregation of forest areas used for management reserve in the case of population need increasing in forest products. Such areas often don't have transport net;
• Unexploited areas - aggregation of forest areas which are derived from exploitation process because of some reasons. Such areas often don't have transport net;

According to this conception, OGF is forest area, the main product of which is nature biodiversity and additional product is stability of the biosphere.

OGF technology should provide successful production of such goods. It could be reached when definite minimal area is chosen for OGF and protected from the human influence.

Accordingly, during forest management OGFs could naturally be chosen as unexploited areas if above listed conditions are observed.

It leads to achievement of the main forest management purpose - satisfaction of human needs in specific sector of different forest products.

LITERATURE

1. Gordin D. V. Prirodnye resursy kak osnova funkcionirovanija mirovojj ehkonomiki / Vjatskijj gos. ped. un-t. Kirov, 2001. 85 s. (Gordin D. V. Nature resources as basis of world economy functioning / Vjatskijj State pedagogical university, 2001. 85 p.)
2. Vorob`ev G. I. Lesnoe khozjajjstvo mira / G. I. Vorob`ev, K. D. Mukhamedshin, L. M. Devjatkin. M.: Lesn. prom-st`, 1984. 352 s. (Vorobev G. I. Forest management of the world / G. I. Vorobev, K. D. Mukhamedshin, L. M. Devjatkin. M.: Lesn. prom-st, 1984. 352 p.)
3. Jaroshenko A. JU. Malonarushennye lesnye territorii Evropejjskogo Severa Rossii / A. JU. Jaroshenko, P. V. Potapov, S. A. Turubanova. M.: Izd-vo Grinpis-Rossii, 2001. 75 s. (Jaroshenko A. JU. Intact forest areas of European Russian North / A. JU. Jaroshenko, P. V. Potapov, S. A. Turubanova. M.: Greenpeace-Russia, 2001. 75 p.)
4. Osnovnye napravlenija dejatel`nosti Pravitel`stva Respubliki Karelija v oblasti razvitija lesopromyshlennogo kompleksa Respubliki Karelija na period 2001-2004 gg. / Pravitel`stvo RK. Petrozavodsk, 2002. 78 s. (Main directions of Karelian government activity in the field of forest management development in the Republic of Karelia (2001-2004period) // Government of the Republic of Karelia. Petrozavodsk, 2002. 78 p.)
5. Gromcev A. N., Krutov V. I. Inventarizacija i izuchenie bioraznoobrazija v Respublike Karelija v 1997-2001 gg. // Problemy kommunikacii v lesnom sektore Respubliki Karelija: Dokl. mezhd. nauchn. konf., Petrozavodsk, 14 nojabrja 2001 / In-t ehkonomiki Karnc RAN. Petrozavodsk, 2002. S. 32-38. Dep. v VINITI 27.06.2002, № 1200-B2002. (Gromcev A. N., Krutov V. I. Inventory and studying of Biodiversity in the Republic of Karelia in 1997-2001 // Communication problems in forest sector in Karelian Republic: Reports of international scientific conference., Petrozavodsk, 14.11.2001 / Institute of economy Russian Academy of science. Petrozavodsk, 2002. P. 32-38. Dep. in VINITI 27.06.2002, № 1200-B2002.)
6. Kechkin D. S. Dolgosrochnaja strategija okhrany okruzhajuhhejj sredy i racional`nogo ispol`zovanija prirodnykh resursov na Zemle / Kubanskijj gos. un-t. Krasnodar 2002. 10 s. (Kechkin D. S. Long-term strategy of environmental protection and rational management of nature resources on the Earth / Kubanskijj State university. Krasnodar 2002. 10 p.)
7. Les i obhhestvo: posobie dlja rabotnikov lesnogo khozjajjstva / V. K. Tepljakov, K. D. Efremov, P. E. Stroganov i dr.; pod red. V. K. Tepljakova. M.: Vniiclesresurs, 2000. 208 s. (Forest and society: textbook for forest management workers / V. K. Tepljakov, K. D. Efremov, P. E. Stroganov and others.; under reduction of . V. K. Tepljakova. M.: Vniiclesresurs, 2000. 208 p.)
8. Upravlenie lesami v perekhodnojj ehkonomike (opyt reform v Rossii i stranakh Baltii): Ucheb. posobie / A. P. Petrov, A. Melnish, A. Talijarv i dr.; pod obhh. red. A. P. Petrova. M.: Izd-vo "Tekhno-Lajjt", 2001. 160 s. (Forest management in transitional economy (reform experience in Russia and Baltic countries): Textbook / A. P. Petrov, A. Melnish, A. Talijarv and others; under reduction of A. P. Petrova. M.: "Tekhno-Lajjt", 2001. 160 p.)
9. Cypuk A. M. Ob``ektnaja koncepcija lesnojj tekhnologii // Regional`nye problemy razvitija lesnogo kompleksa: Tez. dokl. respubl. nauchn.-prakt. konf. 16 janvarja 1998 g. Petrozavodsk: Karniilp, 1998. S. 8-9. (Cypuk A. M. Objective conception of forest technology // Regional problems of forest complex development: Tez. dokl. respubl. nauchn.-prakt. konf. Petrozavodsk: Karniilp, 1998. P. 8-9.)
10. Lesa Rossii: Inform. listok / ROO "SPOK". Petrozavodsk, 2002. 2 s. (Russian forests: information paper / ROO "SPOK". Petrozavodsk, 2002. 2 p.)
11. Lesa Karelii: Inform. listok / ROO "SPOK". Petrozavodsk, 2002. 2 s. (Karelian forests: information paper / ROO "SPOK". Petrozavodsk, 2002. 2 p.)