 |
Table of content:
The Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia Won't Survive if it
Doesn't Turn Back to Nature Protection in Three Months, the Deputy
Head of Kremlin Administration Claims
This is the main result of forum "For Nature!" leaders (Sviatoslav
Zabelin, SEU International; Igor Chestin and Eugenie Schwarz, WWF;
S.Tsyplenkov, Greenpeace Russia) meeting with the deputy head of
President's Putin administration V.Surkov. The state nature protection
management system was the main topic of talks. Considered the
environmentalists' memo on nature protection state that clearly
demonstrated the negative trends after the State Environmental
Committee liquidation are deepened, Surkov offered to environmental
leaders the new working scheme.
It's clear that the Ministry of Natural Resources as is not capable to
fulfill functions of former State Environmental Committee effectively,
main concern of the ecologists is a control of nature resources use
and environmental laws violation.
Agreed to forum leaders arguments, Surkov offered to give the Ministry
of Natural Resources three months to try to solve the most serious
problems under his own patronage. If those attempts will proof that
the Ministry is not able to prevent neither pollution increase nor
nature resources embezzlement, Surkov promised to discuss with the
government a question of restructuring of the state environmental
management.
Analysts of forum "For Nature" made the following conclusions:
Abolishment of the State Environmental Protection Agency and
weakening of environmental control measures didn't work for the
Russia's economic growth.
Since the Committee abolishment the pollution index in Russia has
increased (for the first time since 1990) while the economic growth
has decreased. When the environmental agency existed, the pollution
index has been decreasing not depending on the economic growth index.
The absence of the independent environmental control agency results
in losing billions of rubles (amount hundred times bigger than it is
needed to cover the maximum expenses for such agency).
The drain of qualified specialists from the nature protection
structures is weakening the international position of the Russian
Federation. The consequences of this fact Russia could face in 2002 at
Rio+10 Global Summit.
The reorganization of the Ministry of Natural Resource that
swallowed up the former State Environmental Committee, instead of
preserving of the state environmental protection system, drove it to
ruins. The current new reorganization and changing of the head of the
Ministry can make this system unrestorable, that one more time proves
that one agency cannot provide both economic and nature protection
functions effectively.
UNESCO Can Lose Its Heritage
A Russian timber company Polaria has been logging the old-growth
forests at Tenijoki massif and near the Rohmoiva mountain - the
valuable natural and historical objects that have been nominated to
the UNESCO World Heritage list as a part of the Green Belt of
Fennoscandia, states the Kola Biodiversity Conservation Centre
(Murmansk region).
'We get to know that the logged timber is to be sold to a Finnish
partner of Polaria - Fromlog Ky,' says Konstantin Kobyakov, director
of the Centre.
Tenijoki and Rohmoiva mountain massifs lay at the Russian side of the
Russian-Finnish border near Salla-Kelloselka checkpoint. Till the
recent years due to a strict border regime active logging in this zone
was impossible. Recognizing the high environmental value of the
massifs, the Kandalaksha district administration proposed to declare
them a natural monument in 1993. At the meeting of Russian and Finnish
State environmental agencies in Rovaniemi in December, 1996, it was
suggested to include Tenijoki and the Rohvoima Mountain into the Green
Belt of Fennoscandia. The most of well-known timber companies such as
Stora-Enso, UPM-Kymmene, Metsaliitto don't buy timber from such
forests.
Unfortunately creation of nature reserves in this area could become
impossible because of fast cutting of the massifs.
'The recent analyze of space photographs shows that Tenijoki massif
was distracted by clear cuts during the last 10 years. Cuts conducted
by Polaria is the another one step to the complete demolishing of the
object,' states Kobyakov.
In November in Murmansk there was a roundtable 'Environmental
Requirements to Timber Supply
As a Factor of Sustainability of the Forest Industry in Murmansk
Region' where heads of Murmansk timber companies and representatives
of Russian environmental NGOs (Biodiversity Conservation Center,
Greenpeace Russia, Kola Biodiversity Conservation Centre) met.
At the roundtable managers of some companies working at Old Salla and
Petsamo areas demonstrated their commitment to dialogue with NGOs and
made statements on their policy concerning the old-growth forests.
'We do not rent any forest areas included in the NGO list, do not take
timber from there and do not intend to,' states Ilia Petrescu, owner
of Sevmurmanles company.
The owner of Ogni Kairal Company Alexander Glebov also states that the
company does not plan to harvest timber in the old-growth forests. 'We
are the part of the community as well as NGOs, and we should take
their opinion into account not depending of our wishes,' he said.
'Greens are fire fighters for the community. They are the necessary
evil for us. They want to influence at our activity and they have the
opportunities to do it,' Alexander Dvoryankin director of Priroda
company.
Unfortunately, Mikhail Nazarov, the owner of Polaria refused to take
part in the roundtable despite his promise to come.
'Nazarov didn't arrive to Murmansk or contact us anymore. In a very
time of the roundtable Polaria made an attempt to sign a contract with
one of the major Finnish timber companies intended to sell timber from
the old-growth forests,' states Denis Smirnov, expert of the Kola
Biodiversity Conservation Centre. 'We also sent two inquires to the
owner of Fromlog Ky Kalevi Linna, but he even didn't reply,' Smirnov
adds.
According to the Centre, Polaria purveys timber in Kandalaksha
district without paying forest taxes. The administration of the
district allowed Polaria to log 150,000 cubic meters of timber in 5
years free of charge as a payment for a house, built by the company
and lent to the Administration.
But more than 80,000 cubic meters of timber has been harvested
already. As the term of the contract ends in this December, it's
possible that Polaria will try to log as much 'free' timber as
possible.
'The fact that Polaria cut the old-growth forests shows that the
company does not any long-term economic policy. The company that takes
care of its image would never take such a step,' states Mikhail
Karpachevsky, the forest campaign coordinator of the Biodiversity
Conservation Centre, Moscow.
The Future of Russian Forests Is Still Hazy
The reform of the Russian forest service was the main topic of the
recent all-Russian seminar on forestry issues organized by the
Ministry of Nature Resources of Russia. Unfortunately, this seminar
became just a formal response to the government demand to optimize the
structure of state forest management. As the deputy head of Central
Regional Department of Natural Resources Lysenko stated, 'we need to
show that the first step was made. Maybe it won't change anything but
it would be evident that we are on the move.' There were absolutely no
suggestions on improvement of the state forest management system.
Maybe because of a formal character of the seminar it was not easy for
our correspondents to get the invitations. It was rumored that the
organizers planned to declare the seminar closed.
While the heads of the forest service tries to create an evidence of
movement, the real situation in the forest management is getting
worse. Only in Primorye (one of the Russian Far East regions) the
volume of an illegal forest trade is almost 300 millions of U.S.
dollars. More than half of the timber in Primorye has been already
logged and almost 80 per cent is exported illegally. It results in
dire socio-economic consequences including decrease of ripe forest
areas and people migration.
After the abolishment of the independent forest service in 2000 there
was clearly demonstrated that the new governmental structure is unable
to prevent natural disasters (such as fires or insects invasion).
Moreover, in 2001 Kigim, the deputy head of the Ministry of Natural
Resouces issued a directive prohibited to use the technical support
from other organization (e.g. charity foundations). If local forest
units followed the directive, they would be unable to fight fires in
Primorye and Khabarovsk region because till now they haven't anti-fire
technique.
The complete incompetence of the 'reorganized' forest service
sometimes looking like sabotage as the example above shows, is
accompanied now with the attempts to hide its incapacity to work
effectively.
|
 |
![](/images/green.gif"){kind=small}
Forest Club model projects and sites
