Update on Russian Forest Sector: WWF View

Elena Kulikova, WWF Russia

January, 26, 2007

Chatham House, London

Content

• Attitude of political authorities• New Forest Code• Expecting changes• ENA FLEG• Business as a partner

•Forest complex is in the focus of Russian political authorities

•Forest sector problems are discussed with personal involvement of the President

Vladimir PutinHigh Level Meeting of Forest Sector,

April, 6, 2006, Syktyvkar• Forests – one of the economic advantages of Russia• Russian forest as an environmental protection of not

only the country but the planet• Our leadership in round wood export volume is direct

loss of natural resources (necessity of wood processing)

• Serious attention needs to be paid to the quality characteristics of Russian forests

• Illegal logging and direct losses of 5 billion rubles

Vladimir Putin:3 Particular Requests

• How to intensify forest use and improve forest infrastructure?

• Forest regeneration, reforestation and quality of forests

• Illegal logging – Plan of Actions

New Forest Code Development

• Civilized practice of forest relations reforms: analysis of current situation – dialogue with the public and stakeholders – National forest policy – new Forest Code

• These principles were not followed• Lack of openness and transparency while the

process of the Code development and discussion• Chaotic character of discussion and approval at the

state level• NGOs – mutually agreed set of amendments in the

format of the State Duma

© WWF России / Владимир Филонов

Post card to the Russian

President

New Forest Code Character

• Not forestry oriented• Pro-industry oriented• “Frame” character• A lot of work to finalize forest legislation. 42 sub-

ordinate normative acts need to be developed at the federal level, all together 78 with regional norms

Major Changes

• Maximum decentralization of forest management and use system in Russia

• Delivery of responsibilities on forest management, use and protection to the regional level (subjects of the Russian Federation)

NGOs (WWF Russia, Greenpeace Russia, TRN) Comments on the Code (1)

• State ownership but some conditions for privatisation• New classification of forest use types, several categories of

protected forest type no longer exist • Designation of protected areas will become more complicated• Many existing protected areas have either been abolished or

placed to a lower level of protection by the re-classification of forest types

• The list of forest resource use types expanded

• Ecological expertise (EIA) is disappeared

NGOs (WWF Russia, Greenpeace Russia, TRN) Comments on the Code (2)

• Mechanism for public participation in decision-making is absent• Rights of indigenous people and local communities to conduct

traditional livelihoods on forested lands are not guaranteed • Vague in regulations on public access to forests• Leasing of forests is allowed for periods of 10-49 years,

absence of any obligations related to SFM, biodiversity conservation or solving social issues.

• Reorganisation of forest management structures could result in large numbers of job losses in rural areas, and increase in social problems and in illegal logging

What can we do?

• Need to actively follow the process and adapt ourselves and partners

• To be involved into development of norms

• Concentrate work at the regional level

• Forest business as a partner (environmentally responsible)

ENA FLEG: National Action Plan and Russian Federal Forestry Agency (FFA)

• Delivered to the Government (autumn, 2006) as a part of developed Programme

• Re-arranged into Programme of Measures

• No coordinating agency, responsibilities of ministries for particular measures

• Measures are presented in the Programme as normative documents, reports, meetings

14

•Main •Intermediate •Export•Internal consumption

•Cutting volumes

132132

5353

114114

9090

•Calculated consumption volume

+19

185185

204204

млн. м 3

Recognized Volumes

Social and economicSocial and economicSocial and economicSocial and economic LegislationLegislationLegislationLegislation

Sectoral and Sectoral and cross-sectoralcross-sectoralSectoral and Sectoral and cross-sectoralcross-sectoral

Recognized Root Causes and Cross-Sectoral Nature

Practical WorkRemote Sensing Monitoring 2006

Regions Area,th.ha

1 Республика Карелия 4,0

2 Республика Коми 10,9

3 Архангельская обл. 5,7

4 Вологодская область 3,0

5 Ленинградская обл. 1,5

6 Костромская область 1,0

7 Кировская область 3,0

8 Пермская область 3,9

9 Свердловская обл. 4,0

10 Красноярский край 14,5

11 Иркутская область 16,1

12 Томская область 7,0

13 Читинская область 4,1

14 Приморский край 5,7

15 Хабаровский край 10,5

16 Амурская область 1,3

17 Республика Бурятия 4,0

18 Тверская область 1,0

101,2 101,2 mln hamln ha

Area of Remote Sensing Monitoring

1

23

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

1112

13 14

1516

•Building public awareness

• Analysing scope of the problem in Russia (“balance” approach, regional reports)

•Analysis of turnover of illegal wood in the timber trade (Russia and Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Germany is done, Caucasus and Chinese study – this year)

WWF Russia Programme to Eliminate Illegal Logging

WWF Russia Programme to Eliminate Illegal Logging

• Legislation and policy reforms recommended to decision makers, in Russia

• Strong work-plan and active participation by WWF and forest industry in the Russia FLEG process

• A system for on-line integrated monitoring of illegal logging issues in Russia and a rapid response mechanism for regional government and non-governmental institutions

• Anti-illegal logging brigades• Wood tracing systems (business as a partner)

Forest Business as a Partner

• Russian companies oriented to European markets – voluntary certification as only tool- own systems of wood tracing

• Foreign companies (Finnish) - own systems of wood tracing

• Trade – Denmark, to ensure buyers

WWF Russia Current Projects on Tracing Systems

• Denmark: ”Verifying the legal origin of Russian timber” – on demand of buyer’s companies

• Finnish company:”Legality of Wood Supply”

• WWF&IKEA Partnership: “Keep It Legal”

What can we do? Ideal Case

• Legislation – new Forest Code and normative documents

• Analyse and identify weak points for tracing systems ...

• ...And improve tracing systems accordingly

Governance and Law Enforcement• Identify weak areas in law enforcement e.g. EIA,

sanitary cuttings, overlogging • Develop tracing systems• Produce set of recommendations to be included

into new normative documents

Technical Content

Companies tracing systems versus EU FLEGT• EU FLEGT, licensing schemes (Greenpeace position)• Continue to develop separate systems?

OR• Harmonize them?• Build a model how they are fit together?

Overcome Current ProblemsTechnical Content:

1,3-2,30,8-1,30,3-0,8Lower than 0,3

Intensity of wood harvesting and main Intensity of wood harvesting and main export flows of round wood from Russia export flows of round wood from Russia

in 2004in 2004

China 15,3 Mm3 Japan 5,8 Mm3

Finland 11,2 Mm3

Others5,3 Mm3

Turkey 0,9 Mm3

Total export 40,1 Mm3

Source: FFA and FCS data

Russia-China

• China: no clear intention to actively participate in ENA FLEG

• New trends in the region

• Japan markets

• US markets – Civil G “8” – Bush-Putin

Systems to identify legally-sourced woodin supply chains involving Russia and China

• 200 forest sector field staff (producers and inspectors) trained on how to identify illegally-sourced timber and on forestry legislation reforms

• Two or three demonstration pilots for “verified legal” wood in cross-border (Russian forest to China factory)

• Case study on costs and benefits of a ”verified legal” supply chain

• Recommendations to stakeholders on improved methods for legal verification of wood supply

• Video highlighting the impacts of illegal logging, the risk to companies that take no action and the approach recommended in the “keep it legal” manual

ekulikova@wwf.ru