Download as a PDF-file

THE STATE, UTILISATION AND POSSIBLE FUTUREDEVELOPMENTS OF LENINGRAD REGION FORESTS

EFI Working Paper 18

Risto PäivinenGert-Jan Nabuurs

Alexandre V. LioubimovKullervo Kuusela

2 R. Päivinen, G.J. Nabuurs, A.V. Lioubimov and K.Kuusela

EFI Working Paper 18 The State, Utilisation and Possible Future Developments ofLeningrad Region Forests

Authors R. Päivinen, G.J. Nabuurs, A.V. Lioubimov and K. Kuusela

Publisher European Forest InstituteTorikatu 34, FIN-80100 FinlandTel. +358 13 252 020Fax +358 13 124 393Email: [email protected]: http://www.efi.fi

Sales The list of EFI publications and an order form can be found at theback of this volume.

EFI Working papers are peer-reviewed by at least two external reviewers chosen by the Scientific AdvisoryBoard of The European Forest Institute. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and donot necessarily represent those of the European Forest Institute.

ISBN 952-9844-61-1ISSN 1456-4084©European Forest Institute 1999

The State, Utilisation and Future Developments of Leningrad Region Forests 3

CONTENTS

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................... 5PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................ 6SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 71. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 92. DATA SOURCES.......................................................................................................................10

2.1. BASICS OF THE STATE FOREST INVENTORY SYSTEM................................................................102.2. METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE FOREST INVENTORY..............................................................10

3. THE LENINGRAD REGION FORESTS: PAST AND PRESENT STATE ANDUTILISATION................................................................................................................................14

3.1. THE LENINGRAD REGION........................................................................................................143.2. FOREST AREA.........................................................................................................................153.3. GROWING STOCK....................................................................................................................183.4. INCREMENT............................................................................................................................193.5. UTILISATION IN THE PAST AND PRESENT.................................................................................193.6. PRESENT UTILISATION POSSIBILITIES.......................................................................................213.7. SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN THELENINGRAD REGION1983-1995......................................23

4. MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES .........................................................................244.1 ORGANISATION OF FELLING.....................................................................................................244.2. FOREST REGENERATION.........................................................................................................254.3. GROWING ROLE OF THINNING.................................................................................................254.4 FOREST RESOURCE ACCESSIBILITY...........................................................................................264.5. FOREST RESOURCE AVAILABILITY...........................................................................................27

4.5.1. The changes in Forest law............................................................................................. 274.5.2. Lease of forests ............................................................................................................. 28

5. FOREST BALANCE ..................................................................................................................306. POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LENINGRAD REGION FORESTS TILL 2040 ...33

6.1. INTRODUCTION: THE ISSUES OF THE PRESENT FOREST RESOURCE...........................................336.2. AIM ........................................................................................................................................336.3. REQUIRED DATA.....................................................................................................................336.4. DATA SOURCES......................................................................................................................356.5. METHOD................................................................................................................................356.6. SCENARIOS.............................................................................................................................396.7. THE INITIAL STATE OF THE FOREST RESOURCE........................................................................406.8. RESULTS................................................................................................................................44

7. DISCUSSION ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS ................................................507.1. GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................507.2. INPUT DATA ...........................................................................................................................517.3. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER PROJECTIONS.............................................................527.4. DEATH RATE AND GROSS AND NET INCREMENT......................................................................537.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION...................................................................54

8. POLICY IMPLICATIONS.........................................................................................................54REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................56TERMS AND DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................58


FOREWORD

The current situation in the forest resources of the Russian Federation offers, in principle, conditionsfor the successful development of forestry, environmental protection and nature conservationprograms at the local, national, and especially, international levels.

However, there are many unresolved problems in the structural organisation of the Russian forestryadministration, in forest inventory methodology, data handling, as well as in taxation practice andforest income distribution. To start the process of careful forest sector development, reliableinformation is required along with insight to the long-term effects of certain measures.

Therefore the Forest Committee of Leningrad Region was pleased to assist in the work carried outin the present report by the European Forest Institute. This report is a good example of internationalcollaboration of research organisations, institutions and universities.

We believe that this report will be able to clarify some questions of the Leningrad Region’s forestsector and the directions of future possibilities in development. It will help to bring some of the mostsignificant problems of the Russian forest sector to the attention of the international community offoresters, forest scientists and people concerned with the sustainable utilisation of forest resources.

Dr. Mikhail M. KudriashovHead of the Forest Committee of Leningrad Region


PREFACE

The European part of Russia has approximately as much forest as the rest of Europe. However,these resources and the forestry practices used in them are not well known in Europe. Informationon the current state of European forests and their future development has a visible role in the long-term research plans of the European Forest Institute. The development of the forest resources ofEurope has been analysed in EFI Research Report No 1 by Kullervo Kuusela, published in 1994. In1995, a more dynamic approach was undertaken to analyse future European forest resources.

This report concentrates on the Leningrad Region, with 4.8 million hectares of forest land, located inNorth-West Russia. The region is an interesting example of the questions related to forest resourcesand their utilisation in the whole of the Russian Federation. We believe that this report will be ableto demonstrate the potentials and difficulties concerning the use of Leningrad Region forests. Thereport has been published also in Russian (Lioubimov et al. 1998)

We would like to thank the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for funding the scenariostudies included in this report. We would also like to thank the Leningrad Northwest State ForestInventory Enterprise and the Leningrad Region’s Forest Management Enterprises for supplying thenecessary data and the Leningrad Region Forestry Committee for their cooperation. Finally, wewould like to thank Ms. Minna Korhonen of EFI for her assistance in compiling this report.

Joensuu, Wageningen and St. PetersburgNovember, 1998

Risto Päivinen Gert-Jan Nabuurs Alexander Lioubimov Kullervo Kuusela


SUMMARY

The Russian forests, their management and administration are undergoing a process of change.Because of the possible importance of these forests for the Russian economy, and for example theEuropean wood market, nature conservation values, and carbon sequestration, better insight into thecurrent and future state is highly desirable. This report presents such a study for a pilot area: theLeningrad Region forests.

Present state of the Leningrad Region forestsThe total area of Leningrad Region forest fund is 5.8 million ha of which 4.8 million ha is forestland. These forests belong to the southern taiga with sandy-loam and peat sites. Of the forest fund,79% is under the direct administration of the Forest Committee of the Leningrad Region, which is aregional administrative organ of the Federal Forestry Service of Russia.

According to the Russian classification of forest functions, 40% of the forest is assigned to theGroup I (special protection) forests, out of which 20,000 ha are strict reserves. The other 60%belong to Group II, (multi-functional forests). From 1958 to 1993 Group I forest area increasedfrom 24 to 40%.

Coniferous species dominate the forests of the region, usually in mixed uneven-aged stands. Of theforest land under the Forest Committee, 2.3 million ha are dominated by Scots pine and Norwayspruce. The rest consists mainly of birch and aspen.

The growing stock of the forest lands under the Forest Committee amount to 639 million m3. Thetotal growing stock in mature and overmature stands amount to 236 million m3. Because of largeareas of old forest, the structural diversity of the forests in the region is very high. Most likely,biodiversity values are high too, although inventory data, which covers the whole region on thisaspect, does not exist.

The annual mean increment (as defined in the Russian Forest Inventory) amounts to 9.86 million m3

on the 3.4 million ha administered by the State Forest Committee. However, the gross annualincrement could well amount to 20 million m3. The annual allowable cut determined by forestauthorities is 7.5 million m3. Conifers comprise 45% of this.

