Barents region forest sector initiative under development

Background:
In the Barents cooperation, the role of the forest sector was recognised in 1999 when an initiative was set up with the goal of improving rural development in the Boreal forest region covering the forested areas of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Northwest Russia. The forest sector initiative was formulated at the meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council on 21 April 1999. Relying on this initiative and the subsequent expert seminar organised by the WGEC/BEAC in Petrozavodsk in October 1999, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council in March 2000 in Oulu welcomed the decision to create a Forest Sector Task Force.

One of the major goals was to prepare a Northern Dimension Forest Sector Programme (NDFSP). As the Russian Ambassador Mr. A. Obukhov, Chairman of the CSO/BEAC, stated in the foreword of the programme on 14 March, 2001, the challenge ahead was enormous. It was necessary to integrate national and international development work in the areas of forest management, environmental conservation and forest industries, taking into account both field and national governmental level. From the very start it was obvious that for the sake of sustainable forestry, intensified efforts were needed to strengthen existing bilateral and multilateral cooperation between the northern nations, the European union, with its proclaimed Northern Dimension policy, and other intergovernmental institutions.

Forest sector aspects in the Barents region

The forests of the Northern Dimension area have immense global importance because of their broad expanse, their biodiversity, their role in the global carbon cycle, and their actual and potential influence on international trade in forest products. Utilisation of the forest resource has become the cornerstone of many livelihoods and social systems in the Northern Dimension region, especially in Northwest Russia where the potential successes and problems are clearly greater than in other forested regions in the North-European countries. The painful quest for a market economy has paralyzed both forest management and forest industries and created high unemployment in many rural villages in Russia.

The goal of the increased integration of the forest sector in Northern Europe is to identify and achieve common targets for sustainable forestry and livelihoods through collaboration amongst Northern Dimension countries. Achieving sustainable forestry and livelihoods will require diverse actions in different places, but all actions will have to prove ecologically beneficial, economically efficient and socially productive.

A sound policy, institutional and legal framework will always be needed, as will sustained and optimal production of forest products, protection of the environment and active contributions to people‘s livelihoods. This does not mean just sustaining timber yields – other products and services are important too and many have a high social value. Practical sustainable forestry is therefore about undertaking the best available practices, based on current scientific and traditional knowledge, which allow multiple objectives and needs to be met, without degrading the forest resources. Forest managers must define the balance of different objectives to achieve. These objectives may also change over time as different products and services become more valued, and as we learn more about what the forest can sustain.

Examples of good performance

Despite the difficulties in the forest sector’s development, there has also been positive steps taken. A major thing to consider is the fact that wood and timber exports from Northwest Russia to Finland has been close to 15 million mˆ3, on top of the millions of cubic metres exported to other countries in the region.

In the field of forest preservation tangible progress has been made. Protected area networks have a solid basis in the region, but their further development is called for by many. In western countries attempts to increase the protected area for is often in conflict with the pattern of private ownership, whilst in Russia the challenge is more one of priorities in public decision-making. Local and indigenous people have traditionally had a weak voice in such decisions, and their effective rights and capacity to negotiate need to be considerably improved.

A great number of concrete steps have been taken in the development of various types of preservation areas. The magnificent chain of preservation areas like the biosphere reserves of Oulanka and Paanajärvi along the Finnish-Russian border and Lake Vodla preserve in the eastern part of Russian Karelia or even the largest European preserves in the Republic of Komi have been and will be a challenge for international cooperation.

The Model forest concept has provided a tool to develop all the three elements of the sustainable forest management. This internationally developed concept with the balanced promotion of ecological, social and economical needs has been applied in various ways particularly in Russian Karelia, Komi and Pskov.

Forest certification is proving to be a key market-based instrument emerging from environmental concern – with impact on forest management, supply chains and policy thinking. Scandinavian countries are increasingly encouraging the spread of forests and forest products certified as sustainable, pursuing different strategies and alliances with key bodies, notably the Forest Stewardship Council and the Pan-European Forest Certification system. There are major challenges of introducing certification as an effective tool in Northwest Russia, and these have to be tackled concertedly.

Inferior level of management and utilisation of forest resources in NWR

The situation in Northwest Russia is rather different from other countries of the Northern Dimension. The forested lands of the European part of Russia cover 166 million hectares – 49 percent of the total forest area in Europe west of the Ural mountains, and more than three times that of the Nordic countries. The annual productivity of these Northwest Russian forests is estimated to be over 280 million m3. In theory, the calculation of sustainable yield and annual allowable cut should be closely related to such estimates. But calculations of this kind are questionable in the current context of institutional and economic uncertainty in the region. However, even half of this annual wood productivity, when harvested, represents a significant proportion of the European and world market for wood products, and thus changes in harvest levels can dramatically affect such markets.

