Forest Club Hot spots

RSS-News

Woodmark Forest Certification Public Report

Forest Manager/Owner:
Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise

Woodland/Forest name:
Kosikha Forest

Date of evaluation visit(s):
6th to 10th September 1999

Woodmark Inspector(s):
Kevin Jones (Team leader)
Nigel Dudley
Andrei Laletin
Yuri Vinokurov

Report approved by:
Matthew Wenban-Smith, Forestry Programme Manager

Signature:

Report finalised: 9th March 2000

Woodmark
Bristol House, 40-56
Victoria Street
Bristol
BS1 6BY, United Kingdom
Telephone (+44) (0) 117 914 2435
Fax (+44) (0) 117 925 2504
Email: wm@soilassocation.org

Soil Association Certification Ltd
Company Registration No. 726903
A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soil Association Charity No. 20686

1.0 SUMMARY and BASIC INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED TO FSC BY WOODMARK WITHIN TEN DAYS OF ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE:

1.1 Certification Body: Soil Association Woodmark

1.2 Details of forest manager/owner:

Company name: Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise
UK Contact person: Heather Godsmark
Business address: Altai UK - Pricebatch Ltd.
Swallowfield, Eastergate Lane
Eastergate
Chichester
West Sussex, PO20 6SJ

Tel: 01243 543834
Fax: 01243 543708
e-mail: godsmark@lineone.net

1.3 Scope of certificate.
Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise, Altai Region, Russia. Longitude 84°40'E Latitude 53°10'N.

1.4 Forest Type.
Boreal forest of natural origin, predominantly broadleaf dominated by Silver birch (Betulus pendula), with some areas of conifer (Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)). The forest includes some areas where pine has been planted.

1.5 Date of issue of certificate: 17th March 2000

1.6 Date of expiry of certificate: 17th March 2005

1.7 Certificate registration code: SA-FMU/COC-1137

1.8 The certificate covers the following products: Round and sawn timber of Birch, Pine, Aspen produced by the Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise sawmills.

1.9 Approximate annual allowable cut: 44,000 cubic metres.

1.10 Area: 32,712 hectares.

2.0 Results of the Evaluation

2.1 On the basis of the observations recorded on the attached checklist and discussed in this report the following conditions for certification are proposed by Woodmark:

CONDITIONS

The following shall be completed after the issue of the certificate, within the time period specified:

CONDITION 1:
Before the next annual monitoring visit KFE managers shall have investigated the potential for investment in personal protective equipment for forest and sawmill workers, and presented their findings in the form of a written report. The report shall identify the priority needs, potential sources of protective equipment, and the probable cost. A proposal for purchase of Personal Protective Equipment shall be available at the next monitoring visit, and shall be implemented prior to the subsequent monitoring visit.

CONDITION 2:
2.1 Prior to commencement of harvesting in 2000 and 2001: A map of the areas proposed for harvesting in 2000 and 2001 shall be provided to University of Altai Botanical Department for comment prior to the commencement of harvesting. Areas identified as of probable high biodiversity interest shall be excluded from harvesting until after the formal designation of reserved areas has been completed.

2.2 Within two years:
A formal review of the forest area shall be carried out in consultation with relevant scientific and environmental organisations (such as the University of Altai Botanical Department and the Environmental Protection Committee) in order to identify the most important areas for protection of plant and animal biodiversity. The review shall also collect data on flora in harvested areas to provide base-line information for subsequent monitoring of the impacts of management.

2.3 Within three years:
The results of this review shall be used to designate and clearly identify at least 5% of the forest area as a reserve area protected from harvesting, in which the maintenance of biodiversity will be the primary objective. The forest management plan shall be adapted accordingly.

CONDITION 3:
3.1 Within one year:
Current requirements to carry out sanitary fellings in protection zones shall be reviewed in the light of current knowledge with respect to the potential environmental benefits of standing and fallen dead wood, as well the potential negative impacts of pests on the commercial viability of the remaining forest area. The review should include consideration of studies of this issue in other climatically or ecologically similar regions of the world.

3.2 Within two years:
Management guidelines shall be produced and implemented on the basis of the findings of this review, with a view to maximising the potential for biodiversity within the forest matrix whilst not jeopardising the commercial viability of the productive areas of the forest.

4. CONDITION 4:
The policy with respect to site selection for areas on which to establish pine shall be reviewed with the aim of limiting planting of pine to sites where pine is expected to thrive naturally, whilst maximising the use of natural regeneration of birch on sites where this is the naturally dominant species.

5. CONDITION 5:
Within one year:
A system to monitor and record the success of regeneration in harvested areas shall be designed and implemented. The results of the system will be monitored by Woodmark at subsequent monitoring visits

In addition two recommendations are made. These will be reviewed at subsequent monitoring visits, and may be subject to proposed conditions in the future:

RECOMMENDATION 1:
Rather unusually, the recent and current challenges of management appear to be related to under-harvesting against predicted growth rather than over-harvesting. Partly as a result there is a high proportion of relatively mature, even-aged forest. Given the young age of maturity for birch this may create problems in the future with large areas becoming over-mature at the same time. The implications of this need to be considered by management and built into subsequent management programmes to ensure that it does not become a significant problem for the long term continuity of timber supply and management inputs. A monitoring programme is already in place. Attention should be given to the long term development of the forest structure in the context of actual levels of harvesting over the next few years. Findings will be reviewed at subsequent monitoring visits, and further conditions may be proposed if significant problem appears to be developing.

RECOMMENDATION 2:
Management has identified the conflict between grazing of cattle in the forest and natural regeneration of tree species in the selective management system.

On the one hand grazing offers benefits to herders - shelter, forage and space to keep the cattle off the arable fields during the growing season. On the other hand the cattle clearly have a negative impact on biodiversity and forest regeneration close to the villages. In practice a balance is currently maintained, regulated simply by the relatively small distances the shepherds like to travel from the villages.