Clearcutting has always been the preferred way for felling and it used to comprise 85% of the totalfelling. Because of the low demand for wood since the recession in the Russian economy, theutilisation of the allowable cut is only 35%. As a result of this and earlier under-utilisation, the totalgrowing stock of the mature exploitable forest increased by 76 % in the past 35 years. The share ofactually felled allowable cut has been decreasing during the analysed period: from 86% in 1968 to35% in 1996.

Forest inventoryThe latest forest inventory was carried out in 1989-1993. The Russian forest inventory systemconsists of the use of aerial photographs for separating the compartments followed by ground ocularestimates in all compartments (varying from 3 to 50 ha). The forest inventory mainly providesestimates of growing stock and mean increment by species per compartment. For compartmentsthat are considered for final felling a standard error of ± 10 to 15% at 95% probability is targeted. Inseveral cases it has been observed that the method described above underestimates the growing


stock in mature and overmature compartments by 5 to 15%. This means that the reported growingstock figures in the present report are probably underestimated too.

Future development of the Leningrad Region forestTo forecast the possible future development of the forest resources in the region, a forest scenariomodel was used to project the forest resource till 2040. Five scenarios of forest management wererun:

1. ‘handbook’: projecting the forest resources under theoretical optimal managementregimes;

2. ‘business as usual’: a projection with continuation of current (1993) harvesting levels;3. ‘maximum sustainable production’: searching the theoretical biological maximum;4. ‘recovery of the forest sector’: a scenario which assumes a quick recovery of the Russian

forest sector;5. ‘recovery with nature conservation’: the same as scenario 4 but with more attention paid

to nature conservation.

All scenarios show that recovery of the forest sector in the Leningrad Region is very well possiblefrom a biological forest point of view – a maximum sustainable production level of 15.2 million m3

per year was found. A more modest recovery level of the forest sector gave a continuous annualproduction of 10.6 million m3 per year by 2041. At the latter level, the age class distribution is stillshifting towards older stands and increasing growing stock.

Under all scenarios the present concentration of forest area in the mature classes is reduced as moreof both younger and older stands develop. The recovery with nature conservation scenario hasshown that recovery and further development of the forest sector in the region is possible from abiological point of view, while at the same time paying full attention to other values of the forest aswell. It was, in principle, possible to set aside 27% of the forest area and still allow for developmentof the forest sector to a higher productivity level than in the late eighties.

All recovery scenarios further indicate that the forest sector can contribute to the socio-economicdevelopment of the region. If all harvested wood is exported as raw material this contribution willbe small in the near future but the income can be used for developing both infrastructure and (smallscale) processing industry. To facilitate the development, an integral development plan for theregion would be needed. Such a plan has to involve the local government, the enterprises of theFederal Forest Service, nature conservation organisations, the tourist industry, donors, i.e. WorldBank, and foreign investors.


1. INTRODUCTION

The last decade has been a period of significant change in Russian society. Through the transitionfrom a centrally regulated economy to a free market economy a deep recession followed. Thisresulted in a strongly reduced demand for wood products, which has left the forest resource almostunmanaged and a wood processing industry that cannot compete with European industry. Theuncertainty of future management of the forest resource is aggravated by the newly adopted ForestLaw through which the district authorities (i.e. regional government) became the sole owners of theforests. They now have the authority to decide on forest resource exploitation and can sell loggingconcessions to logging companies or can rent the forest land to companies for up to 50 years withthe right to carry out a final felling.

This uncertain situation is valid for over 900 million ha of forest and other wooded land in the areaof the former Soviet Union (World Bank 1997); this is 23% of the total global forest resource.Management alternatives and the resulting future developments in Russian forests and forestrytherefore have a significant impact on the Russian economy, the European wood market (Wardleand Michie 1998), nature conservation values, and carbon sequestration. Better insight into thecurrent and future state is therefore highly desirable.

This study consists of two parts. The objective of the first part is to describe the current state of theforestry sector in the Leningrad Region and offer a retrospective view of its development during the30-year period of 1965-1995. Special attention is paid to the forest inventory methods (Chapter 2),dynamics of the forest resources (Chapter 3) and its utilisation under the centrally planned economyand since the economic reforms. An outline of the current management practices and the difficultiesof transportation and legislative problems it faces, are presented in Chapter 4. Then Chapter 5outlines with a static calculation method (the balance method) the possibilities of the region in termsof growth and felling. It compares those results with common Russian calculation methods.

The second part of the report (Chapters 6 and 7) deals with modelling the possible ways ofdevelopment of the Leningrad forests in the future. Five scenarios of forest management, presentpossible ways to achieve a close to optimal structure of the forest of Leningrad Region and at thesame time to improve the region’s socio-economic and ecological situation.


2. DATA SOURCES

2.1. BASICS OF THE STATE FOREST INVENTORY SYSTEM

The common system of Russian forest inventory consists of the use of aerial photographs forseparating the primary units (i.e. compartments) in combination with ground ocular estimates in allcompartments (varying from 3 to 50 ha). The forest inventory mainly provides estimates of growingstock and mean increment by species per unit. The updated set of rules and regulations for theinventory were adopted in 1994 (Federal Forest Service 1995a).

The objectives of the forest inventory are: 1) to collect reliable and complete information about theforest resources, present state and dynamics of forests, 2) to organise the information in databases,3) to produce stand descriptions and different thematic maps, 4) to supply information for planning,e.g. allowable cut and fire protection, and 5) to control the forest management plans’implementation, harvesting practice and quality of the forestry works.

At present no GIS technologies are available for the regional levels of cartographic data analysis andpresentation. The manual production of maps is labour consuming. This is the reason for the limitedimplementation of the cartographic analysis methods in management planning and optimisation.Small-scale maps are currently used only to demonstrate the planned management activities.

The forest inventories cover the complete “forest fund“ of all owners, which comprises all lands andinland waters administered by the state forest enterprises and agricultural communities, as well asState forest reserves, national parks, research and experimental forests etc. The completion of theforest inventory by the forest enterprises of the European part of Russia takes normally 3-4 years. Itincludes preliminary work, field work, data processing and the forest management planpresentation. The inventory is repeated every 10 years. The last one was carried out in 1989-1993.In the Leningrad Region, 5 forest inventories have been completed during the past 50 years.

2.2. METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE FOREST INVENTORY

A complete inventory cycle consists of:

• delineation of the forest enterprises outer and inner borders;• delineation of compartment borders from satellite images and aerial photos;• field survey (compartment mensuration and description);• forest classification into protection groups and management categories;• assessment of the allowed and recommended volume of harvesting; and• creating a forest management plan for the next decade.

The land-use categories should be delineated during the forest inventory as shown in Figure 2.1.


Forest nurseries

Free-to-grow cultures

Stocked forest lands

Open woodlands

Burns, dead stands

Cuts

Clades, barrens

Undersocked lands

Non-stocked forest lands

FOREST LANDS

Arable lands

Hay fields

Pastures

Gardens, orchards

Open peatlands

Sands

Roads

Water bodies

Other

NON-FOREST LANDS

FOREST FUND

Figure 2.1. Nomenclature of land-use categories as distinguished in the Russian forest inventorysystem.

