Home page

A. S. Zakharenkov, V.A. Chelishev

(Far Eastern forestry research institute)

High conservation value forests and their role in the system of functional division of Russian forests (on the example of the Far East).

"High conservation value forests" (HCVF) is a relatively new term for the Russian forestry specialists. Its appearance is connected with development of forest certification in the world, in particular, the system of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). One of the principles of sustainable forest management, in interpretation of this forest certification system, is directly devoted to preservation of high conservation value forests, to which, by the definition of FSC, refer forests that possess one or more of the following attributes:

1.     Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant
concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia).

2.     Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

3.     Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems.

4.     Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).

5.     Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health).

6.     Forest areas critical to local communities' traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities).

Appearance of new foreign terms for the Russian forestry, generally, is connected with the activity of international environmental organizations. For example, because of Greenpeace the term "intact forests" appeared in Russia. We owe to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for the appearance of the term "high conservation value forests" borrowed from English.

Introduction of the foreign terms, in both described cases, is caused by an honorable reason, from the first sight, conservation of forests and forest biodiversity of Russia. However, looking at this process more analytically, we can see not only fundamental, but also mercantile goals and objectives, implementation of which is promoted by foreign terminology innovations.

In this way, appearance of new terms is followed by projects for development of allocation methodic and mapping forests of new categories. Next come projects for development of various recommendations on forest conservation, companies on prohibition or limitation of economical activities etc. Naturally, organizations that promote new definitions become coordinators of such projects. Along with this the new term is, as a matter of fact, the trademark, that serves as bait for potential donors. For example, allocation and mapping of "intact" boreal forests cost approximately $ 1 million. Greenpeace was coordinating this project, and IKEA was its donor.

The technology of introducing HCVF is similar to the one of "intact" forests, with the only difference, that the coordinator of the projects dealing with methodic, mapping, recommendations etc is not Greenpeace, but a no-less respected international environmental organization, WWF. But what's interesting, is that the donor of those projects is the same IKEA company.

It might be just a coincidence. Maybe, IKEA decided to focus all its efforts and financial resources on saving Russian forests. Maybe, the majority of population thinks this particular way and this increases the image rating of the company in its home country to the level, overlapping the rating of the Swiss government. However, this philanthropy seems to be connected, primarily, with the market competition. We will not go into many details in this matter, since it's a separate topic.

Anyway, all the efforts of international environmental organizations on introduction of new terms in Russia and HCVF, in particular, are aimed, mainly, at forest regions with export-oriented forest complex: Far East, North-West, partly Eastern Siberia and Zabaikalie. In this case, the goal of these efforts is withdrawal of new forest locations from the number of exploited territories through a voluntary refusal of logging companies from cutting activities and creation of new highly protected nature territories (HPNT)

Probably, this direction is conditioned by the latitude of forests of natural origin and the relatively simple allocation of HCVF in accordance with international criteria and features, developed in consideration with such countries as Sweden, Finland, USA etc.

For example, in the USA the share of forests where logging is prohibited, including national parks and nature reserves, makes up 4,7 % of the total forest areas of the country. 66,2 % is the share of exploited forests and 29,1 % is the part of other categories of forests, mainly, forests inaccessible for use (Antonova, Sheingauz, 2002). On the example of the USA the visibility of urgency of expending the square of HCVF is created, though the criteria of adequacy of these forests and their territorial location for conservation of biodiversity are still not worked out. Evidently, forests inaccessible for commercial use, with the share of almost one third of the total area of the US forest fund, can be and as a fact are already used for the purposes of environmental protection and conservation of biodiversity.

In European countries this problem is more urgent, since their share of exploited forests dominates, and for the most part these forests are represented by monocultures of artificial origin and as follows don't posses attributes of HCVF. On this background any forest area of natural origin can be rated as a HCVF.

But what really happens in Russia? Is the problem of allocation and conservation of HCVF that urgent, and is there a necessity to draw attention of the international community to solving this problem?