A general proposal has been made in the management plan to limit grazing in an area of almost 20 000ha. This proposal needs to be developed further prior to implementation. Careful consideration should be taken both of the existing benefits of cattle grazing to the local population, and to the need to ensure regeneration of the forest and protect biodiversity. Additional recommendations or conditions may subsequently be proposed.

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOREST/WOODLAND

3.1 General background about the operation.
Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise (KFE) was founded in 1971, it employs about 70 staff and runs two small sawmills. It is responsible for the 42,000 hectares of 'agricultural forest' in the district of Kosikha in the Altai Region of Russia. The area in which the forest lies is a mosaic of forest and farmland with the agricultural land managed by 12 collective farms. Agricultural forests account for about 2 - 3 % of the national forest area. Agricultural forests are controlled through AGROLES, the Altai Agricultural Forest Division of the Ministry of Agriculture. KFE is one of twenty forest enterprises in the Altai region managed by AGROLES.

KFE actively manages 32,712 hectares of forest, which constitutes the scope of this evaluation. The remainder consists of small blocks, field corners and windbreaks, and is not included in the evaluation.

3.2 Forest and management system.
The forest is boreal forest and classed as Forest Steppe. It occurs in a belt c250-350km wide extending from Ukraine to the Ural mountains and across southern Siberia. Birch, pine and aspen are the principal species with birch dominant on the grey silty forest soils and pine dominant on bands of sandier soil.

The forest now exists as a mosaic interspersed with agricultural land and settlements. The high proportion of birch in the forest is due in part to the removal of pine in the 1920s for construction. Some areas currently dominated by birch would more naturally be dominated by pine. Pine is favoured for replanting as the timber is more valuable.

Agricultural or Farm Forests have been formally managed since 1950 with detailed inventories commencing in 1957. Forests account for about 33% of the land area in Kosikha District.

The total forest area is about 42,000 ha. of which c. 32,712 ha is currently managed. The total area has been expanding at a rate of about 400- 500ha per year, principally through natural establishment as agricultural land has been abandoned. Of the managed area 25,319 ha are defined as potential logging areas the remainder being protection areas where interventions are limited.

Stands are relatively even aged and 83% are considered as mature or over mature (71 and 81 years plus respectively). Of the total area approximately 89% is dominated by birch.

Historically two broad silvicultural systems have been used: strip clearfelling, and selective felling. The current management plan prescribes selective felling only. This includes line thinning, selection of individual trees, singling of multi stemmed trees, and sanitary felling. Historically felling coupes were 5 ha or less and generally in the region of 2 to 3 hectares in size, with an average of 317 ha scheduled for felling annually between 1985 and 1998. Standard rotation lengths are specified as 61 years for aspen, 71 years for birch, 121 years for pine.

Restocking has been achieved through a combination of natural regeneration (mostly birch) and planting (mostly pine).

3.2 Environmental and socioeconomic context.
Most of Kosikha District is occupied by agricultural land or forest. There are 30 000 people resident in the District. The agricultural land was historically managed as 12 collective farms. These still exist as management units and are run as co-operatives with most families as members. Some members of collective farms have opted to exercise their recently acquired right to claim ownership of an area of agricultural land in order to run their own farming enterprise. The collective farms typically have funding problems with incomes low by comparison to financial commitments. Further investment and lack of resources are seen as problems.

The forest area managed by KFE is owned by the Federal Government with control being passed to AGROLES by means of a 49 year lease commencing 1999. It has been suggested that responsibility for the Farm Forests may in the future pass to the Federal Forest Service. However, the current responsibility for the area is clear.

The local economy lacks cash flow and KFE is seen as an important local employer. KFE pays salaries to its employees (and on time). Domestic heating fuel is an essential commodity in western Siberia and the fuel wood requirements of local people are met from the forest. The forest provides other non timber benefits to local people such as grazing for cattle, mushroom and berry collection, and sites for honey production.

The forest areas are also seen as providing an important protective function around villages and settlements, as shelter/windbreaks to the agricultural land and as protective zones adjacent to water courses (some soils are prone to water erosion).

3.4 Products produced
Round timber and sawn boards are currently produced. There may be investment in further processing in the future. Principal species are Silver birch (Betulus pendula), Aspen (Populus tremula), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), with birch as the only species currently used to produce sawn boards.

3.5 Chain of custody
KFE is applying for joint certification of its forest management and chain of custody up to the point at which timber leaves the KFE sawmills. A separate report has been prepared for evaluation of the sawmill chain of custody.

4.0 THE CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

4.1 Assessment dates: 6th to 10th September 1999.

4.2 Assessment team: The assessment team consisted of:

• Kevin Jones (Team leader)
• Nigel Dudley
• Andrei Laletin
• Yuri Vinokurov

4.3 Peer review: The Inspection report and draft Woodmark decision was reviewed by a Peer Review Panel consisting of:

• Martyn Baguely: Forestry consultant, BSc (Hon) Forestry and Applied Botany, Professional, Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, previous experience working in Russia.
• Per Angelstam: Forest ecologist, senior researcher at the Grimso Wildlife Research Station at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, extensive knowledge and experience of ecology of forest ecology of North Eastern Europe and Russia.
• Steve Connolly: Practising forest manager in Scotland, with previous experience of forest management in Russia

4.4 Certification decision: The certification decision was made by Matthew Wenban-Smith, Soil Association Forestry Programme Manager.

4.5 Assessment process:
A pre assessment visit was carried out by Patrick Cooper, Woodmark Certification Officer in July /August 1997. The pre assessment visit included meetings and discussions with the forest managers, local forestry officials and academics. The visit included 6 days in-country.

The evaluation visit itself took place in September 1999. A summary is provided below.

