Forest.RU Family: All About Russian Forests | The Oaks of Europe | Krasnoyarsk Center for Forest Protection
Forest.ru
Russian NGOs Forest Club
This site supported by Forest Club
All about Russian forests | Russian NGOs Forest Club | Useful links | Site map | Site search
Russian version

Forest Bulletin

News

Other Forest Club periodics

Forest Club Publications

Field Trips by Forest Club members

Forest Club workshops and conferences

Forest Club model projects and sites

Forest Bulletin
Issue 11, Aug. 1999

What are the radical forests of taiga zone?


A. Yaroshenko

International Conference "Radical forests of European taiga zone: current state and problems of conservation" was held in Petrozavodsk from July 6-8, 1999. The conference was organized by Forest Institute of Karelia Scientific Center, National Park "Vodlozersky", TACIS project in Karelia and other organizations. Representatives of Forest Service divisions of Russia and Finland, research, conservation and other organizations from Russia, Finland and Sweden took part in the conference. The conference showed that conservation problems of forests, which were mostly closed to natural by their origin and history of development, are coming into serious consideration not only by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) but also numerous governmental research organizations and even Sub-divisions of Russian Federal Forest Service. Participants of the conference suggested different terms for these forests - radical, old growth, virgin, original, primary, inhomogeneous, undisturbed, etc. On the other side, the conference showed lack of any common (shared) opinion on that issue.

The largest difference of participants' opinion was connected with the concept of "radical forests" itself (to be more precise - what forests should be considered as developing without any human disturbance or close to those). Almost all arguments and discussions were more or less connected with that question. For example, adoption of the "mildest" standards allowed some participants to say that such forests occupied up to 100% of forested area in some regions (which seems unlikely, even taking into account "the mildest" standards) or, at least, up to 90-100% of mature and old growth conifer forests. In that case, exclusion from operation (or at least temporary reserving) of all "radical" forests was rightly considered as a measure which would inevitably destroy all forest industry in taiga zone. On contrary, adoption of the "strictest" standards of "radical" forests allowed to say that these forests occupied not more than 6-8% of forested area in taiga zone of European Russia and so their temporary reserving is principally necessary without destruction of Russian forest industry.

In general, the conference showed that the term "radical forests" is more social than a scientific one due to absence of common and generally accepted definition of the term. Actually, most participants of the conference understand the terms "radical", "old growth", "virgin", "primary", "undisturbed" as synonyms. In all cases, they refer to forests which either have been developing under almost no human influence, or which were able to reclaim their natural structure after the latest human impact. However, the broadness of the term (i.e. anthropogenic damage rate or forest state, which is close to its "natural", was understood differently. As a whole, the following general approaches to definition of "radical" ("undisturbed", "virgin", "primary" etc.) forests can be distinguished:

  1. "Based on age and species". In general it can be formulated as the following: radical forest is a mature forest, formed with tree species typical for natural forests of the taiga zone (i.e. coniferous). Sometimes, there is anaddition? that the forest should be all-aged (uneven-aged) or at least, it should have undergrowth consisting of the same coniferous species. This approach allowed to refer all or almost all mature and old growth conifer forests of the taiga zone, without taking into account history of their development, their stability and floristic composition, etc. to "radical" forests. In accordance with data of the State Forest Resources records, the proportion of these forests is about 35% of total forested area in taiga zone of European-Ural part of Russia. Moreover, this figure does not greatly change depending on regions and does not fill with apprehension about the future of the forests. However, this approach leads to the situation, when almost all exploitable forest resources are referred to "radical" forests. This makes senseless to discuss the question of reserving existing radical forests for a time required for determination of forms and methods of their conservation or environmentally-friendly use.

  2. "Old growth". In general, this approach is close to the above-mentioned. According to this approach, radical forest is a forest formed by tree species which are typical for undisturbed forests of the taiga zone and which has grown without human influence for time which is comparable with maximum biological age of these species and is not more that it. Sometimes additional requirements are added, for example, presence of a certain amount of deadfall, or presence of multi-aged stand, or presence of openings, thinning areas, etc. In fact, according to this approach conifer forests of the taiga zone that are older certain age (for example, of VII age class and older) refer to "radical" forests. They compose the main part of overmature conifer forests. State Forest Resources records show that according to this approach the share of "radical" forests of the taiga zone of European-Ural part of Russia takes up to 12-15% of all forested lands; moreover, this index greatly changes from less developed regions to highly developed, from 25-30% down to 0-1%. This approach to determination of "radical" forests shows significantly smaller share of the forests comparing with the previous one and fills with misgivings about the future of the forests, especially in the subzone of the Southern taiga. Application of this approach in some of the regions (for instance, Leningrad, Pskov, Novgorod, Vologda and other regions) seems to help in determination of the most valuable forests and forests, which are closest on their structure to "natural growth" forests. However, when applying in Northern regions, this approach significantly disguises real situation of the taiga "development".

