References

gesj

GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY

2071-93882542-1565

Russian Geographical Society

10.24057/2071-9388-2022-110

gesj-2955

Research Article

RESEARCH PAPER

Статьи

Protection Of Intact Forest Landscapes In Russia: Role Of Government, MarketDriven And Buyers’ Restrictive Approaches

Ptichnikov

Andrey

Moscow, Staromonetny 29

aptichnikov@igras.ru

Dunn

Alexander

London, 4 Grenville Avenue

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of sciencesRussian FederationSustainability communication consultantUnited Kingdom

2023

28062023

162132141

2023

Ptichnikov A., Dunn A.

Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://ges.rgo.ru/jour/article/view/2955

Leading environmental organizations recognize intact forest landscapes as priority areas for conserving forests. A quarter of global intact forest landscapes (IFL), are found in Russia, and since 2000, the country has lost over 7,5% (or 21 million ha) of its IFLs due to logging, forest fires and road construction. With the projected logging rates Russia’s IFLs will completely disappear in 150 years, and IFLs that are “rich” in timber will do so in 50 years. Protection of IFLs is the serious challenge, not only due to associated biodiversity loss, but also due to outstanding carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation role of IFLs.

The objective of this research is to define the key drivers and factors and to examine how government and market-driven approaches contribute to the preservation of intact forest landscapes in Russia. A further objective is to assess the merits of consumers restriction measures, such as phase-out of IFL product purchases, as proposed by some environmentalists. According to our research, voluntary forest certification (market-driven approach) was the main tool for IFL protection in Russia until recently. A market-driven FSC voluntary certification scheme includes moratoria agreements to preserve almost 3 million ha of IFLs. Additionally, between 2010 and 2020 more than 770 thousand ha of IFLs were established in two national parks and three nature reserves in North-West Russia with the primary goal to protect IFLs, mainly in former FSC “no logging” zones. Market-driven approach is currently the main tool used to protect IFLs in Russia.

hydromorphologyecohydraulicsproglacial riverKatunAltai MountainsRussia

Mikhail Karpachevsky and Alexander Titkov from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Russia provided excellent research support and insightful feedback on an early draught of this study, which the authors gratefully acknowledge. The research was implemented in the frame of FSC project “White paper on intact forest landscapes in Russia and the Greenpeace great northern forest protection campaign” and the Institute of Geography Russian academy of sciences theme “Assessment of physical geographical, hydrological and biotical changes of environment and its consequences for establishing basics of sustainable nature management АААА-А19-119021990093-8 (FMGE-2019-0007).

References1

Anderson L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373–395, DOI: 10.1177/0891241605280449.

Basics of state policy on using, protection, safeguarding and regeneration of forests. Order of Government of Russian Federation from 26 of September 2013, 1724-R (in Russian).

Betts M.G., Wolf C., Ripple W.J., Phalan B., Millers K.A., Duarte A., et al. (2017). Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature, 547, 441–444, DOI: 10.1038/nature23285.

Cashore B., Auld G., Newsom D. (2004). Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, DOI: 10.12987/9780300133110.

Cashore B., Gale F., Newsom D., Scott D., Branford N., Coppock J. (2006). Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Countries, Report Num., Yale F&ES Publication Series: New Haven, CT, USA.

CBD (2021). First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, [online] CBD/WG2020/3/3. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf [Accessed 10 Feb. 2023].

Chazdon R.L. (2018). Protecting intact forests requires holistic approaches. Nature Ecology and Evolution, [online] 2(6), 2, p. 915. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0546-y [Accessed 10 Feb. 2023].

Conservation Biology Institute. (2018). Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes. In: Data Basin, [online] Available at: https://databasin.org/articles/c6c75b7c47fe4965a5ba55670fd28983/> [Assessed 10 Feb. 2023].

Dobrynin D., Jarlebring N.Y., Mustalahti I. et al. (2021). The forest environmental frontier in Russia: Between sustainable forest management discourses and ‘wood mining’ practice. Ambio A Journal of the Human Environment, 50(12), 2138–2152, DOI: 10.1007/s13280-021-01643-6.