• Discussions with timber purchasers.
• Meeting with AGROLES. Barnaul. Discussion of forest management.
• Meeting with Novosibirsk Forest Inventory. Barnaul. Discussion of forest management plan.
• Meeting Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise. Barnaul. Discussion of forest management.
• Meeting Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise. Kosikha. Inspection of office and paper systems relating to forest management.
• Discussions with Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise employees. Kosikha.
• Meeting with Chair of Geography, Altai State University. Barnaul. Discussion of land use issues.
• Meeting with professor of Botany, Altai State University. Barnaul and on site Kosikha. Discussion of flora/conservation.
• Meeting with Altai Region Environmental Committee. Barnaul. Discussion of environmental isuues.
• Meeting with Fund for 21st Century Altai (Local environmental NGO). Barnaul. Discussion of environmental issues.
• Meeting with Greenpeace Russia. Moscow. Discussion of environmental issues.

Forest site visits targeted to include samples of:

• Recently felled areas.
• Area recently restocked using natural regeneration.
• Area recently restocked by planting.
• Area of well established natural regeneration.
• Area of well established plantation.
• Area selectively thinned in the last year.
• Area with selective felling in operation and extraction in progress.
• Timber stacking areas.
• Protection zone adjacent to village.
• Protection zone adjacent to river.
• Area of adjacent Federal Forest Service managed forest.
• Areas of adjacent agricultural land were also seen.
• Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise sawmills at Kosikha and Nalobikha.

4.6 Justification for selection of items and places inspected
The on-site field inspections of the forest operation were designed to encompass a representative sample of forest and management activities. The nature of the forest was relatively uniform and not seen as being widely heterogeneous requiring a stratified sampling approach. Good quality and accurate maps have been produced and were used during the inspection.

4.7 Standard The forest was evaluated against the Woodmark International Generic Standard. The draft standard was circulated to a variety of stakeholders in May 1999. Detailed comments were subsequently received from Greenpeace Russia, the official FSC Contact Person in Russia. Comments were also received from Mr Martyn Baguely. These comments, together with the results of the inspectors' own observations have been incorporated into the Generic Standard to create a draft 'Woodmark standard for western Siberia', which is attached to this report. Copies are available from Woodmark on request. It should be emphasised that this standard should be considered as being under review. A number of FSC standards development processes are taking place in Russia, and Woodmark welcomes further comments on the standard.

5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND LAND USE CONTEXT

5.1 Administrative and legal context:
The Russian Federation is currently made up of 89 states or provinces. Their combined total area is 1,708 million hectares of which 763 million hectares is estimated to be forest (1993). All forest is owned by the Federal Government. 92% is managed directly by the Federal Forest Service and 2-3% is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture (including the area managed by KFE). The remaining areas are managed as National Parks or controlled by the Ministry of Defence.

The Federal Forest Service monitors and regulates the work being carried out by KFE, approves the annual allowable cut, and sample checks work on the ground. The local Federal Forest Service office is in Petrovsky.

Federal forest regulations define the parameters for most forest management activities in Russia. These for example specify sampling intensity for inventory, maximum felling area, felling methods and timber extraction, methods for marking and measuring timber and establishment of plantations. There are three broad classifications of forest in Russia: Category 3 - Industrial or Exploitable Forest; Category 2 - Intermediate Forest; Category 1 - Protected or Environmental Forest. (These account for 72%, 6% and 22% of national forest area respectively). The Forest Regulations frequently apply in a hierarchical way dependent upon Forest Category, for example maximum clear cut felling area in Category 3 is 50ha, in Category 2 is 20ha, and in Category 1 is 5ha. Sampling intensities for inventory also vary.

The local administration both influences and benefits from KFE's activitities. The administration approves allocations of timber and fuel wood to the collective farms. KFE pays 50% of the notional value of timber harvested to the Administration as a form of local tax. The local and regional administrations use such revenues (via national treasury) to fund the provision of local services. In 1998 c.200,000 roubles were paid.

Other departments with an interest in forest management include the Regional Wildlife Department which monitors wildlife and issues hunting licences; and the Regional Administration Environmental Protection Committee who monitors environmental issues and designates protected areas.

An organisational chart describing the division of responsibilities between different departments at the national, regional and district levels is included in the full report for FSC.

5.2 Land use context:

The area in which the forest lies is a mosaic of forest and farmland with the agricultural land managed by 12 collective farms. Principal crops include wheat, barley, oats, buck wheat, maize, and some sunflower. Terrain is generally flat or gently undulating and fields are generally large and unfenced. Cattle and to a lesser extent sheep are grazed on areas of pasture as well as within forest areas. The forest areas provide an important protective function in terms of providing shelter to crops and stock as well as acting as a buffer adjacent to water courses as soil can be prone to water erosion. In addition to the forest areas most of the collective farms have planted shelter belts, principally aspen, to provide additional protection.

KFE is important to local people and the collective farms through provision of timber used for construction and fuel wood. Each family is allowed an allocation of six cubic metres of fuel wood, families apply to their collective farms for their allocation and the collective farms in turn apply to the Forest Enterprise. Once the application has been approved by the local administration a fee is paid and the timber is supplied. Construction timber is supplied in a similar way.

The Federal Forest Service itself owns and manages about 21 916 ha of forest in the Kosikha District. These areas are in some cases contiguous with the Agricultural Forests, they are frequently pine plantations (pine is seen as the main economic species).

6.0 THE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
The management plan for the forest has been prepared by a specialist unit based in Novosibirsk. This is one of twelve national centres which can be contracted to carry out inventory work and prepare a forest management plan. The centre is part of the Federal Forest Service. The current management plan was prepared during 1999 and covers a ten year period. Most of the prescriptions in the management plan refer to regulations and implementation in the field is controlled by them.

6.1 Summary of basic information, quantitative and qualitative, about the forest management enterprise.

6.1.1 Ownership of the land, forest and forest management enterprise.
Land is owned by the State, it is controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture and managed by Kosikhinsky Forest Enterprise which is part of AGROLES on the basis of a 49 year lease.