During the field work, the main characteristics of the compartments are assessed. For the forestcovered compartments the following variables are assessed (Federal Forest Service 1995a):

• growing stock and merchantable volume;• natural regeneration;• understorey;• ground vegetation;• soil index;• topography; and• management prescription for future 10-year periods.

The field survey consists of a general description of the compartment and the actual measurements.


General descriptionA general description of the compartment is done first. It comprises dominant species, age classes(5, 10 or 20 years), site index (assessed according to guideline tables in 5 basic classes), and foresttype according to various classifications.

Measurements (made in the field in all compartments)To determine the growing stock, a number of relascope sample plots are set in the points located onthe aerial photographs. The number of plots is set in the inventory rules and regulations and itdepends on the size of compartment, age of dominant species and stand uniformity. For eachelement of the forest, 3-5 average size trees should be found as sample trees for the basic inventoryparameter measurements. The following measurements are carried out:

• age; the mean age is visually estimated and rounded to 5 years• mean diameter at breast height and mean height of forest by visual estimation• basal area determined in m2 by the Bitterlich method• class of merchantability. Approximation of the number of trees (or volume) which is

merchantable. A list of classes are displayed in working rules and forest inventoryinstructions.

Each stand description may include a number of storeys if the difference among the mean heights ofdominant and co-dominant elements of forest is more than 20%. Characteristics of a stand’s storeyconsist of: 1) species composition, 2) mean height of the storey, 3) basal area ratio, and 4) totalgrowing stock (m3 ha-1). Only trees with breast height diameter of more than 8 cm are included inthe growing stock. Based on the descriptions and measurements, the growing stock, merchantablevolume and mean annual increment are derived. For these, the so-called standard tables for thegrowing stock determination are used.

Table 2.1.The accuracy limits (%) for the measurements in the field assessment (ARICFR 1995).

Stand categories Allowed standard deviations

Mean for layers Mean for dominant species N*

Volume Basalarea

Height

Species ** DBH

All stands to be managed during the inter-inventory period, except young ***

15 12 8 1 10 25

Young stands (age classes 1-2) 20 16 10 1.5 10 -

Maturing stands (excluded frommanagement activities for next 10-yearperiod).

20 16 10 1.5 12 30

Non-valuable, low-productive stands 25 21 12 2 15 30

* quantity of undergrowth per ha, %;** 1 index unit = 10%*** allowed limits of accuracy for the ages: up to 40 years: 5 years, up to 100: 10 years, and over 100: 20years


The figures displayed in Table 2.1 are the maximum errors allowed in the field. The reliability of thefield estimations is checked through a control done randomly by the head of the group and arepresentative of the inventory enterprise.

The accuracy of the results of the field measurements is debatable, and several studies have shownthat the inaccuracy is quite high. It is mainly affected by the use of the so-called “standard“ table forthe growing stock determination. The underestimation of the growing stock varied usually from 10to 30% depending on structure, age and species composition of the growing stock (Moschkalev1984). However, others report a standard error of the growing stock assessment for the forestmanagement enterprise to be 5 to 15% at 95% probability (Shvidenko and Nilsson1997).

Figure 2.2. The scheme of a forestry block (kvartal) with compartments (vydel) in it as given onforest maps. The block 109 (total square) has a total area of 108 ha. The largest compartment No. 6,has an area of 37 ha and is evaluated as site class 2. Usually other (coloured) maps are used toindicate species. The accuracy of field mensuration may vary depending on the needs. Therecommended levels of accuracy are listed in the forest inventory regulations (Table 2.1). Allowedsystematic error for all characteristics is± 5%.


3. THE LENINGRAD REGION FORESTS: PAST AND PRESENTSTATE AND UTILISATION

3.1. THE LENINGRAD REGION

The Leningrad Region is situated in the north-western part of the Russian Federation.

-

LENINGRADRegion

Figure 3.1. The upper map shows the Leningrad Region’s location in Russia; the lower mapfocuses on the landscape ecological sub-regions in the Leningrad Region as distinguished for theresource projection. In brackets the forest land area (1000 ha) as used in the scenario model inChapter 6. These areas total to 3.81 Mha, the number given in Table 6.2. The landscape ecologicalsub-regions 1, 2, and 3 are also called the Karelian Isthmus.

1. Region Lesogorsky and Vyborgsky (322)2. Region Priozersky (116)3. Region Rozschinsky and Sosnovsky (179)4. Region Lomonosovsky (82)5. Region Kingiseppsky and Slantsevsky (228)6. Region Volosovsky and Gattschinsky (296)7. Region Luzsky (173)8. Region Siversky, Lisinsky, Liubansky (273)9. Region Kirovsky (134)10. Region Kirischsky (154)

11. Region Volkhovsky (142)12. Region Tikhvinsky (147)13. Reg. Boksitogor, Efimovs, Podborov (479)14. Region Schugozersky (211)15. Region Oiatsky (134)16. Region Vinnitsky (145)17. Region Paschsky and Lodeynopolsky (236)18. Region Podporozsky (204)19. Region Voznsesnky (100)20. Urban forest of St. Petersburg (58)


The Leningrad Region consists of St. Petersburg and 16 administrative districts. The total area ofthe region is 8.5 million ha, with a population of 6.6 million, of which approximately 5.0 million livein the city of St. Petersburg (Alimov et al. 1995). The population density for the region is 77 perkm2. The area is more industrially developed than the other regions in the north and north-west:many minerals and fossil fuels are utilised, as well as water, land and forest resources. Industry ismostly concentrated on the extraction and processing of raw materials. Chemical industry,especially oil processing and pulp and paper production, is relatively intensive and its products are asubstantial part of the Russian international trade, as is the trade in wood.

3.2. FOREST AREA

The Leningrad Region is situated in the boreal zone; 80% of its forest is classified as southern taiga,and 15% as middle taiga. 5% of the Leningrad Region is situated in the southern Karelian taiga sub-zone. According to the latest forest resources assessment (1989-1993) the total area of theLeningrad Region forest fund was 5.8 million ha (Forest Fund of the Russian Federation1996).Most of this area is under the control and supervision of the Forest Committee of Leningrad Region(Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Areas of the Leningrad region forest fund by administrative organ (Strakhov et al.1996).

Administrative organ Area (1000 ha)Forest Committee of the Leningrad Region (28 enterprises) 4577Agricultural communities 905Fisher’s co-operatives 7Research and experimental forests 54Enterprises of the State Committee of Hunting 42State nature preserves 36Forest-park’s of St. Petersburg 143Others 34Total 5798

The land-use categories of the forest fund of the Leningrad Region are given in Table 3.2. The landscovered with forest (class 1.3 in Table 3.2) have steadily increased; their share was 73.2% in 1958,74.6% in 1983, and 78% of the total forest fund in 1993. Of the forest covered areas, 65% consistsof coniferous species (see also Figure 6.7). The share of spruce and birch has slightly increased.Pine and aspen stands were systematically substituted by spruce because of silvicultural practices inwhich most areas were planted with spruce seedlings, damage to pine plantations through grazingby moose, and strict control of forest fires. During the coming decades it is expected that the shareof spruce will increase in the regional species composition. Spruce is expected to take up adominant position in the mixed aspen-spruce stands, which were formed after clearcutting largeareas late last century and early this century.


Table 3.2.Areas of land-use categories of the Forest Fund under the administration of the ForestCommittee.