  3. Structure-dynamical. According to this approach, "radical" forest is the forest, if its structural-dynamical formation supports its stability during unlimitedly-long period of time and which is supported at the expenses of natural processes (occasional disturbance associated with population dynamics of tree species, influence of insects-phytophagans or diseases, or damage caused by fires). This approach implies that there is a certain minimal site area, at which the forest can be determined as "radical" (it is the area where dynamics of occasional disturbance which supports gradual alternation of tree species within a tree layer has relatively equilibrial character); conference participants' opinions on the minimal area differed from several hundreds up to several thousands ha. Equilibrium structure of occasional disturbance dynamics is formed after decomposition of the first generation of forest stand, which had formed after anthropogeneous or disastrous natural disturbance during growth of the following generations. Correspondingly, according to this approach, age of the forest stand cannot serve as a criterion for determination of the forests as "radical" (moreover, equilibrium character of occasional disturbance dynamics implies relative sustainability of average-aged stand, at least for the whole area of the "radical" forest). According to this approach, "radical" forests cannot be distinguished basing on data of forest management without additional special survey. Share of the forests of this kind can be roughly estimated as 6-8% of forested lands (taking into account the fact, that estimation of the forest area greatly depends on accepted minimal size of a "radical` forest site"). This share significantly changes from poorly developed regions to highly developed - from 8-12% to less than 0.1%. Application of this approach for determination of "radical" forests fills the most serious doubts about the future of "radical" forests and it allows to speak firmly about necessity of reserving of all or most existing "radical" forests until the expert decision on necessary protection forms and usage is taken. It is necessary to outline that this approach to identification of "radical" (old growth) forests is typical for most Russian conservation NGOs.

Many participants of the conference stated that it was impossible to discuss separately forested area when considering areas of "core taiga". It is necessary to consider taiga landscapes as a whole, including water, wetland, rock and other non-forest ecosystems which form an integral complex with forest ecosystems. Applying this approach, spatial arrangement of landscapes will play the key role together with rate of landscape fragmentation by economic infrastructure (roads, settlements etc.), presence of sources of anthropogeneous load on the ecosystems of the determined massifs, presence and location of forest drainage systems, etc.

Some participants of the conference outlined necessity of "catchment basin" approach, if not when determining "radical" taiga landscapes, then at least when determining undisturbed taiga territories which would require first-priority protection. Necessity to take into account "edge" effects was also mentioned at the conference. These effects should be paid attention to, when determining preserved massifs of radical forests, i.e. inevitable influence of neighboring "developed" areas, settlements and transport infrastructure on marginal parts of the refuges. In particular, it was suggested to take into account this factor when estimating necessary area of reserved massifs of radical forests.

Practically all participants of the conference agreed that there were no absolutely "virgin" forests left, i.e. which humans had not influenced. There is general "anthropogeneous background" consisting of total technogenous environmental pollution, climate change, fluctuations of population density in taiga regions, increase of total number of forest fires, etc., which produces a certain effect on all taiga ecosystems. Besides, practically all forests of taiga zone had been imposed to intensive human influence during long history of development - either influenced by slash-and-burn system of farming and associated fires or selection and clear felling operations, etc. In this connection, "radical" forests are not forests which have been developing without human interference, but forests, which have been developing under minimal human influence or which were able to recover their natural structure after serious damage.

Despite of difference of opinions, participants of the conference stated necessity of urgent measures to protect most valuable massifs of radical forests, especially the forests, which natural value was proved by numerous special research - Kalevala forest massif (Karelia), Vepssky forest (Leningrad region), forests of Andomskay elevation (Vologda region), Onega peninsula (Arkhangelsk region) and others, as well as necessity to conduct inventory of existing massifs of radical taiga forests.


What is the Forest Bulletin?

Editorial: Vladimir Zakharov, Olga Zakharova
Internet-version: Forest.RU


Back to top of this page Back to Homepage

Mail us!