Donald P., Arendarczyk B., Spooner F. and Buchanan G. (2019). Loss of forest intactness elevates global extinction risk in birds. Animal Conservation, 22(4), 341–347, DOI: 10.1111/acv.12469.

Fa J.E., Watson J.E., Leiper I., Potapov P., Evans T.D., Burgess N.D., et al. (2020). Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(3), 135–140. DOI: 10.1002/fee.2148.

FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report. Rome. The Russian Federation Forest Sector Outlook Study to 2030, DOI: 10.4060/ca9825en.

Filipchuk A.N., Malysheva N.V., Zolina T.A., Fedorov S.V., Berdov A.M., Kositsyn V.N., Yugov A.N., Kinigopulo P.S. (2022). Analytical review of the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of forests in the Russian Federation: results of the first cycle of the state forest inventory, Forestry information, 1, 5–34 (in Russian), DOI: 10.24419/LHI.2304-3083.2022.1.01.

Forest inventory instruction (with changes from 12 of May 2020). (2023), [online] Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/542621790 [Assessed 12 Jan. 2023]

FSC International. (2023), [online] Our Vision and Mission. Available at: https://ic.fsc.org:443/en/about-fsc/vision-mission. [Assessed 12 Jan. 2023].

FSC International (2023), [online] The 10 Principles. Available at: https://ic.fsc.org:443/en/certification/principles-and-criteria/the-10principles. [Assessed 12 of January 2023].

FSC ADVICE 20-007-018. (2023). Advice note for the interpretation of the default clause of Motion 65, [online] Available at: https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/consultations/current-processes/advice-note-on-the-development-of-indicators-for-the-protectionof-intact-forest-landscapes-and-indigenous-cultural-landscapes-in-brazil-canada-the-congo-basin-and-russia [Assessed 12 Jan. 2023].

FSC National Stewardship standard for Russian Federation, [online] Version 6.01. Available at: https://ru.fsc.org/preview.russian-nationalfsc-standard.a-911.pdf [Assessed 21 Feb. 2022. At the moment site is closed].

Giessen L., Burns S., Sahide M.A.K., Wibowo A. (2016). From governance to government: The strengthened role of state bureaucracies in forest and agricultural certification. Policy and Society 35(1), 71–89, DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.02.001.

Grantham H., Tibaldeschi P., Izquierdo P., Jones K., Mo K., Rainey H., et al. (2021). The emerging threat of extractives sector to intact forest landscapes. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, DOI: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.692338.

Greenpeace International (2017). Eye on taiga: How industry claimed sustainable forestry is destroying great northern forest”, [online] 6 of March 2017. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/7355/eye-on-the-taiga/ [Assessed 12 Jan. 2023].

Hansen A.J., Burns P., Ervin J., Goetz S.J., Hansen M., Venter O., et al. (2020). A policy-driven framework for conserving the best of Earth’s remaining moist tropical forests. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 4(10), 1377–1384, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-1274-7.

Hansen A.J., Noble B.P., Veneros J., East A., Goetz S.J., Supples C., et al. (2021). Toward monitoring forest ecosystem integrity within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Conservation Letters, DOI: 10.1111/conl.12822.

Heino M., Kummu M., Makkonen M., Mulligan M., Verburg P.H., Jalava M., Räsänen T.A. (2015). Forest loss in protected areas and intact forest landscapes: A global analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(10), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138918.

Hcvf.ru, (2023). High conservation value forests in Russia web-site, [online] Available at: https//www.hcvf.ru. [Assessed 12 Jan. 2023].

Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, [online] Available at: https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversityecosystem-services [Accessed 2 Nov. 2022).

Karpachevsky M. State of intact forest landscapes in Russia and the role of FSC certification in its protection. (2022). Sustainable forest management, 70 (in Russian), DOI: 10.47364/2308-541X_2022_70_3_36.

Krenke A.N., Ptichnikov A.V., Shvarts E.A., Petrov I.K. (2021). Assessments of the Forest Carbon Balance in the National Climate Policies of Russia and Canada. Doklady Earth Sciences, 501(2), 1091–1095, DOI: 10.1134/S1028334X21120060.