TOTAL FOREST FUND 57981. Forest Fund under the ForestCommittee **

4577

1.1 Forest nurseries* 1.51.2 Free-to-grow cultures* 124.91.3 Stocked forest lands* 3387.4

1.3.1. forest 3024.71.3.2. forest cultures 362.7

1.4 Non - stocked forest lands* 41.71.4.1. open woodlands 0.31. 4.2. burns, dead stands 5.01.4.3. cuts 34.41.4.4. glades, barren lands 01.4.5. understocked lands 2.0

1.5 Non-forest lands 928.11.5.1. Arable lands 3.51.5.2. Hay fields 34.21.5.3. Pastures 2.01.5.4 Gardens, orchards 0.11.5.5 Open peatlands 693.01.5.6. Sands 1.91.5.7. Roads 34.71.5.8. Water bodies 125.01.5.9. Other 33.7

* The sum of these groups provide a total of 3.555 million ha. In table 6.2 a total of 3.578 million ha is givenfor this grouping.** Due to rounding errors the sum of items 1.1 to 1.5 does not exactly add up to 4.577 million ha.

The Russian system of administration distinguishes the land-use functions of the forest lands. Theseare called management groups. Group I includes the protection forests which mainly have a waterand soil protection function. Also the nature reserves belong to group I. Group II includes multi-purpose forests mainly in areas where the population density is high and the road network is good.These forests have limited protection functions but they are also exploited. Group III is composed ofwood production forests, which are further divided into exploitable and reserved areas. There are noGroup III forests in Leningrad Region. Since 1958, the area assigned to Group I forest has steadilyincreased. These forests can mainly be found in the western part of the region.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1958 1973 1983 1993

Group 1 Group 2%

Figure 3.2.Dynamics of the Group I and II forests in Leningrad Region.

The areas by age classes have also changed over the last decades. There has been a steady increaseof mature and overmature stands, mainly in the western part of the region. Figure 3.3. gives theseage class areas since 1983. The present age class structure is far from optimal from a sustainableyield forestry point of view. It can be seen that the area of ‘maturing’ and ‘mature and overmature’forest area has increased rapidly in just 8 years.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Youngstands

Middle-age Maturing Mature andovermature

Age class group

Are

a(1

000

ha)

1983 1989-1993

Figure 3.3. Forest land areas of the stocked forest lands (Group 1.3 in Table 3.2.) under theadministration of the Forest Committee (1000 ha) by age group.


3.3. GROWING STOCK

The development of forests in the Leningrad Region over the last decades has been characterised bya steady increase in growing stock, both as an increasing area in the mature and overmature stands(Figure 3.3.) as well as an increasing average growing stock per ha in the mature stands. There arevarious reasons for this, the main reason being the under-utilisation of the annual recommendedamount of felling (see Ch. 5) along with changes in methodology of forest inventory. Probably dueto a combination of these two, the growing stock on forest covered area increased by 57%compared to 1968.

Table 3.3.Development of growing stock for the Leningrad region stocked forest lands under theadministration of the Forest Committee (Group 1.3 in Table 3.2.)(Forest Fund of RussianFederation 1996). See also Figure 6.12.

Year of inventory1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993

Growing stock of mature stands of thestocked forest land (m3/ha o.b.)

189 173 213 234 250 246

Growing stock for total stocked forestland (m3/ha o.b.)

127 144 154 164 179 186

Table 3.4.Total areas (million ha) and growing stock (mill. m3 o.b.) of the immature, mature andovermature stands (group 1.3 in Table 3.2.) of the Leningrad region according to the 1993 forestinventory.

Species Group I Group II Total

area growingstock

% ofarea

area growingstock

% ofarea

area Growingstock

% ofarea

maturestandsonly

Mat Mat

CONIFEROUS, TOTAL 1.04 215.9 71 1.22 200.6 62 2.26 416.5 6660.9 100.3 161.0

Pine 0.66 122.6 45 0.61 97.5 31 1.27 220.3 3730.3 41.7 72.1

Spruce 0.38 92.9 26 0.61 103.0 31 0.98 196.0 2930.3 58.5 88.9

NON-CONIFERS, TOTAL* 0.43 83.9 29 0.75 138.0 38 1.18 221.9 3444.4 79.0 123.5

Birch 0.32 58.0 22 0.57 99.8 29 0.90 157.9 2623.0 49.3 72.4

Aspen 0.084 22.4 6 0.15 35.2 8 0.23 57.6 720.1 28.6 48.7

TOTAL 1.47 299.9 100 1.96 338.6 100 3.44 638.5 100105.1 179.4 284.6

* The difference between birch+aspen andnon-conifers total is due to other deciduous species of minor importance


Coniferous stands occupy 66% of the total forest area, and 45% of the total growing stock aremature and overmature stands. Differences in site qualities in the Karelian Isthmus compared to therest of the Leningrad Region have led to a significant increase in the amount of coniferous stands inthe north-western part of region: 81% of the total forest area of the Karelian Isthmus is occupied byconifers. However, the growing stock of the mature and overmature stands is only 29%. This is dueto the intensive harvesting in the most accessible stands and the relatively low productivity sites ofthe Karelian Isthmus.

3.4. INCREMENT

The mean increment of a stand is derived from the growing stock estimation in the forest inventory.This mean annual increment (MAI) is derived from the growing stock divided by the age of thestand. It is therefore only the real net increase of growing stock of the stand. It does not consider anylosses due to natural mortality or decrease of volume due to thinning.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993

Year

Mea

nan

nual

incr

emen

t(m

3 /ha

o.b.

)

Figure 3.4. Mean annual increment for the forest lands under the Forest Committee as assessed inthe Russian forest inventory and its use as a basis to plan the allowable cut.

3.5. UTILISATION IN THE PAST AND PRESENT

Based on the mean annual increment as assessed in the forest inventories, the allowable cut (AC:assessed based on biological possibilities, usually equal to MAI) and prescribed felling (based oneconomic objectives) are calculated in management plans. The actual logging may be less than theprescribed felling because of technical circumstances (accessibility, weather, machinery, etc.).

Thus, based on Figure 3.4 we can calculate an AC of 10.5 million m3 in 1988 on the forest lands ofthe Forest Committee (3.4 million ha). The prescribed felling and actually logged volumes are givenbelow. Eighty percent of the actual logging is carried out by clearcutting.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Year

Vol

ume

(mill

ion

m3 /y

r)

Mean annual increment

Prescribed fellings

Actual fellings

Figure 3.5. Dynamics of felling1968-1997 on the forest lands of the Forest Committee (RegionalForest Committee 1996). Note that the increment figures are available only to 1993 when the lastforest inventory was completed.

In the past, the actual logging (i.e. total felling) was usually 80 to 90% of the prescribed felling.Since the economic recession started after 1990, the actual logging has sharply decreased to 35% ofAC in 1996. The decrease has been even more dramatic in some other regions of Russia (Burdin etal. 1998). However, the underutilisation differs per region. The utilisation of prescribed felling wasaround 60% in the Karelian Isthmus in 1996. Because of the underutilisation in the past, theexploitation fund (= growing stock of mature and overmature forest in both Group I and Group IIforests) shows a steady increase since 1961 (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6. Development of the exploitation fund (i.e. only the mature and overmature stands) ofthe forest lands of the Leningrad Forest Committee.


At present the exploitation fund is 2.8 times the 1961 level. There are various reasons for theincrease since 1961: the earlier mentioned systematic underutilisation of the annual allowable cut, aswell as principal changes in the rules and regulations of the field work and data processing in theforest inventory.