6.1.2 Management area and its main divisions.
The total forest area is 42,000 hectares. Of this 32,712 hectares are included in the management plan. The remaining area is made up of small blocks less than 2 ha which were not included in the inventory and management plan and for which no management is planned. These areas are generally used as shelter belts for agricultural areas, and in general are spreading.

KFE divides the forest into two broad areas for administrative purposes each with a head forester and sawmill. There is a further division into the twelve areas covered by each collective farm. Overall there are hundreds of small blocks of woodland compartments. A detailed map submitted with the report is filed at the Woodmark office.

6.1.3 Forest composition
The forest area is predominantly birch (89%) with some aspen (6%) and Scots pine (5%). Stands are generally fairly uniform in age structure and overall age structure is maturing. The mean age for Birch is currently 57 whilst in 1985 it was 48.

6.2 Summary of the forest management system

6.2.1 Management objectives
Historically management objectives have been determined at the State level. Managers at the Regional and District levels have not been involved with the development and specification of objectives for the forests they manage. However, the current management plan was prepared with a specific view towards achieving FSC certification and particular reference is made to areas which are required to be addressed by FSC principles and criteria. The management objectives are stated as follows:

Aim To establish a system of operations covering the period for 1999 to 2009, which is directed towards efficient forest management and forest resource use, rational, effective regeneration, and protection of the forest and to put into practice an integrated scientific and technical policy of forest management.

Objectives
To gather accurate and up to date information regarding forest resources of the region's village forests which are included in the state's forest survey and in the state's calculation of forest resources; forest monitoring. This information will contribute towards scientifically based forest use of forest stands, regeneration measures; guarding and protection of the forest, control of forest use, analysis of forest operations, which will take place over the period of the plan. It also shows control of forest use, and includes an analysis of the quality of forest operations carried out in the previous 13 years.

As part of the review process for the preparation of the new management plan the Forest Category was up graded from Category 2 to Category 1. This limits the extent of some forest operations and affords additional protection.

6.2.2 Silvicultural and management systems
The whole forest area is being managed as high forest. Standard rotation lengths are given as 61 years for aspen, 71 years for birch, 121 years for pine. Under the previous management plan some clear felling was carried out with coupe sizes below 5 ha and generally in the region of 2-3 ha. These clear fellings were generally strip fellings c.50 metres wide implemented in the lee of existing forested areas. Selective felling is now the only identified harvesting method.

Selective felling includes line thinning, selection of individual trees, singling of multi stemmed trees, and sanitary felling (removal of trees with dead/dry tops, damaged by fire or affected by pests/diseases/fungi).

Restocking has been achieved through a combination of natural regeneration (principally birch) and planting (principally pine) at 4000-5000 plants/ha. The proportion of birch present in plantation areas reflects the degree of maintenance through cleaning and weeding which resources allowed. Indeed in many of these areas birch would be the naturally occurring principal species making establishment of pine difficult. There has been a general preference for establishing pine as this is the principal economic species and is poorly represented in the area. This approach has resulted in an increase in the area of pine from between 1985 and 1999. This is reflected in the average age of pine dropping from 25 years to 22 years, and the average standing volume dropping from 104 m3 /ha to 80 m3 /ha in the same period

6.2.3 Principal harvesting techniques
All trees for felling are marked by one of the local foresters. The area to be worked is defined by a technical working instruction accompanied by a map. This includes the volume of timber to be removed. A sample area is defined, marked and measured. The volume marked is assessed against the planned volume removal and marking is adjusted accordingly. The whole of the area to be worked is then marked on the basis of the sample area. The working instruction describes the felling and extraction methods to be used.

There are two harvesting gangs in Kosikha District one in each of the two main forest divisions. Each comprises four men, one tractor driver, one chainsaw operator/tree feller, and two operatives. Single trees are felled by chainsaw and extracted using a tracked skidding tractor to a predetermined stacking and conversion area. Trees are generally extracted to this point with most or all branch wood. The two operatives then remove branches using axes, with the chainsaw used if particularly heavy branches are encountered. Whole tree lengths (typically 20-25m long) are then stacked to await collection by timber lorry. All logs are marked with a coloured paint cross across the base. Brushwood, lop and top is piled up using the blade on the front of the skidding tractor. If this is thought to present a future fire risk the brash is burnt. Otherwise it may be left in situ. Some brushwood is collected by local people and used as a soil conditioner for vegetable growing.

Tree lengths are collected by timber lorry and transported to one of the two sawmills where lengths for milling are cross cut using electrically powered chainsaw, and lower grade timber is cut into firewood lengths for collection or delivery.

Some sales of timber to the collective farms are made as standing sales. Once the quantity to be purchased has been identified a felling licence is issued. Marking and measuring of timber follow the same model as above. The work is implemented by the collective farm or contractors and monitored by the Forest Enterprise.

6.3 Estimates of maximum sustainable yield for commercial products.
Annual allowable cut is calculated as 44,100 m3 /year. Projected actual cut is estimated at 13,500 m3 /ha /year.

6.3.1 Explanation of the assumptions (e.g. silvicultural) on which estimates are based.
25,319 ha of the forest has been identified for production purposes. Stands have been measured and production classes assessed (Bonitet Class). Mean standing volumes are estimated at 156m3/ha for birch (mean age 57 years) and 80 m3 /ha for pine (mean age 22 years). Weighted mean standing volume is estimated at 135 m3/ha. Overall the mean annual increment is estimated at 2.5 m3 /ha /year.

On the harvestable area of 25,319 ha this would amount to a total standing volume of approximately 3.4 million m3. The Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) of 44,100 m3 would account for removal of 1.3% of this current volume. AAC would account for c. 70% of the estimated an annual increment of 63,297 m3 /yr. The Annual Allowable Cut is therefore set within safe limits in relation to annual increment and standing volume.

Actual planned production based on current production capacity and demand for timber is 15,000 m3 /yr, which is well below the AAC. Production achieved has generally been less than the planned production at around 12,000 to 13,000 m3 /yr.

