Atlas of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes
Results
The Russian forest is no longer a boundless belt of unbroken wilderness. It is better described as a belt of intact fragments that are separated from each other by areas affected either by land use or its side effect. Exceptions to this pattern exist, primarily in Kamchatka in the northern parts of Eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East and in the mountainous areas of Altay and Tuva in Southern Siberia.
In European Russia, the southern parts of Siberia, and the Russian Far East, the main causes of fragmentation and disturbance are industrial forest harvesting and the fires that follow logging, agricultural use and road construction. In Western Siberia, the northern parts of Eastern Siberia and the Far East, the major causes of fragmentation and disturbance are extraction of mineral resources (including prospecting and construction of transportation infrastructure) and the massive human-induced fires, which accompany these activities.
Approximately 289 million hectares of large, intact forest landscapes remain in Russia (see Table 3). This is 26 percent of the forest zone of Russia (not counting tundra and forest tundra). Around 75 percent of the area of intact forest landscapes are in forest land, a category that includes both wooded and regenerating areas (e.g. after a fire or other natural catastrophe). The remaining 25 percent are made up of non-forest natural ecosystems (bogs, tundra and mountainous grasslands). Approximately 14 million hectares (5 percent) of the intact forest landscapes are in areas with special protection at the federal level.
Table 3. Areas of different land categories in russia (million hectares).
| Land category |
Russia |
European
Russia |
Western
Siberia |
Eastern
Siberia |
Russian
Far East |
Source
of information |
| Area of Russia |
1,707.5 |
383.2 |
290.5 |
722.6 |
311.3 |
Russian Encyclopedic
Dictionary (2001) |
Area of investigation –
the forest zone of Russia |
1,118.4 |
345.9 |
234.1 |
397.3 |
141.1 |
This study |
| Forest land within the area of investigation |
876.9 |
198.4 |
160.5 |
375.5 |
142.5 |
This study and the topographical map
of Russia, 1:500,000 |
| Intact forest landscapes |
288.5 |
31.8 |
58.4 |
153.9 |
44.4 |
This study |
This study and the
Intact forests within intact forest landscapes |
216.4 |
24.0 |
36.7 |
125.9 |
29.8 |
topographical map
of Russia, 1:500,000 |
Intact forest landscapes with special
protection within zapovedniks, national parks,
federal zakazniks and nature monuments |
14.4 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
This study |
Large areas of the forest landscape (i.e. the mosaic of forest and non-forest ecosystems) of Russia have been substantially affected by modern land use (see Table 4 and Figure 1). The least affected part is Eastern Siberia, where 39 percent of the forest zone remains in intact forest landscapes, followed by the Russian Far East (32 percent intact) and Western Siberia (25 percent intact). European Russia is by far the most transformed part (9 percent intact). Of Russia as a whole, about 26 percent of the forest zone remain in intact forest landscapes.
The picture is slightly different if only the forest area of the landscape is considered. The forest area within remaining intact forest landscapes was compared to the total forest area within the territory of investigation. The land cover classification of the 1:500,000 scale topographical map of Russia was used in both cases. Eastern Siberia has the greatest portion of forest in intact landscapes, with 34 percent, followed by Western Siberia (23 percent), the Russian Far East (21 percent), and European Russia (12 percent). About 25 percent of the forest area of Russia as a whole fall within intact forest landscapes.
Table 4. portion of the landscape that remains in intact forest landscapes and in intact forest (percent).
|
Russia |
European Russia |
Western Siberia |
Eastern Siberia |
Far East |
Portion of the entire forest zone
(all ecosystems) that remains in intact forest landscapes |
26% |
9% |
25% |
39% |
31% |
| Portion of the forest within the forest zone
that remains in intact forest landscapes |
25% |
12% |
23% |
34% |
21% |
| Figure 1. Total area within the forest zone and within intact forest landscapes
for different parts of Russia, million hectares. |
 |
Russia has 6 ecoregions according to the global classification proposed by Olsson et al (2001). These fall mostly within the forest zone (the other two ecoregions, tundra, and desert and xeric shrublands, lie mostly outside the forest zone). Three of these have had more than 90 percent of their area affected by modern land use, while only one (montane grasslands) has retained more than half of the area in intact condition. More than 80 percent of the intact forest landscapes fall in one ecoregion: boreal forests/taiga (Figure 2).
The remaining intact forest landscapes are highly concentrated among a few large administrative regions. Five regions, all in Siberia, contain almost half of the intact forest landscapes in Russia: the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Evenk Autonomous District, Krasnoyarsk Kray, the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District, and Irkutsk Oblast. In Eastern Siberia the five regions with the most intact forest landscapes make up 85 percent of the total area. The corresponding number is 90 percent for European Russia and Western Siberia, and as
| Figure 2. Area of ecoregions, according to the global classification proposed by Olsson, et al (2001),
within the forest zone of Russia and the area of the intact forest landscapes contained within them. |
 |
Most of the intact forest landscapes areas are in sparsely wooded and mountainous parts of Russia. The following administrative regions have a comparatively high proportion of intact forest landscapes:
| Figure 3. The five administrative regions in each macro-region of Russia that have the largest areas
of intact forest landscapes. The land-cover type distribution within each of these is also shown. |
 |
- European Russia: the Republic of Komi and Murmansk Oblast.
- Northern Siberia: the Yamal-Nenets, Khanty-Mansi, and Evenki autonomous districts.
- Southern Siberia: the republics of Burytia, Tuva and Khakassia, Altay Kray, Krasnoyarsk Kray and Chita Oblast.