3.6. PRESENT UTILISATION POSSIBILITIES

Out of the total growing stock in the region of 639 million m3, 236 million m3 are seen as theexploitation fund. The distribution of the areas and growing stock of the stands available for finalfelling according to forest groups and dominant species are presented in Table 3.5. The major partof the exploitation fund (166 million m3 or 70%) is concentrated in the Group II forests of theeastern districts of the Leningrad Region. The actual use of the allowable cut by logging companieswas only 35% in 1996. However, better accessibility to the north-western forests and timbermarkets led to a utilisation rate there of up to 62%. The rate of use of the exploitation fund dependsstrictly on the accessibility of forest resources.

Table 3.5.Areas and growing stock of the exploitation fund.

Group I Group II Total

area(1000 ha)

growingstock

(mill. m 3)

area(1000 ha)

growing stock(mill. m 3)

Area(1000 ha)

growingstock

(mill. m 3)Coniferous 153.6 39.3 370.0 93.6 523.6 132.8

Pine 89.2 20.7 181.5 38.3 270.7 59.1

Spruce 64.4 18.5 188.5 55.2 252.9 73.7

Non-coniferous* 129.3 31.5 296.8 73.7 426.1 105.2

Birch 73.5 16.0 201.1 46.3 274.6 62.4

Aspen 50.4 14.5 91.0 26.5 141.4 40.9

Total 282.9 70.8 666.8 167.3 949.7 238.1

* The difference between birch+aspen andnon-conifers total is due to other deciduous species of minor importance

Only 24% of the total amount of wood harvested in 1983 was harvested by thinning. This increasedto 43% in 1995 because under the new Forest Law the forest management enterprises are now onlyallowed to carry out thinning (see also Figure 4.1). However, the available harvesting machinery isoften not designed to carry out thinning which is reflected by the type of logging capacity of thecompanies. Figure 3.7. shows that most of the logging companies concentrate on clearfelling. Onlysome of the companies around St. Petersburg have more experience with thinning. Manual felling istoo labour consuming for the new private and share-holding companies.


Deciduous tree species used to have limited demands in the domestic market. The new economicalsituation has changed this. The possibility of direct international trade has made birch, which wasearlier considered as firewood, a more valuable species. Aspen still has no or very limited utilisationin the region because of the low quality. This situation is not expected to change in the near future.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Number of the logging company

Vol

ume

(m3/

yr)

Final fellings

Intermediate fellings

Figure 3.7.Location (upper) and capacity (lower) of logging companies in Leningrad Region. Thepresent potential capacity totals just over 7 million m3 per year.


3.7. SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN THE LENINGRAD REGION 1983-1995

The changes in the main characteristics of the forest fund under the Forest Committee of LeningradRegion during the 12-year period are listed in Table 3.6. The results of the last inventory whichended in 1993, are updated every year by the State Forest Committee. Figures for 1995 areavailable for some characteristics.

Table 3.6.The main parameters of the Leningrad Region forest land under the Forest Committee in1983-1993.

Variable Unit Year of inventory Changecompared to1983 , %

1983 1993Group I % 37 40 +8Group II % 63 60 -5Pine mill. ha 1.310 1.273 -3Spruce mill. ha 0.956 0.982 +3Birch mill. ha 0.844 0.899 +7Aspen mill. ha 0.237 0.233 -2Other species mill. ha 0.053 0.0478 -10Total forest land growing stock mill. m3 558 638.55 +14

Coniferous only mill. m3 379 416.52 +10Total forest land growing stock in mature andovermature stands

mill. m3 183 284.62 +55

Coniferous only mill. m3 107 161.05 +50Prescribed fellings mill. m3 7.23 7.50* +4Actual fellings mill. m3 4.27 2.65* -38Volume of thinning mill. m3 1.01 1.15* +14Growing stock of mature stands m3/ha o.b. 234 251 +7Growing stock per ha for lands covered by forest m3/ha o.b. 164 186 +13Mean increment m3/ha o.b. 3.1 2.9 -6Total harvesting m3/ha o.b. 1.6 1.1* -31* Data from 1995


4. MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES

4.1 ORGANISATION OF FELLING

One of the new elements in the use of forest resources in the Leningrad Region is the high numberof logging companies, contractors and subcontractors allowed, in accordance with the Forest Lawof 1993, to buy concessions. 477 companies, of which 97 work in the Karelian Isthmus, wereregistered in 1994 as companies allowed to work the forest resources, mostly in wood harvesting.The characteristics of the main users are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1.The forest resource users and their harvested volumes in 1994 (1000 m3). In bracketsare the harvested coniferous volumes.

Harvested volumes Total (of whichconiferous)

KarelianIsthmus

Total 2650.9 (1627.9) 423.6 (325.5)ROSLESPROM * 1279.6 (711.1) 0.2 (0.2)

Ministry of Agriculture 6.1 (5.0) 0.6 (0.6)

Other logging companies and organisations 596.7 (379.7) 190.2 (153.1)

Under-districts authorities’ administration 766.5 (539.1) 232.6 (171.69

industrial enterprises 431.7 (295.7) 142.6 (110.9)

agricultural communities 87.3 (65.8) 39.1 (30.9)

local population 178.3 (144.6) 4.2 (-)

schools and hospitals 69.2 (31.0) -

* the former MINLESPROM consisting of the state forest logging companies, now privatised

On April 1, 1995 there were only 8 officially registered share-holding companies logging in theLeningrad Region forests. They rented 200,000 ha of forest lands with an approximate growingstock of 517 000 m3 allowed for felling. The rental period is normally 50 years. The main purposeof renting is final harvesting and commercial thinning. The rent holder is responsible for the forestmanagement activities defined in the rent contract. Reforestation must be carried out according tothe forest service prescriptions (usually 1 or 2 years after logging). Forest protection is included andthe rent-holder must follow the plan for the area.

When MINLESPROM was privatised as ROSLESPROM they planned to increase the volumeharvested to 2.5 million m3 annually, and to 4.2 million m3 by the year 2000. The planned volume ofharvesting in the three year period 1996-98 is presented in Table 4.2. It can be seen from Table 4.1.that the reality is quite far from the planned volumes. Apart from a lack of demand for woodproducts, investment would also be needed in ROSLESPROM to improve the situation inharvesting techniques and timber transportation.


Table 4.2.Planned volumes of harvesting for ROSLESPROM for the three year period of 1996-98.

Planned Production(1000 m3)

Planned Utilisation (1000 m3)

sawlogs pulpwood otherTotal 7500 2700 3350 1450Round wood 6400 2700 3350 350Waste 1100 1100

4.2. FOREST REGENERATION

Table 4.3. shows the trend in Russian forest management to pay more attention to naturalregeneration over the past decades. The total amount of clearcut areas to be planted decreased from100% in 1963 to 42% in 1995.

Table 4.3. Area of clearcuts that were actively regenerated (planted) in year of felling (%) during1963-1993.

Years of inventory 1963 1973 1983 1988 1993

Area of clearcuts 100 83 45 44 42

4.3. GROWING ROLE OF THINNING

Thinning has always been one of the components of the operational and strategic plans of forestmanagement (Stoliarov et al. 1994). The general characteristics of the total volume of thinning in theLeningrad Region is shown in Table 4.4 and illustrated in Figure4.1.

