Forest Club model projects and sites

Issue 13, Jan. 2000

The eminent Russian scientist Michael Michaelovich Orlov wrote at the end of the 19th century: “Forest management, as any other management, comes into practice only when the target object, in this case – a forest – losses its quality of unlimited and accessible utility and becomes a value. This happens at a certain density of population or high cultural level”. Nowadays, a hundred years later much is being said about the necessity to transform forestry into a multipurpose system, taking into account recreational, environmental and other functions of forests. One can assume, that such transition is possible only there, where environmental and recreational functions of forests become valuable for the most part of the population. First of all, it concerns regions with the highest density of population, for example the Moscow region (including Moscow), which surpasses all other in density of population and level of industry development. There is no doubt that environmental and recreational functions of the Moscow forests are more important than wood ones for the overwhelming majority of local population. At the same time, if forestry is oriented to satisfaction of local citizens' needs, it will have to take into consideration specific value of those “non-wooden” resources of the Moscow forests. To cut a long story short, the forestry will have “to face people”.

However, in order to do that, they have to conduct a survey and find out what problems connected with forests and forestry worry most citizens of the Moscow region. Are they satisfied with the existing forestry and the system of forest conservation? What are they ready to do in order to save their forests?

For this purpose, “Greenpeace Russia” conducted a public opinion poll in Moscow and Moscow region in August-September of 1999. 709 people were questioned in streets and in other public places; surely, it cannot be considered as representative sampling for a sociological survey, however, it gives an idea what the population of the Moscow region thinks of problems connected with forests and forest use. The following are some questions and answers of the poll.

1. How often do you visit forests of the Moscow region? The purpose of this question was to evaluate solemnity of the results. The answers were the following: - constantly (on average –several times a week) – 18%, on average once a week during the whole year – 13%; on average once a week in summer and more rarely in other seasons-23%; constantly during the annual leave and much more rarely in other seasons – 10%; several times a year – 15%; seldom – 14%; never – 4%; other answers – 3%.

   So, the forests of the Moscow region play an important role in lives of 54% questioned people (who chose the first three answers). Forests serve as the main recreation site and for some people – as a working site as well. The number of people, who visit forests of the Moscow region at least once a week in summer, can be estimated as not less than 9 million people, basing on the poll's results. This number exceeds total number of workers in timber and woodworking industries hundreds times and proves importance of the “non-wooden” functions of forests for the capital citizens.

   This is how surroundings of most summer cottages' settlements look like. Photo by M. Ivanov.

2. Do you consider clear cutting to be allowable in the Moscow region? This question was asked because most phone calls and letters to the office of “Greenpeace Russia” connected with forest issues are devoted to the problems of clear felling in the region. The answers to that question were the following: clear felling is not allowable under any circumstances – 29,6%; it is allowable only in exceptional cases in emergency response (fires, outbreaks of pests and diseases) – 60,1%; it is allowable in some cases, including commercial activity – 3,0%, it is allowable far from roads, human settlements and recreation areas – 2,1%; it can be allowed without any restrictions – 0,6%, other answers – 0,4%. About 4,2% of people found difficulties in answering. Hence, 89,7% think that clear cutting is allowable only in exceptional cases or inadmissible in the Moscow region.

   Thereupon, there is a question to the administration of the Central and Moscow regional forest management enterprises, which are now conducting successive forest regulation in most forest districts of the Moscow Region. It also plans to conduct mostly final felling operations. Our question is: “Don't the officials of forestry management enterprises want to take into account the opinion of the people, who live in the region?” Maybe they can plan to conduct gradual and selective felling on some sites.

3. What are the most important environmental problems of the Moscow forests in your opinion? Several answers could be given to that question, so the total percentage is much higher than 100%. The following problems were referred to the most important environmental issues of the Moscow forests: littering of forests with household and industrial garbage, banned landfills (78%); construction of summer houses, cottages and roads in the forest, mainly unregulated (55%); damage and death of forests caused by industrial pollution (41%), uncontrolled unauthorized cutting of trees for household purposes (34%), forest fires (33%); too intensive felling (32%); imperfect reforestation works after felling (30%), too intensive uncontrolled impact of tourists, hunters, habitual gatherers of mushrooms and berries (26%), cluttering the forests up with decaying wood (19%), felling along banks of the rivers, streams and lakes and in water protection zones (19%); great number of summer houses on the drained peatbogs and in other places of increased fire hazard (14%), natural death of old forests (6%). Other problems were considered as important by only 3% of people and 2% found difficulties in answering the question.