The total forested area covers 42,000 ha of which 32,712 ha is covered in the management plan. The forested area is steadily increasing as land is lost from agricultural production. In addition to the harvestable area identified in the management plan there is approximately 10,000ha of woodland in small blocks less than 2 ha. This provides an additional unquantified reserve of timber.

6.3.2 Source of data on which estimates are based
The volume and productivity estimates are based on an inventory carried out during 1998/99 by the Novosibirsk Inventory Institute/Enterprise. The inventory included mapping and field measurement exercises. Recent aerial photographs were used and digitised onto a GIS base (ArcView). A total of 6000ha were mensurated in detail and 500 increment bores were taken to confirm growth rates and ages. Detailed maps were produced and on the basis of ground observations and use in the field were considered accurate.

6.3.3 Basis for monitoring yield in the future
Inventory is planned on a ten-year cycle. Volumes felled are recorded in detail by compartment. Rather unusually, the recent and current challenges of management appear to be related to under-harvesting against predicted cuts rather than over-harvesting. Given the young age of maturity for birch this may create problems in the future with large areas becoming over-mature at the same time. The implications of this need to be considered by management to determine whether this is likely to become a significant problem.

6.4 Rationale for annual harvest in terms of volumes and species
The annual harvest is estimated at 15,000 m3. This is based on demand for timber and production capacity.

6.5 Safeguards for maintaining biodiversity
There is one protected area of 84 hectares designated on the basis of the population of Lady's Slipper orchid. It is designated as a Natural Monument and a forest guard has been appointed specifically to safeguard this area. Whilst this is a very low proportion of the total forest area, there are other areas in which biodiversity is favoured, though not as an explicit objective.

Protection zones are identified in the management plan on the basis of the protective function they fulfill in terms of shelter and as zones adjacent to watercourses. They account for 6605 hectares. Forest operations in these areas are limited to some sanitary felling. The role of these protected areas is not currently seen as maintenance of biodiversity although the site visits clearly demonstrated that these areas were the most diverse in terms of age structure, species composition, ground flora, dead wood habitats and other habitats (glades, water bodies). These observations were confirmed by the Professor of Botany from Altai State University. The biodiversity in these areas, as within all areas of the forest, was diminished where regular grazing takes place. A recommendation in the new management plan recognizes grazing as a potential problem and suggests that controls be implemented over 20,000 hectares.

Further work is recommended for the identification of specific areas to be managed with biodiversity as the major objective (see conditions).

6.6 Plans for identification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species
A botanical survey of the whole of the forest area has been carried out by Andrei Kuprianov, Professor of Botany at the Altai State University. This identifies red data book species at the national and regional level and makes some proposed additions to the regional list. The survey does not yet identify key areas of forest where rare species are located or where additional protection measures would be appropriate.

The Regional Environmental State Protection Committee and Wildlife Service also gather and assess environmental data. Two additional protected areas have been proposed on the basis of this information one in the vicinity of a lake and the other adjacent to an area where beaver colonies are present.

Survey information from the above sources has yet to be fully integrated into the new management plan (see condition 2).

6.7 MAP(S) (Included in full report for FSC)

7.0 OBSERVATIONS

7.1 Observations were recorded systematically using the FSC Woodmark Generic Standard and Checklist. This is included in the full report. Additional field notes were written up and used as the basis for this report. Additional information submitted with this report is archived at the Woodmark office which provides supporting evidence for the findings presented below.

8.0 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

8.1 FSC Principle 1: General compliance with laws and FSC Principles

Strengths:

• (Criteria 1.1, 1.2) There were no observed non compliances with national or regional laws or regulations.
• (Criteria 1.5) The forest area is well protected by forest guards.
• (Criteria 1.6) There is a clear commitment to working to FSC principles.

Weaknesses.

• (Criterion 1.4) Some of the forest regulations sit uncomfortably with FSC criteria and aspects of the Woodmark standard used. In particular the extraction of trees with all branchwood to stacking areas and burning of lop and top; and the practice of sanitary felling. Whilst the extraction practice does achieve minimal wastage (nb Criterion 5.3) it also removes more biomass than may be necessary. Sanitary felling results in the removal of dead, diseased or dying trees, even in protection zones. Both practices are understandable in the context of reducing pest outbreaks in what are largely monocultural stands but do narrow the range of ecological opportunities and limit biodiversity. Reduction of brash, lop and top is also appropriate in terms of reducing fire risk as low level ground fires in the forest are not uncommon. In reality resources dictate some branch wood, lop and top is left in situ following extraction, and dead fallen and standing wood is in fact present particularly in protection zones. In discussion with managers there appeared to be a willingness to formalise this practice and prepare management guidelines for protection zones, identifying these areas as areas where biodiversity is to be enhanced and protected.

8.2 FSC Principle 2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities

Strengths:

• (Criterion 2.1) Land tenure is clearly defined.
• (Criteria 2.2, 2.3) Local people have access to and benefit from the forest, and rights are defined in regulations and local administrative structures.

Weaknesses:

• (Criterion 2.1) Responsibility for the land is based on a 49 year lease. However, the Federal Forest Service wishes to re-negotiate this position.
• Some contiguous areas of forest are managed by the Federal Forest Service, and are not covered by the same management plan. However, there is a strong possibility that the next management plan for this area may be produced by the Novosibirsk Forest Inventory Institute in which case the two areas would be given an integrated approach.

8.3 FSC Principle 3: Permissive and customary uses, and protection of cultural features. Indigenous people are present in the Altai region , principally in the more mountainous areas adjacent to Mongolia. There are none native to the Kosikha area.

8.4 FSC Principle 4: Community relations and workers' rights.

Strengths:

• (Criterion 4.1) The Kosikha Forest Enterprise is seen as an important local employer and all employees are local.
• (Criterion 4.2, 4.3) Employees rights and benefits are clearly defined in a voluntary treaty between the employer and union.
• (Criterion 4.4) Local people rely upon forest products and benefit from the forest, there are well established mechanisms for communicating with forest managers.