Figure 4.1.illustrates the sudden increasing share of thinning in the felling total of 1993. In 1993,when the forestry sector had many problems, the rate of merchantable timber harvested by thinningincreased to 28%. This can be explained by the fact that thinning is the only possible way to harvesttimber for the state forest management enterprises, because they lack the right of final felling.Therefore, thinning is their only source of income, and they have started to concentrate on thatmanagement activity.

Table 4.4.Planned amount of annual thinning of the premature stands of Leningrad Region forestlands under Forest Committee (1000 m3 yr-1).

Recommended thinning Actually thinned

Totalproduction

Of which merchantable Totalproduction

Of whichmerchantable

Coniferous 1307.5 772.2 449.1 --

Softwoods 835.6 392.8 241.3 --

Total 2143.1 1165.0 690.4 476.5


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993

mill. cub. m

Thinning

% of total fellings

%30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 4.1.Dynamics of thinning in all non-mature stands.

54% of merchantable wood (1.16 mill. m3) is located in the accessible zone where the network offorestry roads is sufficient to be used during the summer and autumn. This is the volume ofthinnings which may be harvested without any extra expenses for road construction andinfrastructure development. In 1994 only 690,000 m3, or 32% of the allowed amount, of themerchantable standing wood was thinned.

4.4 FOREST RESOURCE ACCESSIBILITY

The territory of the Leningrad Region can be divided into 4 areas according to forest resourcesaccessibility: north-western (Karelian Isthmus), central, western and eastern regions. The north-western part of the region, with better geological conditions and many urban and semi-urbanisedareas, has a relatively well-developed network of roads. This is the only part of the LeningradRegion where the roads/area ratio (10.4 km per 1000 ha) is close to the standard optimum (10-12km). This ratio for the central region is slightly less (approximately 9 km) and for the western regionabout 7 km per 1000 ha. For the eastern districts of the Leningrad Region this ratio is 2-3 km ofroads per 1000 ha. The complete description of the road network is listed in Table 4.5.


Table 4.5.Roads and railroads in the Leningrad Region and the Karelian Isthmus (km).

Area Railroads Roads Included all-seasonuse

winterroads

roadsper1000ha offorest

hard coats NotImproved

Leningradregion

2257 23441 5980 17561 8255 1218 5.9

KarelianIsthmus

395 7778 2126 5652 2941 - 10.4

The mean ratio for the Leningrad Region is 5.9 km per 1000 ha or about 50% of the standardoptimum. Roads which can be used all year round, that is, railroads and tarmac roads, are only apart of the whole road network. In some enterprises the so-called winter roads are very common.These can be used only when the soil is frozen and not during the rest of the year. In general, theroad network in the Leningrad Region must be developed to meet the standard level and to promoteforest management. However, it is unlikely that any major investments in road construction will bemade in the near future due to the uncertainties in the development of regional and state economy.

4.5. FOREST RESOURCE AVAILABILITY

4.5.1. The changes in Forest law

1992-1996 was a period of transition for the forestry sector and logging industry in the LeningradRegion. The New Forest Legislature of the Russian Federation (Forest Law, adopted in 1993 andForest Code of 1997) and a number of new rules and regulations adopted at federal and regionallevels brought changes in the previously centrally co-ordinated wood market.

The previous system of the forest sector structure included two types of forest enterprises: stateforest enterprises under the State Forest Committee and state logging companies under theadministration of the Ministry of Forest Industry (MINLESPROM).

State Forest Inventory Enterprises

Special Organisations

Forest EnterprisesLeshoz

Regional Forest Committees

Ministry if Forestry(Federal Forest Service of Russia)

Forest Logging Companies Forest Logging Companies

Regional Forest Industry Committees Regional Forest Industry Committees

Ministry of Forest IndustryMINLESPROM

Figure 4.2.The most relevant institutions mentioned in the text as of the the situation prior to 1993.In 1993, MINLESPROM was reorganised into Roslesprom and was privatised in 1997. Thelogging companies can now lease land and buy concessions. Total labour force of the ForestEnterprises (Leshoz) was 4100 in 1996.


Both types of enterprises were responsible for the whole forestry cycle: logging, reforestation,thinning, protection etc. In addition, the state forest enterprises had to supervise any operationalforest management carried out by the lease-holders. The Forest Law adopted in 1993 brought thefollowing major changes into the system:

• the district authorities (i.e. regional government) became the sole owners of the forests,having the authority to decide upon the forest resource exploitation;

• the enterprises of the Federal Forestry Service of Russia could not carry out final fellinganymore. They were only allowed to carry out thinnings under special conditions;

• logging concessions were to be sold to logging companies or private persons, only underrent or lease agreements with the district authorities;

• renting or leasing forest lands was possible for any Russian company or private person,as well as for foreign companies legally registered in their home country and the RussianFederation. The rental period is 1-49 years with the possibility of extension.

In practice these changes meant that the whole system of the Leningrad Region forestry wasdiscarded. All state forest harvesting enterprises were reorganised into private stock-holding loggingcorporations with no centralised financial support.

However, the Forest Law adopted in 1993 was subject to intense discussions. Therefore, the newForest Code of the Russian Federation was adopted by the State Parliament in January, 1997. TheForest Code includes the principles of international agreements on sustainable forest management. Itis directed towards rational use of forest resources, protection and regeneration of forests,sustainability of the whole forest ecosystem, preservation of biodiversity, permanent increase of theecological and resource potential of forests, and multipurpose use of forest resources for the benefitof society.

4.5.2. Lease of forests

Lease agreements for lots of forest fund may be signed for a period of 1-49 years. The forest lotmay be leased for one use or for multiple-use by the lessee (logging, resin collection, grazing etc.).Harvested timber, produced goods or collected forest products belong to the lessee. Sub-lease isrestricted. Lease is regulated by a number of documents: the Forest Code, Civil Code and LeaseProvision, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. The lease agreement mustconsist of a number of descriptions:

• borders of leased lot;• aspects of forest use;• volume of use;• term of use;• price of lease and timetable of payments;• responsibilities of participants concerning protection and regeneration of the forest;• plan of payments to refund the expenses of the lessee made for reforestation, protection and

amelioration of forests.• special notes in request of participants.


The prices of the lease contracts depend mainly on the stumpage value of the growing stock. Thisstumpage is determined according to the species, merchantability, size of the wood, and distance oftransportation. Depending on average diameter and transportation distance the stumpage for e.gpine forest, may vary between 4 and 37 Rub m-3. Until 1995, the sum of the forest income in thebudgets of the Leningrad Region amounted to 2.6 billion old Roubles (equalling to around 430 000US$)1 annually.

1 The conversion rate was 6 new or 6000 old Rubles to 1 US$


5. FOREST BALANCE

Setting up a forest balance provides a method to check the consistency of increment, felling andmortality estimates for growing stock between two occasions. In the case where one variable is notknown, it can be derived with the method described below. In the Russian statistics, estimates ofgrowing stock can be considered relatively reliable. The gross increment estimates by Shvidenko etal. (1997a and 1997b) show consistency with figures from neighbouring countries (see also Section2.2). Based on these figures the drain can be derived. In drain, industrial fellings and removals areavailable from the Russian statistics but natural losses, including possible unknown removalsremain to be estimated.

