Forest Club Hot spots

RSS-News

Karelia: Land of Opportunity for Certification?

RCN's assistant editor Stephanie Hitztaler met with Vladimir I. Sakovets, Head of the Laboratory of forest Science at the Forest Institute of the Karelian Scientific Center. Vladimir shared his expertise on certification in Russia, talking also about Karelia. Russia's northwestern land of lakes and forests. Although no working group on voluntary certification has been formed vet in Karelia. Us close proximity In Europe makes it one of the regions where certified timber and wood products may hare the best chance to reach the market, and to bring money to local economies.

SH: How does the forestry industry in Karelia regard certification?

VS: Today among the forest industry in Karelia, there is very little knowledge and understanding of certification. In a recent survey of timber industry representatives here, 80 percent of the respondents replied that certification was not necessary. Such a response provides evidence that the industry here has yet to fully emerge on the world market. Also, it points to the serious economic hardships in the industry that have greatly restricted the advance of certification. However, as Russian companies become more integrated into the world market, the importance of certification will become obvious. Already a handful of people do recognize market trends and are inquiring about certification. The current moratorium in Karelia on harvesting timber in old-growth forests serves an excellent example of market pressure. This moratorium was declared by several major timber companies in response to consumer outcry against logging of old-growth forests. (Please refer to RCN #15 for more information on the moratorium in Karelia.)

SH: Can you elaborate on the level of transparency in the forestry sector today? To what extent is information made available to society?

VS: The forestry sector has long been transparent; no information has been hidden or concealed. In fact, all information on this sector has been widely distributed here as well as in other countries.

SH: In your opinion, bow can certification preserve biodiversity? The preservation of old-growth forests is one of the main objectives of certification. Yet, I want to emphasize that certification is only part of the process in protecting our forests. The forestry sector in Karelia already strives for the maximum protection of biodiversity as well as the maintenance of high forest productivity. Thus, significant areas of little-disturbed and second-growth forests have been preserved: 49 percent of the Republic's timber supply consists of mature forests (coniferous stands older than 101 years) and over-mature forests (coniferous stands older than 141 years). Currently, 22 percent of Karelia's territory is protected in the category of First Group Forests and protected areas. The First Group Forest category encompasses forested areas lining water bodies, green belts around cities, and forested strips along highways and railroads. Protected areas in Karelia comprise 2 Zapovedniks, 2 National Parks, 46 Zakazniks, and 108 Monuments of Nature with a combined territory of 924,000 ha. So, it is clear that certification would only complement the different kinds of forest protection already in place here in Karelia.

SH: What is your opinion on obligatory certification? Can voluntary and obligatory certification exist simultaneously? When will obligatory certification be implemented in Russia?

VS: I think that the key points of voluntary certification, such as the socio-economic well-being of local communities are very poorly reflected in the system of obligatory certification. I believe that changes must be instituted in the socio-economic sector of our society in order for a certification system to be implemented in Russia. For example local people should be given the preference for jobs in the forestry sector; workers should be provided with favorable conditions, proper training, and salaries; and the rights and traditions of local people must be taken into account in delineating forest usage. In other words, we must reverse the trend of profits over local people within our society. Once we can bring greater stability to our communities, we will have more leverage to tackle such issues as certification and biodiversity conservation. I believe that voluntary and obligatory certification must come together as one united mechanism. Right now, according to Russian legislation, the two systems cannot simultaneously exist, since they would certify the same product. Thus, if there is no system of obligatory certification then this gives leeway for voluntary certification to exist. Obligatory certification may become a reality as soon as the President signs the appropriate decree. This type of certification is easier to implement as it does not take into account socio-economic issues.

SH: What is the greatest challenge in implementing certification in Russia?

VS: Right now in Russia, we already have legislation in place to support certification; thus we do not need to change this. Rather, our greatest challenge comes in making sure that existing forestry legislation is enforced.

Certification is possible and, if we are to sell our timber on an international market, then it is essential. Yet, right now, at least in academia, the certification issue is at a standstill as there are simply no finances to support work for the further development of certification.

The author invites all interested colleagues abroad to work on joint research projects with the Forestry Institute in the areas of certification, for example the development of standards in northwest Russia, as well as in the more general areas of forest biodiversity and productivity.

Back to list of publications

Share |

Back to top of this page

Back to Homepage

Mail us!