Weaknesses:

• (Criterion 4.2) Whilst national legal requirements are met with regard to health and safety, and clear systems are in place to manage and monitor labour safety, standards for protective equipment are lower than would be expected in other parts of the world. There is scope to improve standards above national statutory requirements.

8.5 FSC Principle 5: Long term viability, local employment, minimisation of waste and damage.

Strengths:

• (Criterion 5.1) There is a thorough and structured production and financial plan for the whole enterprise (Promfinplan).
• (Criterion 5.2) All primary processing is carried out locally and further processing is being considered.
• (Criterion 5.3) Whole tree lengths are transported from forest to mill and no timber is wasted as all off cuts are used for fuel wood.
• (Criterion 5.4) The forest provides non timber benefits including pasturage, honey production, mushrooms, berries which are available to local people.
• (Criterion 5.6) Harvesting rates are well within sustainable levels.

Weaknesses.

• (Criterion 5.4) Sawn timber sales are purely birch and reliant upon a limited market.

8.6 FSC Principle 6: Environmental impact

Strengths:

• (Criterion 6.1) Botanical survey has been carried out. One red data book species has been identified and a specific protection area (Natural Monument) been established and is protected and monitored. Beaver are reported to have reappeared recently, suggesting that biological conditions are improving.
• (Criterion 6.2) 6500 ha (c.20%) of the area is excluded from full commercial logging. Protection zones exist around villages and waterways (6290 ha.), hospitals (53 ha.), on forest with insufficient commercial volume (5 ha.), steep slopes (2 ha). These protection zones are clearly defined and cover more than 15% of the managed forest area. Full commercial logging does not take place in these areas though sanitary felling does take place. In the Natural Monument area to protect the Lady's Slipper orchid (84 ha) is forest protected from all logging.
• Inappropriate hunting/fishing is controlled.
• (Criterion 6.3) Forest management and silviculture are low impact and appropriate to the ecosystem.
• (Criterion 6.5) Forests are seen as providing a protective function with regard to water courses. There are clear written guidelines designed to minimise forest damage during harvesting.
• (Criterion 6.6, 6.7) Synthetic chemicals are not used.

Weaknesses:

• (Criterion 6.1) There is little formal incorporation of botanical survey information into management proposals. There is scope for identification of further protected areas on the basis of rare species/communities identified in surveys.
• (Criterion 6.2) Whilst 'protection zones' do provide for protection of biodiversity interest this is not a clearly defined management objective of these zones. There is scope for reviewing and re-defining the purpose of these zones. Only 84 ha. of the total management area is fully protected from commercial harvesting (in order to protect population of Lady's Slipper orchid). Whilst larger areas are left unharvested by default due to lack of demand for timber such areas are not selected to maximise the conservation benefits.
• (Criterion 6.3) Management policies (e.g. sanitary felling) is aimed to prevent accumulation of dead wood. Whilst dead fallen and standing wood is found, particularly in protection zones, this has not to date been a deliberate management policy to promote ecological diversity.
• (Criterion 6.4) Representative examples of ecosystems are not protected in their natural state.
• (Criterion 6.10) In some areas where felling of birch has taken place on soils which would naturally support birch, pine has been planted. Pine is also native in the area but on sandier soils. Overall this is on a relatively small area. There is scope to review this practice and target pine planting to more naturally appropriate soil types.

8.7 FSC Principle 7: Management planning

Strengths:

• (Criterion 7.1) There is a well prepared management plan based on a thorough inventory with detailed maps (GIS generated) and work programmes. The plan covers all aspects relevant to FSC criteria. Woodmark recognises and commends the efforts that KFE has made to develop a management plan to satisfy the requirements of certification.

Weaknesses:

• (Criterion 7.2) There is a need to incorporate recent survey and monitoring results in order to revise and update the plan.

8.8 FSC Principle 8: Monitoring and chain of custody

Strengths:

• (Criteria 8.1, 8.2) There is a well structured forest monitoring system.
• (Criterion 8.3) There is a well structured system to enable chain of custody monitoring through Felling Licences and financial documents.

Weaknesses:

• (Criterion 8.4) There is a need to incorporate recent survey and monitoring results in order to revise and update the plan.

8.9 FSC Principle 9: Maintenance high conservation value forests Strengths:

• (Criteria 9.1, 9.3) An area of high conservation value forest has been identified and there are protection measures in place.

Weaknesses:

• (Criterion 9.1) There is scope for identifying further areas of high conservation value forest.

8.10 FSC Principle 10: Plantation design and species selection.
Management is based on regeneration of naturally occurring species supplemented by planting, and assessment of the requiremements of FSC Principle 10 was not considered appropriate.

9.0 MONITORING

9.1 Approximate annual yield of all forest products harvested. 12-13,000cu.m.

9.2 Summary of growth rates, regeneration and condition of the forest.
Overall mean annual increment c. 2.5 m3 /ha /year (See 6.3.1). In general the area of forest is increasing as agricultural land is abandoned. There is an ongoing concern regarding the planting and regeneration of pine, which should be monitored. The main cause of failure (65%) is considered to be competition with birch and aspen and lack of weeding. This may be considered a case of inappropriate planting rather than failure of regeneration however. 6% of failure is accounted to grazing by cattle or wild herbivores.

9.3 Main elements of composition and observed changes in the flora and fauna (to be completed after five years).

9.4 Summary of environmental and social impacts of harvesting and other operations Minimal environmental impact with a concentration on selective felling. In general there is protection of environmental values through neglect rather than active management. Social benefits in terms of firewood, employment, contribution to local tax revenues, recreation, grazing, NTFPs as described below.

10.0 OTHER ACTIVITIES

10.1 Summary of other activities being undertaken within the area evaluated:

• Operation of collective farms
• Federal Forest Service forest management
• Kosikha Forest Enterprise sawmills
• Apiary
• Wildlife Service and operation of hunting licences

10.2 Evaluation of the impact, or potential impact, of such activities on the forest management enterprise. The main impact of agricultural activity on the forest is through grazing. This is most concentrated in areas near settlements, however 25 000 ha. overall is open to pasture. It is forbidden to put livestock out to pasture when unaccompanied by a shepherd, but there appear to be breaches of control. Grazing does not appear to be having a major impact preventing regeneration as a whole (in fact, the forest area is increasing due to abandonment of some agricultural land), nor in the newly planted areas. However, in areas close to villages grazing appears to be a problem, leading to reduced regeneration and possible soil compaction. Grazing also has a more significant impact on natural regeneration in the forest, leading to pressure on the under-storey. With increased reliance on natural regeneration in a selection system this issue needs to be addressed (see 13.7 and associated recommendation). Grazing also takes place in the protection zones around villages, reducing potential environmental benefits.

Some forest areas managed by the Federal Forest Service are adjacent to areas managed by the Kosikha Forest Enterprise. The two bodies may use shared access routes, and if there were to be a major clear fell in an area of Federal Forest this could have an impact on KFE forest e.g. increase likelihood of windblow.

The KFE sawmills have a positive impact on forest management in terms of generating demand for timber as sawlogs. A major shut down of one or both of the mills could have a negative impact on forest production levels.

The apiary consists of over one hundred hives and generates additional produce and income in the local economy.

The Wildlife Service issue hunting licences.

11.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Stakeholders were identified and informed of the evaluation in May 1999, and were sent copies of the Woodmark International Generic Standard for comment. Stakeholders were subsequently informed of the dates of the evaluation in August 1999 and comments were requested. A series of visits and interviews with stakeholders took place during the evaluation including: the Ministry of Agriculture, Novosibirsk Forest Inventory Enterprise, Altai State University, Regional Administration Environmental Protection Committee, Fund for 21st Century Altai and Greenpeace Russia. In addition the FSC representative in Russia was invited to attend the evaluation as an observer, but was unable to be present due to other commitments. However Anna Laletina was able to attend as an observer on behalf of the west Siberian group setting up an FSC standards development process. A full list of those contacted is presented in the full report.

11.1 Stakeholders directly influenced by the enterprise:

• Collective farms and local communities.
• Employees
• District Administration
• Timber buyers

11.2 Summary of use-rights which relate to the land and forest within the scope of evaluation: The following formal and informal use-rights exist within the forest lands. There was no evidence that any rights were curtailed unreasonably. There is a potential conflict of interest between access for grazing and protection of regeneration. In the future it is expected that grazing will be restricted in some areas in order to allow regeneration.

• Grazing of cows and to a lesser extent sheep, when accompanied by shepherd
• Collection of brush wood
• Access to fire wood
• Collection of berries and mushrooms
• Around 100 beehives are placed in and around the forest
• Medicinal herbs are collected
• Recreation
• Hunting of hare and deer under licence

11.3 government organisations involved in forest management
Representatives of the following organisations were interviewed during the evaluation:

• AGROLES. Altai Regional Section of Ministry of Agriculture Division of Agricultural Forests.
• Novosibirsk Forest Inventory Institute, part of Federal Forest Service.
• Altai Regional Administration Environmental Protection Committee.

11.4 Non-government organisations with an interest in forest management
Representatives of the following organisations were interviewed during the evaluation:

• Altai State University Botany Department.
• Altai State University Geography Department.
• Greenpeace Russia.
• Fund for 21st Century Altai (Environmental NGO).

FSC Russia working group were represented throughout in an observational capacity.

12.0 TRACKING, TRACING AND IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCTS

2.1 Evaluation of the risk of products from non certified sources being mixed with products from the forest area evaluated KFE operates two small sawmills which supply sawn birch boards. The chain of custody arrangements for the sawmills are described in a separate report.

Chain of custody to the sawmills from the forest is controlled by means of Felling Licences. Each harvesting operation requires a felling licence which is specific to the area to be harvested. These licenses are sequentially numbered and relate to specific technical working instructions which identify in detail the area to be worked, and the volume removed. Felling is carried out by one of two felling gangs each of which operates in one of the two main forest divisions. The logs are marked at the base with a coloured paint cross. Logs are transported by timber lorry in whole lengths to one of the two sawmills, each of which serves one of the two main forest divisions within the district. A delivery ticket accompanies each delivery quoting felling licence number and volume delivered. It is therefore possible to trace timber from the mill to the particular compartment from which it came.

The two mills only convert produce from KFE forests and only convert birch sawlogs to planks and firewood.

There is a theoretical risk that KFE could receive timber from another district or from the Federal Forest Service Forests in the same District. As areas planted with pine become productive in a few decades time there may be a need to mill pine.

12.2 Description of the control systems in place that address the risk identified in 12.1 above There is good documentation to specify and control felling operations and timber movements to the two mills which, combined with the paint marking system, provide for good traceability. The system is also straightforward as KFE only supplies timber to its own mills and the mills only receive timber from their own forest districts. Neighbouring districts are similarly self contained and supply between districts is not provided for within the administrative structure. In addition it was considered that transport costs across districts would provide an obstacle to this practice. There does nevertheless remain a theoretical risk that this could be attempted. Checks against this practice would be to reconcile total timber inputs to the two mills with total timber outputs and to audit all paper work related to receipt and supply of timber. Overall the risks are considered low.

12.3 Description of the final point at which the certification body guarantees that product is sourced from the forest area evaluated. Sawn boards from the saw mills at Kosikha and Nalobikha.

12.4 Description of the documentation or marking system that allows products from the certified forest area to be reliably identified as such at the point specified in 12.3 above. Paint marks on all sawn boards and round saw logs. Cross referenced to Felling Licence number. Supply invoices quote Felling Licence number and number, size, and volume of boards supplied. The Felling Licence number allows timber supplied to customers to be traced back to forest compartment of origin.