   The answers to the questions are very informative. Citizens named as three most important problems the issues, which are paid almost no attention or arise from the activity of the State agencies of forest management (which are officially nature protection authorities). For example, allocation of forested lands for construction purposes is done in concordance with the forest management bodies. At the same time, forest fires were referred to the fifth position, even despite of the fact, that the interviews were taken right at the end of one of the most “fireful” summers in last decades. The problems, which are considered as the most important ones by the Forestry Service (for instance, cluttering the forests up with decaying wood and natural death of old forests caused by “lack of felling”), are at the very end of the list. Certainly such difference can be explained by “unprofessionalism of ordinary people”. However, the question is: “Do we need such Forestry Service, which does not consider necessary to solve environmental problems, which are the most important for local population?”

4. Do you consider necessary to establish new nature protection areas in the Moscow region, where any commercial forest exploitation will be prohibited? Again, several options were possible (which were not alternative).

   The following answers were received: yes, new strictly protected areas should be established – 52%; yes, new nature protection areas, where all felling and construction operations are prohibited, should be established – 45%, yes, only clear cutting and construction should be banned there – 20%; no, there is no need in new nature protection areas – 3%. Other answers were given by 1% of interviewed people and 6% found it difficult to answer the question.

   There is no need to comment upon the answers. The official position of the Moscow regional Forestry service, which has been opposing the ideas of new nature reserves, Natural parks and monuments of nature in the region for more than 10 years, is shared by only 3% of interviewed people. Again, interests of most people differ with the activity of the Regional forestry division.

   Seeing such sceneries while walking in the forest, people make their opinion of the Forest distrcits' work. Photo by M. Ivanov.

5. How should the community take part in forest management of the Moscow region? The following answers were given: representatives of public organizations should not interfere with forest management – 8%; representatives of public organizations should assist State agencies of forest management in forest protection and reforestation – 41%; public should have an access to all non-commercial information on state and use of forests and have a possibility to control activity of Forest service divisions –48%; and 3% of interviewed could not choose an answer out of the given ones.

   Again, the answers do not need any comments: most interviewed people want representatives of public organization to control activity of state agencies of forest management.

6. How often did you meet workers of State Forestry Service (not engaged in felling operations) in the forests of the Moscow region last two years? The answers of people, who did not visit forests, were not taken into account. The following answers were received: very often (almost every time when visiting forests) – 0,8%; often – 1,8%; several times – 6,6%; once – 8,3%; never – 76,6%. 1,4% of interviewed gave other answers, for example, “I met a forester, but he was drunk” or “I know one forester, but I do not know how often he goes to the forest”. 4,1 % did not answer that question.

   These answers are quite important. They prove that State Forestry service of the Moscow region is very close to end its existence. Reorientation of Russian Forestry Service to independent economic activity in timber harvesting (which is hidden under middle thinning) led to lack of foresters' time and wish to visit their forest sites and conserve forests any more. Besides, the author of the present article have heard from workers of forest districts of the Moscow region about even direct bans (still in oral form) to conserve forests and visit the workers' forest sites in their labor time from the directors of the forest enterprises or foresters. The workers should not waste their labor time avoiding “profitable felling”. To tell the truth, forest conservation is almost the same or even worse in most regions.

7. What do you think about imposing a special tax on physical and juridical persons in order to improve financing of Forestry service of the Moscow region (including forest parks)? The answers were quite unpredictable: impose of 1% tax is supported by 14,7% of interviewed people; 0,5% - 9,3%; 0,25 – 10,9%; 0,1% - 14,8%. 24,1% of people do not agree with imposing of such tax. 9,9% of people suggested other variants (mainly they support the idea of the tax if there is a system, which will prevent plundering of the collected money); 15,9 of interviewed found difficulties in answering.

Simultaneously with the interview, the possibility of holding a referendum on adopting the Law of the Moscow region was studied. The Law will include the following statements:

1. All types of clear felling operations are prohibited on the territory of the Moscow region, excepting felling of dead plantations, clearing of burnt wood and forest sites, which are damaged by a natural disaster.

2. State authorities of Forest Service should provide protection of the Moscow region forests from polluting with industrial and household wastes and their clearing from cluttering up not later than one month since the littery site has been found. In case when the culprit is not known, clearing of the State forest stock should be done at the expense of State Forestry Service.

3. Transfer of forested lands into non-forested for the purposes, that are not connected with forest management, as well as construction on the territory of the Forest stock of the Moscow region can be fulfilled only after conduction of the Moscow regional referendum on each transfer.

These statements are not, of course, legally correct (taking into account that the forests are State property, so most forest issues cannot be solved at the regional level). However, we wanted to evaluate the possibility of conducting the regional referendum devoted to the issues of forest management in the Moscow region. “Greenpeace Russia” has experience of holding regional referendums on different subjects. Nowadays it considers the possibility to apply this experience in the Moscow region.

The population of the Moscow region gave the following answers to the questions concerning their attitude towards the referendum: