Forest Club Hot spots

RSS-News

A Word from the Federal Forest Service Certification Bound to Fail in Russia

Note from the editors: In order to gain a better understanding of the Russian government's position on certification, and its opposition to applying Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards to Russia's forests, RCN managing editor Nikolai Maleshin conducted an interview with Evgeny Kuzhmichov, Associate Director of Russia's Federal Forest Service and compiled the following text.

Centuries ago, many European countries sacrificed their virgin forests for the sake of increased prosperity. Now they must face the consequences and expend large sums of money to restore those forests. But the reforested areas will never equal those of 300 to 500 years ago: their biological diversity has been lost forever.

According to the World Resources Institute in Washington, DC, today Russia contains 26 percent of the world's unexploited forests. Our specialists at the Federal Forest Service estimate that 47 percent of the country's forests are contained in protected areas (Zapovedniks and National Parks) as well as in the categories of First Group, sub-tundra, and reserved forests. (Reserved forests are temporarily set aside for formal designation in the future.) Industrial cutting is forbidden in these areas. The lungs of planet Earth, these forests absorb an enormous amount of carbon dioxide. Among the 12 countries that hold 95 percent of the world's intact forests, Russia is in first place; the United States and Papua New Guinea share twelfth place with just 1 percent of such forests. Such a picture is the backdrop against which we must perceive the advantages of obligatory certification and the shortcomings of FSC.

The ten FSC Principles are quite straightforward and universal, yet they do not provide a comprehensive answer for a functioning forest management system throughout Russia. These principles can hardly take into account the diversity of forests in our vast country. We believe that only a national system of obligatory certification, rooted in the experience, professionalism, and existing structure of the Federal Forest Service, can adequately manage Russia's forests. Moreover, we already have a governmental decree and the Russian Forest Code (Article 71), the cornerstones on which we must introduce our system of obligatory certification.

Unfortunately, neither NGOs nor the forestry industry employ the approaches and principles that we have elaborated in obligatory certification. The NGOs believe that certification must be voluntary and be done by independent third parties: they claim that no one will pay heed to the results of obligatory certification because the forestry sector in Russia is rife with corruption.

How can there be any talk of corruption when standing timber is sold at unprecedented low prices ($0.20 per m3 rather than the former $50 for the same volume) because no one will pay more for it? The Federal Forest Service cannot he the culprit for such a drop: it is the market that dictates the prices in conjunction with the Russian forestry industry, which has been 90 percent privatized and is on a steady decline. Today, our private companies lack the bare necessities in their business such as roads, marketing strategies, timber-processing equipment, modern technologies, and trained staff. This explains why Russia, with 26 percent of the world's unexploited forests, receives nothing for its resources. In terms of timber production, it lags behind not only the United States, Canada, and Brazil, but also such countries as Nigeria and Indonesia.

NGOs further contend that the Federal Forest Service's goal is only to produce timber, while their own goal is to conserve ecosystems. Yet in reality, guided by the Forest Code, the Federal Forest Service is only concerned with pre-commercial tree thinning as well as forest restoration and protection. We deal with standing timber, not to be confused with the timber used by the forest industry.

We must address one more issue as well. It seems to us that Greenpeace Russia, WWF Russia, and certain other NGOs are not staffed by professionals who fully comprehend the actual situation in the forestry industry Rather, they are hiding behind a veneer of the social movement, trying to reap some dividends from abroad. They assert, "We will take on the task of voluntary certification." Fine, but why? Do they really have the expertise or license to conduct such work? Do they have access to a developed infrastructure within the Russian forestry sector? How do they intend to implement all this work in a country with billions of hectares of forest lands? Furthermore, how can they talk about FSC certification when it is unclear who will represent Russia's interest at the FSC headquarters in Mexico? If these questions remain unresolved, NGOs in their pursuit to implement certification in Russia will essentially be taking money from Western auditors and other companies, which have shown interest in supporting the initial certification process in Russia. They will also be sapping Russian timber producers of money, thereby forcing an increase in the price of timber and wood products.

It is evident that FSC has developed its principles for countries that have a weak heritage of forest management. Last year, together with the Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University in the US, the Russian Federal Forest Service published the first book in English on the history and founders of forestry management in Russia. The Russian system of forest management is the oldest in world, dating hack more than 300 years. It has always generated enormous income for the government and thus, has played a crucial role in supporting the country's army. Today, the core structure of this management system has remained virtually unaltered. As in the past, it is a linear structure beginning with the central management and ending with the foresters linked by forest districts (leskhozes) throughout the country. The area of forests in Russia has been stable over the past 200 years-a tribute to our management structure. Such a phenomenon has not occurred in either the US or in other European countries. Thus, the proposal to restructure the entire forest management system in adherence to FSC Principles appears quite strange, especially when FSC certification is far from perfect in conserving forest ecosystems. Such a proposal gives rise to some fundamental questions: What is the purpose of certification? Who will actually benefit from certification? Why does the World Bank advocate a system of voluntary forestry certification and insist that it be introduced in Russia?

Although at first glance FSC is slated to give Russian timber and paper product dealers an advantage in the environmentally aware markets of Europe, I believe that it is a mechanism for completely ostracizing Russia from the European timber market. First of all. the basic premise of FSC is consumer trust. In my opinion, it is unlikely that Russia may gain the confidence and trust of skeptical consumers and thereby make a successful entrance on the European market for certified timber. Secondly, FSC is a means to seize the quite profitable and as of yet untapped field of certification in Russia, hut we just do not have the resources to pay Western companies to come in and certify our forests. For example, it would cost S100.000 for a European auditing company to certify 800,000 ha of harvestable forests in the Komi Republic. I do concede that certification has proven to be a successful marketing tool for timber companies in Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Estonia. The exploitation of forest resources in Europe, however, is three to five times higher than in Russia. Consequently, forests are a much higher commodity in Europe.

Yet, the consequences of such intensive resource use cannot be overlooked. For example, Finland's forests are steadily degrading, as is evident from the decreased availability of timber. Furthermore, the equipment used during repeated selective logging in a particular forest area is gradually compacting the soil, causing a sharp drop in forest biodiversity. Perhaps, then our clear-cutting methods are more humane? After all, a clear-cut area will not he touched for the next 90 years, No one has ever proved that selective felling as promoted by FSC is environmentally advantageous for different ecosystems or habitat types over clear-cutting.

Instead of FSC certification, the Federal Forest Service proposes the formation of regional committees on obligatory certification, which would be composed of three elements: o Independent forest teams that have 30 to 50 years of experience working throughout Russia: about 15 of these teams now-exist that can significantly lower the cost of certification work by conducting forest audits during their periodic forest surveys:

• Public representatives with an active interest in developing the social and economic spheres within their regions;
• Representatives of environmental NGOs to provide independent monitoring of the certification process.

Today, several NGOs are striving to create another, parallel monitoring system. We, however, consider this unrealistic. The extensive 200-year history of the Federal Forest Service affirms our ability to effectively oversee and regulate Russia's forests without outside feedback.

Back to list of publications

Share |

Back to top of this page

Back to Homepage

Mail us!