13.0 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 Implementation of the FSC Woodmark Standard is based on conformance with every requirement of the standard. For each FSC Criterion a score of between 1 (major non-compliance) and 5 (outstanding performance) is allocated. In order for a certificate to be issued there must be no major non-compliances, and the average score for every FSC Principle should be at least 3.0.

13.2 A summary of the scores for each FSC Principle is presented in the table below. The full list is held at the Woodmark office.

SUMMARY OF SCORES FOR EACH FSC PRINCIPLE

Principle   Score
    1        3
    2        3
    3        NA
    4        3.4
    5        3.7
    6        2.9
    7        3.3
    8        3.4
    9        3
   10        NA

13.3 The weakest area with regard to the FSC Principles and Criteria was Principle 6: Environmental Impact. The average score on this Principle was 2.9, which would normally preclude certification. In particular performance was weak with respect to Criteria 6.2 (protection of biodiversity) and 6.10 (conversion to plantation). These are both discussed below. The other area of concern was with regard to Criterion 4.2 (Health and safety) in the forest and in the sawmills.

13.4 Criterion 4.2: The inspection found that health and safety requirements conformed with national legislation. However, additional efforts could be made to protect the health and safety of workers both in the forest and in the sawmills. It should be noted that although a description of the findings with respect to the sawmill is presented in a separate report, assessment is part of the joint forest and chain of custody evaluation for KFE. The following is therefore proposed as a condition to certification:

DRAFT CONDITION 1:
Before the next annual monitoring visit KFE managers shall have investigated the potential for investment in personal protective equipment for forest and sawmill workers, and presented their findings in the form of a written report. The report shall identify the priority needs, potential sources of protective equipment, and the probable cost. Further conditions may be based on the findings of the report at the next monitoring visit.

13.5 Criterion 6.2: The inspection identified a common theme related to management for biodiversity. Whilst biodiversity values appeared to be sufficiently protected in practice, this could be greatly improved through proactive policies and planning. In the current economic climate of low demand for forest products and hence low pressure on the forest biodiversity values are maintained. However, should demand for forest products improve (which is a hope for forest management) biodiversity may come under greater pressure. It must be emphasised that the relative lack of formal, proactive policies and plans with respect to protection of biodiversity would normally be considered a major non-compliance, and would have to be corrected prior to the issue of a certificate. This is reflected in the overall score for Principle 6 of only 2.9 - again, this would usually require the issue of pre-conditins rather than conditions. The following are proposed as conditions rather than pre-conditions for certification only because biodiversity is not considered to be under imminent threat from harvesting activities.

DRAFT CONDITION 2:
2.1 Within one year:
A formal review of the forest area shall be carried out in consultation with relevant scientific and environmental organisations (such as the University of Altai Botanical Department and the Environmental Protection Committee) in order to identify the most important areas for protection of plant and animal biodiversity.

2.2 Within two years:
The results of this review shall be used to designate and clearly identify at least 5% of the forest area as a reserve area protected from harvesting, in which the maintenance of biodiversity will be the primary objective. The forest management plan shall be adapted accordingly.

DRAFT CONDITION 3:
3.1 Within one year:
Current requirements to carry out sanitary fellings in protection zones shall be reviewed in the light of current knowledge with respect to the potential environmental benefits of standing and fallen dead wood, as well the potential negative impacts of pests on the commercial viability of the remaining forest area.

3.2 Within two years:
Management guidelines shall be produced and implemented on the basis of the findings of this review, with a view to maximising the potential for biodiversity within the forest matrix whilst not jeopardising the commercial viability of the productive areas of the forest.

13.6 It was notable that there is a high failure rate (up to 65%) for re-establishment of pine due to competition with birch and aspen. Whilst it is probably possible to reduce this failure rate through a more aggressive policy of weed control, it is not clear that this would be the most appropriate use of resources, or the most appropriate planting policy. In areas where the natural woodland would be dominated by birch, conversion to pine represents an effective conversion to a plantation system. The alternative would be to introduce a more selective system for deciding where to plant pine on the basis of consideration of soil and site characteristics, whilst maximising the use of natural regeneration of birch and alder in sites where these species naturally prosper. Woodmark concluded that the current decision making process for the planting of pine needs to be reviewed. The following condition is therefore proposed:

DRAFT CONDITION 4:
The policy with respect to site selection for areas on which to establish pine shall be reviewed with the aim of limiting planting of pine to sites where pine is expected to thrive naturally, whilst maximising the use of natural regeneration of birch on sites where this is the naturally dominant species.

13.7 Rather unusually, the recent and current challenges of management appear to be related to under-harvesting against predicted growth rather than over-harvesting. Partly as a result there is a high proportion of relatively mature, even-aged forest. Given the young age of maturity for birch this may create problems in the future with large areas becoming over-mature at the same time. The implications of this need to be considered by management and built into subsequent management programmes to ensure that it does not become a significant problem for the long term continuity of timber supply and management inputs. A monitoring programme is already in place. It is recommended that attention is given to the long term development of the forest in the context of actual levels of harvesting over the next few years. Findings will be reviewed at subsequent monitoring visits, and further conditions may be proposed if significant problem appears to be developing.

13.8 Finally, management has identified the conflict between grazing of cattle in the forest and natural regeneration of tree species in the selective management system. A general proposal has been made in the management plan to limit grazing in an area of almost 20 000ha. This proposal needs further development in order that it should be implemented. Further thought be given to this issue, to be discussed at the next monitoring visit. Additional recommendations or conditions may then be proposed.

13.9 In conclusion, on the basis of the observations presented by the inspectors, and the issues discussed in Sections 8 and 13 above and the comments of the Peer reviewers, it is proposed to issue a certificate subject to agreement to the conditions specified in Section 2.

Share |

Back to top of this page

Back to Homepage

Mail us!