Mackey B., Kormos C.F., Keith H., Moomaw W.R., Houghton R.A., Mittermeier R.A., et al. (2020). Understanding the importance of primary tropical forest protection as a mitigation strategy. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 25(34), 763–787, DOI: 10.1007/s11027-019-09 891-4.

Marx A., Cuypers D. (2010). Forest certification as a global environmental governance tool: What is the macro-effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council?. Regulation and Governance, 4, 408–434, DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01088.x.

Mosse D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto Press.

Potapov P., Hansen M., Laestadius L., Turubanova S., Yaroshenko A., Thies C., Smith W., Zhuravleva I., Komarova A., Minnemeyer S., Esipova E. (2017). The last frontiers of wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600821.

PEFC Russia Standard of forest management and use. (2015). Standart lesoupravleniya I lesopolzovania, [online] Available at: http://www.pefc.ru/doc/PEFC-RUSSIA-ST-01-2015_16%2002%202016_RUS_16022016.pdf [Assessed 21 Feb. 2022].

Ptichnikov A., Karpachevskiy M. (2020). Impact assessment research of Motion 65 implementation for boreal forests of the Russian Federation. Motion 34/2017 report. FSC Russia.

Ptichnikov A.V., Shvarts E.A., Kuznetsova D.A. (2021). The Greenhouse Gas Absorption Potential of Russian Forests and Possibilities for Carbon Footprint Reduction for Exported Domestic Products. Doklady Earth Sciences, 499(2), 683-685, DOI: 10.1134/S1028334X21080122.

Sabatini F.M., Keeton W.S., Lindner M., Svoboda M., Verkerk P.J., Bauhus J., et al. (2020). Protection gaps and restoration opportunities for primary forests in Europe. Diversity and Distributions, 26(12), 1646–1662, DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13158.

The FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard of Russian Federation. (2022), [online] National Standard (NS). Available at: https://fsc.org/en/document-centre/documents/resource/183 [Assessed 12 Jul. 2022].

The National Strategy for the Development of the Forest Sector of Russian Federation until 2030. (2021) (in Russian). Government decree №312-p from 11.02.2021.

Tysiachniouk M. (2006). Forest Certification in Russia. Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Countries. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies: New Haven, CT, USA, 261–297.

Watson J.E., Evans T., Venter O., Williams B., Tulloch A., Stewart C., et al. (2018). The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature, Ecology and Evolution, 2, 599–610, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x.

Williams B.A., Venter O., Allan J.R., Atkinson S.C., Rehbein J.A., Ward M., et al. (2020). Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth, 3, 371–382, DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020. 08.009.

Winkel G. (2012). Foucault in the forests – A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 81–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009.

Yanow D. (2007). Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice. Critical Policy Analysis, 1, 110–122, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2007.9518511.

Ptichnikov A. (2019). Market based forest conservation opportunities. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya, vol. 2019, №6, 97-106 (in Russian), DOI: 10.31857/S2587-55662019697-106.

Forest Code of Russian Federation. (Lesnoy codex Rossiskoy federatsii) (in Russian).

FSC-STD-40-005 (2017). Requirements for sourcing FSC controlled wood. V3-1 EN, [online] Available at: https://fsc.org/en/documentcentre/documents/resource/373 [Assessed 12 Jul. 2022].

Intact forest landscapes in Russia: current condition and losses over the last 13 years (2018). WWF Russia, [online] Available at: https://wwf.ru/en/resources/publications/booklets/intact-forest-landscapes-in-russia-current-condition-and-losses-over-the-last-13-years/ [Assessed 12 Jul. 2022].

Tysiachniouk M. and McDermott C.L. (2016). Certification with Russian characteristics: Implications for social and environmental equity. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 43–53, DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.002.

Ulybina O. (2014). Interaction, cooperation and governance in the Russian forest sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 246–253, DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.02.005.

Ulybina O. and Fennell S. (2013). Forest certification in Russia: Challenges of institutional development. Ecological Economics, 95, 178– 187, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.004.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.