The branches of forestry and forest industry – silviculture, logging, and wood processing – traditionally provided the major sources of livelihood for about 20 percent of the population of Northwest Russia. However, over the last decade this proportion has steadily declined, coinciding with a process of major change in forest management and administration which caused uncertainties in ownership, harvesting levels, and long-term impacts of the patchy implementation of different management plans.

The transition of the forest industry in response to the demands of market economy has largely changed all previously developed institutions of wood production, harvesting and utilisation. This has had dramatic consequences for living standards of employees and their communities. Between 1991 and 1998, harvesting levels in all regions decreased by 35-65 percent. However, during the last few years harvesting has gradually recovered.

The causes of this downturn in the Northwest Russian forest industry lie in the insecurity prevailing in both civil and forestry legislation, especially in rights of ownership, rent and lease relations, and in conflicting rules for harvesting, regeneration and utilisation of forest resources. The unstable economic and political situation has deterred investors who otherwise could make positive long-term contributions to development, and has attracted the less scrupulous business people.

Need for institutional and human resource development

In the rapidly evolving societies in Europe, the forestry sector has encountered a large number of unexpected barriers to development. A low interest towards traditional forestry education has been found in many countries in Western Europe. A great number of areas of higher education have been reorganised in order to meet the challenges of the younger generation. New names of disciplines like “Life Sciences“ or “Natural Resources Management“ have replaced “Silviculture“ or “Forest Technology“ in many universities. Even in the Nordic universities where forestry education has a strong foundation, many study places remained vacant.

There is a great potential in human resources of young talented people studying forestry and wood technology in the Universities of Northwest Russia. University education has been seen as a profitable investment for the future. The same attitude can be seen at the society level, especially in Russian Karelia where the Republic has placed a high priority on the progressive development of the University.

Institutional and human capacity building is one of the most challenging areas for the improved integration under the label of the Northern Dimension. Integration of the highly skilled Russian students in Natural Sciences, especially in Mathematics and Physics, into the strong orientation towards applications in western countries, gives a good basis to meet the challenges of the market, which value environmentally friendly forest products. It is difficult to foresee a boom in ground breaking innovations in the wood product sector in the western Northern Dimension countries, due to lack of interest among young people.

Northern Dimension Forest Sector Programme – cooperation and commitment, learning and development

Objectives and action points have been prioritised in the NDFSP. These need to be converted into specific implemented projects and initiatives by a diverse range of stakeholders:

1. Management of NDFSP. Development of a coherent, prioritised programme building stronger forest management systems, and fostering cross-institutional learning and complementary joint programmes.
2. Policy development. Development of forestry research and information systems, national forestry programmes, legislation and workable rules, restructuring of institutions and forest ownership, cross-sectoral policy integration, and forest environmental services.
3. Investment. Financing mechanisms, investment incentives and conditions for a diversity of production strategies, business-to-business exchanges, new markets, small- and medium-scale enterprises and company-community forestry partnerships.
4. Participation and learning. Participatory forest management, communication and extension programmes, and in-service learning systems.
5. Forestry operations. Integrated model forests, best-practice in forest-linked livelihood strategies, and local value adding forest products.

The next steps to develop the NDFSP further are also spelled out. These are:

1. Stakeholder engagement and prioritisation of actions
2. Generating political commitment
3. Developing detailed initiatives
4. ‘Ground-truthing’ the NDFSP
5. Coordination and management

Main integration principles for the forest sector of the Northern Europe

NDFSP adopts the following ‘key principles’ for national forest programmes:

National sovereignty and country leadership

Consistency with national policies and international commitments

Integration with sustainable development strategies

Partnership and participation

Holistic and inter-sectoral approaches


NDFSP is a ‘cycle’ connecting the four core elements in the continuous process

Negotiating goals and roles – stakeholders understanding each other and hammering out core aims and positions

Building institutions and prioritising actions – organising the capacity around the agreed roles and all the actions needed

Implementing practical actions for sustainable forestry and livelihoods – securing support for the prioritised actions and carrying them out

Monitoring and learning – tracking and reviewing implementation to ensure learning and adaptation

Paavo Pelkonen
The university of Joensuu

Top  |  Back  |  Home