Russia possesses the richest experience in the world in the division of forests into functional categories in accordance with ecological, social and economic needs. Forests of the I and II groups, directly assigned for implementing ecological and social functions, make up 29,3 million ha or 25% of the total area of the Russian forest fund and satisfy various needs. However, for us the question of compliance of Russian functional categories of forests with the modern foreign term, HCVF, is more important. To answer this question we conducted analysis of the acting normative-law base, in accordance with which forests are referred to various categories, and also allocation of highly protective zones and protected territories. For convenience results of the analysis are presented in the table.

Table Reflection of HCVF attributes in the Russian forestry legislation (on the example of the Russian Far East)

Feature of HCVF	Reflection of the feature in normative base of the Russian forestry service and in the functional division of forests	Conservation normative
1 Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia).	1.1 Forests and buffer zones of the state nature reserves 1.2 National and nature parks, forests referred to as natural landmarks, cross border tundra forests, forests on deserted, steppe, forest-steppe and forest-poor mountain territories etc. 1.3 Cedar- broadleaf forests with the dominance of the Korean cedar species 1.4 Forest locations in 500 m around wood grouses breeding grounds and natural salt licks 1.5 Forest zones 200 m wide along the banks of rivers inhabited by beavers 1.6 Forest locations with the presence of relic and endemic species making 10 % of the fund 1.7 Nature models of plantations	1.1.1 Prohibition for all types of logging (PL) 1.2.1 Prohibition of commercial harvesting (PCH)   1.3.1 PCH   1.4.1 PCH   1.5.1 PCH   1.6.1 PCH   1.7.1 PCH
2 Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.	2.1 The same as 1.1 and 1.2 2.2 Forests of the highly protected part of the reserve 2.3 Forest edges 200 m wide along the border with bare areas 2.4 Forest areas with the size to 100 ha, located among bare areas 2.5 Up to ten-hectare steppe forests (forest covered hummocks) amid sparse larch peat moss bog forests 2.6 Forest zones 200 m wide along its high bound with bald peaks and tree line shrub thickets 2.7 Protective zones 200 m wide along watershed breaks and watershed catchments 1500 or more hectares in size 2.8 Forest zones 500 m along watershed ridges, where there are no bald peaks or they are less than 500 m wide.	2.1.1 PL, PCH 2.2.1 PCH 2.3.1 Prohibition of clear cutting 2.4.1 Prohibition of clear cutting 2.5.1 Prohibition of clear cutting 2.6.1 PCH     2.7.1 PCH     2.8.1 PCH
3 Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems	3.1 The same as 1.1 and 1.2 3.2 The same as 2.2 3.3 Highly valuable forest species (the needle fir, the Sakhalin spruce, the Amur cork tree etc)	3.1.1 PL, PCH 3.2.1 PCH 3.3.1 Prohibition of logging in all types of use
4 Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)	4.1 Anti-erosion and spawning protective forests 4.2 Water protected zones 4.3 Forest, surrounded by ravines, and the ones bordering the edge of ravines for 50 m. 4.4 Forests in ravines and on slopes of the banks of river valleys with the steepness of not more than 20 degrees 4.5 Forest areas along the bottom of ravines of not more than 50 m wide. 4.6 Forest locations around river heads 4.7 Water protective zones of swamps 4.8 Forest areas at the easily washed out and eroding soil 4.9 Forest zones 50-100 m wide along berms, precipices, landslides and screes 4.10 Forest zones 100-200 m wide along the permanent channels of snow avalanches and mud streams 4.11 Forest locations on the lopes with steepness more than 30 degrees 4.12 Forest zones 100-200 m wide along ridges and lines of watersheds 4.13 Forest locations with outcrops of stones and rock outcroppings to the surface, and also forest along their perimeter 50-100 m wide	4.1.1 PCH 4.2.1 PCH 4.3.1 PCH   4.4.1 PCH   4.5.1 PCH   4.6.1 PCH 4.7.1 PCH 4.8.1 PCH   4.9.1 PCH   4.10.1 PCH     4.11.1 PCH 4.12.1 PCH   4.13.1 PCH
5 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)	5.1 Forests of the first and second sanitation belts around water supply sources 5.2 Forests of the first, second and third zones of sanitary shelter belts around health resorts 5.3 Commercial nut forests 5.4 Forests of green zones around settlements and commercial sites (forest park zones) 5.5 Seed tree, wild fruit nut and melliferous forest areas, genetic reserves, permanent testing areas and other forest territories with the special purposes 5.6 Areas of forest within 1 km from Pioneer Camps, sanatoriums, rest homes, guest houses and other medical treatment and health resorts 5.7 Forest areas 1 km wide around village settlements and horticultural establishment	5.1.1 PCH   5.2.1 PCH   5.3.1 PCH 5.4.1 PCH   5.5.1 PCH       5.6.1 PCH       5.7.1 PCH
6 Forest areas critical to local communities' traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities).	6.1 Forests of scientific and historic significance 6.2 Forests, referred as natural landmarks, important for conservation of traditional cultural identity 6.3 Highly valuable forest plantations	6.1.1 PCH   6.2.1 PCH   6.3.1 PCH

