Forest Club model projects and sites

Issue 12, Nov. 1999

During recent jubilee celebrations devoted to the 175th anniversary of the outstanding silviculturist K. F. Tyurmer there was much said that a forester had to be a creator, artist, master of his forest. K. F. Tyurmer enjoyed Earl Uvarov's confidence and served him most of his life.

What about modern foresters? Do they feel themselves owners of the forest or they are only clerks, who attend upon timber production? Or even worse – (remember words of Peter The Great: "this position is thievish") they hasten to squander their wealth under conditions of permissiveness and absence of control?

I had a chance to visit some regions of our country last year and talk with foresters. Despite the fact that there are as many opinions as people, some similar statements can be outlined.

Perhaps due to my bad luck, but I often met people among forestry management, who were completely indifferent to their work and did not care about their duties. Of course they had their own interests. However, to look farther ahead than lines in the accounts or in pay-sheets seems to be too difficult for them. Maybe, lack of initiative is the result of Soviet command economy.

Even in such grand problem as forest fire-fighting we face inactivity and languor of forestry officials until there is a critical situation. For instance, I heard such words: "When there is a fire in the neighboring forestry, I feel sorry, but I will not hurry up to extinguish it. We have to conserve forests on the territory of our forestry and we will make all the efforts here". It is really scaring to hear such words from an official of State forest service. However, it is more scaring when Heads of forest divisions ban their workers to extinguish fires outside their forestry.

Fire is a real disaster for most regions of Russia. The disaster which is caused by careless people. Certainly, many questions on fire prevention and population education arose. Perhaps, main financial and labor resources should be reallocated there. In fact, nobody refutes it; however, they more often speak about unreality of such education: "Let President, Government and other authorities care for increase of standard of living, then education will be up-to-date… Then the fire problem will be solved". This is also a forest service official's opinion. Unfortunately, the official's view of his own place in the process is unclear.

All opinions on operations and problems of forest service ends up with a complaint about lack of resources. The problem is well-known not only to foresters; however, everybody seeks his own solution.

Economists know that budget deficit can be cut down by two means: increase of income and reduction of expenses. Usually the first way is chosen as natural and economic conditions allow. In other words, they fell what they can and sell as they can. "Mobilization of internal (own) resources" – that fresh wording entered forestry economy not long ago; however, it has already acquired extraordinary scale. Some forestries raise up to 90 per cent of financial resources themselves and do not rely upon budget. However, this fact does not please everybody. I often heard the following statements when I spoke with forestry managers, who were worried about current situation: "If we had had normal financing we would never allow these felling operations and we could fulfill our task of state forest management properly."

I wonder if a forester faces a task to produce timber for sale every day whether he has time to think of a forest as a living being, where a small mistake will be noticed only in several years. What words will modern foresters hear from their descendants if they have to earn their living by felling instead of tending of plantations.

The second solution of the budget deficit problem suggests itself. Perhaps it makes no sense to maintain a huge army of so-called "Forest service" at the expense of the state if it mainly raises money for itself. There is about a hundred of such foresters in an average forestry. Why don't these specialists conduct intermediate cutting on a commercial basis within the framework of cooperation with logging enterprises which hold contracts with the forestry. At the same time the state will obtain more rational use of budget resources as the money will be transferred outside the forestry. Besides, one can expect that Forest service would better control exterior executives than their own workers.

Chief forester of Toropetsky forestry of Tver State Forestry division V.C. Izhukin suggested one variant of works at Phase I: "Let a forestry continue its felling. However, it is necessary to establish Forest inspection commission independent of the director or Chief forester. The forest inspection commission should have proper financing in order to prevent grafts and it should be mobile. Loggers should realize that if they fell wrong they will exercise responsibility. Under current conditions it is impossible to ban felling in the forestry, but there should be limitation on it."

We are not going to discuss reorganization problems of the Forest service. This theme deserves special discussion, which we would like to start in "Forest bulletin". However, we want to understand why many foresters, who understand that they cannot bear such situation any more, do not start such discussion openly. Should we still be proud of "keeping the system and personnel under such difficult economic conditions" if the system works extremely ineffectively? It is high time for the top officials to take care of forests and people who work there.

We do not want to blacken the whole Forest service. We believe that true foresters should do everything they can in order to establish really effective and rational forest service system. Moreover, we have a good foundation for it.