The following forest balance has been calculated for the Leningrad Region for the 12-year period of1983-1995. The components and formulae of the forest balance are as follows:

1. Growing stock 19832. Growing stock 19953. Gross increment of growing stock during the period4. Net increment of growing stock during the period5. Total fellings6. Natural losses during the period

In the case of Leningrad Region there is uncertainty on both the gross annual increment and thenatural mortality. The five first components are known or estimated, natural losses are derived.Therefore balance has to be based on some assumptions as well. The calculated growing stock atthe end of the balance period is:

initial stock + gross increment - drain, orinitial stock + net increment - fellings

Data on fellings are obtained from the harvesting statistics. If the harvesting statistics are based onremovals (timber taken away from the forest) under bark (u.b.), the bark volume has been added.Furthermore, an estimate of fellings has been obtained by adding the logging and siviculturalresidues. In this case bark and residue, percents are estimated by professional judgements since nostatistics on these components are available.

The calculations and results of the forest balance for the 12-year period of 1983-1995 are presentedin Table 5.1.


Table 5.1. Overview of dynamics in Leningrad Region forests based on aggregated Russianstatistics 1983-1995.

Attribute Unit 1983 Means orperiodic

1995 Source of information

Area of forested land Th. Ha 3400 3419 3437 * Forest Fund of RussianFederation 1996

Growing stock mill. m3 558 599 639 Forest Fund of RussianFederation 1996

Growing stock m3 ha-1 164 175 186 Forest Fund of RussianFederation 1996

Mean increment m3 ha-1 3.1 2.9 Shvidenko et al. 1997bMean increment mill.m3 10.5 10.2 10.0Gross annual increment m3 ha-1 5.81 Shvidenko et al. 1997a

and 1997bAnnual final harvest mill.m3, u.b. 4.27 2.65 Forest Fund of Russian

Federation 1996Annual thinnings mill.m3, u.b. 1.01 1.15 Forest Fund of Russian

Federation 1996Annual total harvest mill.m3, u.b. 5.28 3.80 Forest Fund of Russian

Federation 1996Annual total harvest m3 ha-1 1.55 1.11 Forest Fund of Russian

Federation 1996

Annual final harvest(+bark 13%)

mill.m3, o.b. 4.91 3.05 Estimated by authors ofthis study

Annual thinnings(+bark 14%)

mill.m3, o.b. 1.17 1.34 Estimated by authors ofthis study

Annual total harvest mill.m3, o.b. 6.08 5.24 4.39 Derived

Final felling total mill. m3 5.78 4.69 3.59Thinnings mill. m3 1.38 1.48 1.58Total fellings o.b. mill. m3 7.16 6.17 5.17

* 3578 in Table 6.2.

Table 5.2.Balance method applied to Leningrad Region forests. Based on gross annual incrementassumptions and natural mortality assumptions, a net annual increment is derived.

Attribute Unit Value Source of informationGross annual increment m3/ha 5.81 Shvidenko et al. 1997a and 1997bGross annual increment mill. m3 19.89Annual natural losses (assumed) m3/ha 2.73Annual natural losses (assumed) mill. m3 9.33 Result of this studyminus annual thinning fellings mill. m3 1.48 Russian forest statisticsAnnual natural losses, calculated mill. m3 7.85 Result of balance studyAnnual natural losses, calculated m3/ha 2.30 DerivedNet annual increment mill. m3 12.01 Shvidenko et al.Net annual increment m3/ha 3.51

Periodic net increment, 12 years mill. m3 144 DerivedPeriodic fellings, 12 years mill. m3 74 Russian forest statistics


Balance:1. Initial growing stock: 164 m3 ha-1

2. Assuming the gross increment given by Shvidenkoet al . (1997b) is correct(5.81 m3 ha-1 yr-1), the growing stock in 1995 should be 233 m3 ha-1.

3. However, the growing stock is 186 m3 ha-1.

4. Total fellings o.b. during the 12 year period have been 1.8 m3 ha-1 yr-1. So, if there were nomortalities, the growing stock (1995) should be 211 m3 ha-1.

5. The difference with actual growing stock is still 25 m3 ha-1. This can be regarded the naturalmortality during the 12 year period or 2.1 m3 ha-1 yr-1.

The calculated annual natural losses, 7.85 million m3, are almost 40 % of the gross annualincrement and 1.17 times more than the total felling. Although a part of the calculated natural lossesmay have been harvested for fuel and other local uses, the losses represent a potential woodresource. It should also be possible to reduce logging residues. If half of the calculated naturallosses could be included in the recorded harvest and the logging residue percent could be reduced to10%, the removals could be increased by about 3 million m3 u.b. per annum, without increasing thetotal drain from the level of 1983-1995.

Table 5.3. Assuming drain as great as the gross annual increment, the potentially sustainableremovals could be.

Type Amount (mill. m 3)Drain 19.86Natural losses 3.93Fellings 15.93Removals, o.b. 13.70Removals, u.b. 12.33

Theoretically intensified forestry, through increasing thinning and other silvicultural measures andby building a good network of forest roads, could triple the recorded wood production in theLeningrad Region in comparison with the past and current utilisation levels.


6. POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LENINGRAD REGIONFORESTS TILL 2040

6.1. INTRODUCTION : THE ISSUES OF THE PRESENT FOREST RESOURCE

The analysis of the present state of the Leningrad Region forest resource as described in theprevious chapters shows a rich forest resource. The resource is rich in terms of standing volume,but also rich in terms of old forest that have a high degree of structural diversity (Uuttera et al.1997). Because forest management in Russia has had a rather low impact in the past, naturalsuccession towards uneven-aged forest is occurring. This has resulted in a forest estate which is richin species diversity and structural diversity.

However, the future forest development and forest use is uncertain. The high standing volumes, andunstable political situation may attract logging companies that in some cases, may only aim at shortterm profit. Especially through the new forest law, in which the Federal Forest Service of Russiadoes not any longer carry out the final fellings but where fellings are carried out by loggingcompanies, the future forest management may be uncertain and difficult to monitor.

6.2. AIM

This uncertain situation calls for integral forest management plans for the whole region (Krott et al.[In press]). Such plans can assess the possible ways to reach sustainable forest management whichpays full attention to all the functions of the forest in the region, including wildlife, biodiversity, andsoil and water protection.

The aim of this part of the study is therefore to produce different scenarios of forest development forthe Leningrad Region forests up to 2040. The scenarios should give answers to biologicalpossibilities in the region for recovery of the forest sector. The scenarios should include theoreticalones in which the biological maxima are sought, and also more realistic ones which present thepossibilities for different management options for recovery and its effects on forest sustainability inthe region. More specific questions include: what is the theoretical biological maximum sustainableproduction, how does forest sector recovery affect future forest development, how can full attentionbe paid to nature conservation in the region while the forest sector is still being developed, and howcan the present large area of overmature stands be utilised in a sensible way?

This chapter presents possible future developments under different scenarios (Section 6.6) based onthe latest data available (Section 6.3). The model is described in Section 6.4. An explanation of thechosen scenarios is given in Section 6.5.

6.3. REQUIRED DATA

Basic data that the model needs are area (ha), growing stock (m3 ha-1 o.b.) and net annual increment(m3 ha-1 yr-1 o.b.) per age class for each distinguished forest type. Preferably forest types aredistinguished, to as detailed a level as possible with the available data. A forest type can bedistinguished according to sub-region, owner, site class and tree species. In the Leningrad Region20 landscape ecological sub-regions (see also Figure 3.1), one owner class, two site classes and


four species were distinguished. This resulted in 160 forest types. An example of one forest type isgiven in Table 6.1. The tree species which were distinguished are: Norway spruce (Picea abies(L.)Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestrisL.), birch (Betula pendulaRoth. andBetula pubescensEhrh.),and other broadleaves (mainly aspen,Populus tremulaL.).