- The Russian Far East: Kamchatka Oblast and the Koryak Autonomous District.
Most administrative and ecological regions of Russia lack a representative or sufficiently large system of protected areas within the remaining intact forest landscapes. Only 5 percent of all intact forest landscapes (14.4 million hectares) currently have special protection in various forms: zapovedniks (strict scientific nature reserves), national parks, federal zakazniks (sanctuaries and wildlife refugees), and nature monuments. More than half of protected areas (3.6 percent) are in reserves.
Conclusions
These findings refute the myth that ancient or virgin forests still dominate Russia. Such forests now dominate only the northern parts of Eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East, and even here, human influence, especially as a cause of forest fires, has become the leading factor affecting vegetation dynamics. In most parts of European Russia and Western Siberia, and the southern parts of Eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East, the forest vegetation has been fundamentally transformed by human activity. No large intact landscapes remain in many of these western and southern areas, while the intact forests that remain are broken up into fragments, too small to sustain the full array of components and functions characteristic of a natural forest landscape.
Without decisive action within the next few years, intact forest landscapes may disappear within whole ecological regions and even vegetation zones.
This picture raises serious concerns. The most biodiversity-rich and productive forest landscapes of southern Siberia, the Russian Far East, and of European Russia are also the most transformed. These areas are steadily diminishing due to continued extensive “development” of natural resources. The situation is most serious concerning temperate broad-leaf and mixed conifer-broad-leaf forests. Such forests are practically extinct in European Russia. The same fate may befall the forests in the area surrounding the mountain range of Sikhote-Alin, which contain the richest biodiversity in Russia. Intact landscapes remain, but only in the most inaccessible mountainous locations. Almost all of the unique, far-eastern broad-leaf and mixed conifer-broad-leaf forests have been affected by industrial logging during the last decade.
Decisions about the conservation and use of the remaining intact forest landscapes must no doubt reflect a complex range of ecological, social, and economical factors. At this stage it is reasonable to suggest only that forestry practices observe all possible precautionary measures and make it a concrete goal to preserve sufficiently large and representative reference areas of wild nature. This is especially important and urgent in European Russia and the Southern parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East, where intact forest landscapes are particularly rare and threatened. A reasonable strategy for these areas would be to set aside remaining intact forest landscapes for a limited time, to allow optimal decision-making regarding future conservation and land-use.
Next steps
This atlas represents the first attempt to map the extent and boundaries of intact forest landscapes across a continental-size country. The goal has been to produce maps that are accurate and detailed enough to inform decisions concerning practical conservation and management. Such a big undertaking would surely have benefited from additional time and resources. Thus it would be desirable to both refine and extend the work.
An obvious way to refine the work would be to use better information. This would create two important advantages: additional accuracy in the classification and delineation of areas with conservation and other values, and greater usefulness to practical land management.
Access to high-resolution satellite images for the whole territory would increase the accuracy, as would access to more ancillary information and additional ground verification. In the north of Russia, lack of information prevented classification of large forest areas as well as the tundra. More information was available in the South, but here the needs are much greater, due to the greater biodiversity values and smaller remaining intact areas, as well as the faster rate of change caused by intensified land use, both legal and illegal. The need for accurate and frequent monitoring is significant in the South, and poses great (and costly) information needs.
Another way to refine the work would be to elaborate the criteria used to separate intact and non-intact areas. A particularly difficult problem was posed by the classification of fire regimes. In this study, all fires occurring in the vicinity of infrastructure and big rivers (wider than 60 meters) were considered anthropogenic. The associated fire scars and mosaics, including those with regenerating young forests, were therefore classified as non-intact. This schematic approach has obvious weaknesses. No better alternative was available, however, given the need for a decision rule that can be consistently applied across Russia. It is hoped that future research will produce a more reliable and accurate algorithm.
A third approach to refinement would be to map additional characteristics of the forest landscape. The Atlas does not distinguish any differences in conservation value within intact forest landscapes. This does not mean that such differences do not exist, only that it was beyond the scope of this work to study them. A study of this kind is urgent, as optimal decisions concerning the conservation and use of these landscapes require such information.
There is also an urgent need to expand the mapping to areas outside of the large intact forest landscapes. It must be emphasized that there are important conservation values outside of the intact forest landscapes that are not captured by this Atlas. Intactness is only one of many such values. There is currently an almost total lack of conservation value maps that are detailed enough to function as on-the-ground decision support tools to practical land management. The mapping scale needs to be 1:500,000 or even 1:200,000. All forest values need to be placed within the network of quadrants (kvartals) which is used for forest inventory and management purposes in Russia. Such information is needed by many users, including government authorities, the forest industry, and environmental protection groups. Unfortunately, they do not produce it.
Priority areas for refined mapping of conservation values include the Ural Mountains and the Southern taiga belt of European Russia (Leningrad, Vologda, Kostroma, Kirov and Perm Oblasts), the Altay-Sayany area in Western Siberia, the Angara-Enisey and Baikal Lake areas in Eastern Siberia, and the Sikhote-Alin Range in the Russian Far East.
From a scientific point of view, a highly desirable extension of the work would be a retrospective analysis of the landscape. Access to old satellite images would be of tremendous value and would make it possible to analyze the rate of transformation of different parts of the landscape. Besides the obvious ecological interest, such a study would advance the knowledge of the role that the Russian forest plays in the global carbon budget.
The partners within the Global Forest Watch initiative would welcome any support that would make it possible to continue and expand the work as outlined above.
|