Thus, forests of the I group, forests of water protective zones, and of highly protected areas, allocated in all groups of forests, have all attributes of HCVF and possess an environment-protective regime and status that are scientifically proved and confirmed with the related forestry normative.

Regional ratio differentiation of allocated forests with the attributes of HCVF is in the wide range. For example, in Chukotskiy autonomic region on 01.01.03, forests of the I group make up 4 % of the forest fund area, in Koryakskiy autonomic region and in Primorskiy krai they make up 32 and 26 %.

Using the regional and sometimes district's differentiation of the ratio of forests with a special nature protection status or regime of use, it's possible to substantiate allocation of new HCVF areas. As experience of WWF projects in North-West (Pskovskaya oblast, Komi republic) and in the Far East (the rented territory of JSK "Terneyles" in Primorskiy krai) of Russia shows, such approach takes place. Along with this there is an obvious traceable tendency in allocation and referring to HCVF of areas of exploited forests of the III group, without any scientific reasons and record keeping on highly protected nature territories, forests of the I group and other highly protected forest areas.

In compliance with all mentioned above, for the conditions of Russia search of the HCVF in the borders of exploited forests of the III group seems unsubstantiated and even tendentiously strained, if the square of the forest of protected categories complies with scientifically proved normative.

Another requirement that seems strained is to the use of exploited forests of the III group with the obligatory conservation of biodiversity that contained before logging. The acting system of normative-law regulation of forest use in Russia aims in this case, not as much at conservation of biodiversity, as at creation of conditions for satisfactory natural reproduction of initial plantations. The functions of protecting environment and the biodiversity have to be and are implemented by other special forest categories with the features and regime, as we've proved, comply with the international requirements and standards of forest certification in the FSC system.

Considering these conclusions, the real purposes, pursued by some environmental organization in their attempts to impose the new terms, become clearer:

-         to gain finances from donors for conducting their activities;

-         to put pressure on logging companies by different campaigns and boycotts, strained ratings, toughening of certification standards, imposing model projects etc

-         and finally, to implement orders of people from certain circles, who are not interested in development of the forest sector of Russian economy.

The real situation stands behind the visual harshness of our conclusions, which some environmental organizations prefer not to notice and the Russian forest users are not familiar with well enough. Despite of the well-known imperfection of division of the Russian forests into groups and categories of protectiveness, connected mainly with the stage of inventory forest management activities, as a whole, this division complies with objectives of nature protection and conservation of biodiversity.

With this article we want to attract the attention of forestry specialist, including the practical workers of the forest complex, to the problem of allocation of HCVF, which gains unjustifiably sustainable inertia. This problem has to be solved thoughtfully, considering local environmental and social-economic conditions, based on the scientifically justified normative and the acting Russian legislation.