However, for increment the data from the forest inventory could not be used, because the Russiansystem presents increment as the difference in growing stock between two age classes, divided bythe width of the age class. This disregards ‘losses’ of increment through thinnings and naturalmortality. Therefore, the net annual increment data (overbark) from existing yield tables were used.For spruce, pine and birch the yield table by Moschkalev (1984) for the northwest of the formerSoviet Union was used and for other broadleaves the yield table by Zagreev (1992) for theEuropean part of the former Soviet Union was used (see Figure 6.6). The same increment data wereused for each sub-region.

In addition to this, the Russian forest inventory data are gathered as from two site classes, while theyield table system knows five site classes. Therefore the site classes from the yield tables whichwould represent the distribution of the species in the region had to be selected. For spruce, birchand other broadleaves, the site classes II and III from the yield tables were used. For pine theclasses III and IV were used. In the present study the highest class is called 1, the lowest 2.

Table 6.1.Example of the input data for one forest type. In this case pine on site class 1, in sub-region Schugozersky

REGION LENINGRAD REGIONSUB-REGION: 14OWNERSHIP ALLSITE CLASS: 2SPECIESGROUP

PINE

AGE CLASSmiddle age

AREA Growing Stock Net AnnualIncrement

(years) (ha) (m3 ha-1 o.b.) m3 ha-1 yr -1 o.b.10 1010 15 2.030 3843 107 3.850 2445 189 5.370 5135 229 5.690 4339 248 5110 1853 244 3.6130 1165 240 2.4150 534 235 1.8170 34 200 1.5190 0 0 1.3210 0 0 1.1230 0 0 1


6.4. DATA SOURCES

The data which were used are based on the 1989-1993 forest inventory cycle as carried out by the28 Forest Enterprises in the region (Ch 2). The data which could be obtained represent the majorityof the Leningrad Region Forest Fund (Table 6.2) and cover 3.81 million ha.

Table 6.2.Overview of forest areas (1000 ha) in the Leningrad Region and the parts from whichdata for the scenario studies were obtained.

Owner Forest fund Forest land Forest landsincluded forscenarios

Forest Committee of the Leningrad Region* 4577 3578 3578Min. Environmental protection and Nature Reserves 36.4 20.4 20.4Agricultural organisations 905.4 905.4 212 **Hunting enterprises of Min. Agriculture 42.4 33.6City forest 165.8 145.8Other Ministries 71.4 65.6Total 5798.4 4748.8 3810.4*: earlier consisting of Federal Forest Service and Enterprises of the former Minlesprom**: the sum of included areas from agricultural organisations, hunting enterprises of Min. Agriculture, cityforest, and other ministries together.

Since no forestry authority had any database that would fulfil the data requirements for the entireregion, they were gathered from different sources. These were: the Northwest State ForestInventory Enterprise, the Forestry Committee of the Leningrad Region, and the Forest ManagementEnterprises of the Leningrad Region. These sources were used to find area and standing volumedata. For increment data and management regimes, the yield tables by Zagreev (1992) andMoschkalev (1984) were used.

6.5. METHOD

The forest resource projection model which was used was originally developed at the SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences (Sallnäs 1990) and later used for the IIASA Forest Study toevaluate the effects of acidification on European forests (Nilsson et al. 1992). Now, it is in use andunder further development at the European Forest Institute for new forest resource projections at theEuropean level (Nabuurs et al. 1997, Päivinen and Nabuurs 1997, Nabuurs et al. 1998).

The model is a timber assessment model, i.e. it does not predict the demand for total felling levels,but it shows the development of the forest resource in terms of age class distribution, standing stockper forest type, and for example increment under user-specified total demanded felling levels. It alsoshows whether the demanded felling levels can be achieved in the long-term.


X33

X44

Age

Growth Harvests

Volume

Forest types

Figure 6.1.The area matrix approach (Nilsson et al. 1992)

The modelling approach is an area-based matrix type model. Foreach forest type (see § 6.3), aseparate matrix is included. The forest state is depicted as an area distribution over age and volumeclasses and the dynamics of volume increment are expressed as transitions between cells in thematrix (Figure 6.1). Final felling and regeneration activities are included as probabilities by age. Afelled area is moved outside the matrix and moves back to the first volume class within a certaintime lag. Thinning is expressed as the fraction of the area residing in the cell of the age-volumematrix that is thinned. The thinned area is moved one step down in the volume dimension, thussimulating the difference in volume between the classes.

The actual growth model per forest type relies on: A) the volume distribution of the forest state, B)the growth dynamics, and C) parameters describing management activities. The model calculates infive-year time steps.

Ad A) The input data consists of data concerning the area per age class with a certain volume.However, the matrix approach requires that the distribution of the area over volume classesin each age class is represented. To assess this distribution, three variables are used: a) themean volume per hectare per age class, b) the coefficient of variation in volume per hectare,and c) the correlation between volume and age (Nilsson et al. 1992).

Ad B) the growth dynamics are incorporated as five-year growth periods as a percentage of thestanding volume. The function is calculated on the basis of age, standing volume andincrement (see Fig. 6.2). The growth is corrected for the actual standing volume of the areain a cell, i.e. at higher standing volumes the growth percentage is suppressed (see Fig. 6.3).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230

age

5yr

incr

emen

tas

ape

rcen

tage

of

stan

ding

volu

me

(%)

actual increment pred incr.

Figure 6.2.Growth is incorporated in the model as 5-year increment as a percentage of the standingvolume (here Scots pine on site class II)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Standing volume (m3/ha)

5-ye

argr

owth

(%of

sv)

Figure 6.3. Correction of the growth percentage as given in Figure 6.2 according to standingvolume of the matrix cell. Note that this correction still gives an absolute increment which is higherin the higher volume classes. See also Nilsson et al. (1992)

Ad C) Management is controlled on two levels in the model. First a basic management per foresttype, like thinning (as a percentage of the growth) (Figure 6.4), final felling (as aprobability per age class) (Figure6.5), and regeneration (as a transition rate from the bareland class to the first volume class) are incorporated. These are the theoreticalmanagement regimes, which are applied according to handbooks for forest management inthe region (Moschkalev 1984). These theoretical regimes must be seen as constraints of


what might be felled. Second, a total required volume of fellings from thinnings and finalfelling are specified for the region as a whole foreach time period. Based on thetheoretical management regimes, the model searches and finds, depending on the state ofthe forest, the required volumes.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

180-200

200-220

220 >

Age class

Thi

nnin

g(f

ract

ion

ofth

ein

crem

ent)

Figure 6.4. Example for pine of the incorporated theoretical thinning regimes. This thinningconstraint is specified as a percentage of the increment which might be thinned according to yieldtables.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230

Age (yr)

Cha

nce

for

final

felli

ng

Figure 6.5. Example of the theoretical final felling regimes. The chance that a final felling mayoccur in principle, is incorporated per age class. Here is an example for spruce. Depending on totaldemanded harvesting volume a number of final fellings are executed.


6.6. SCENARIOS

Five scenarios were run for the Leningrad Region till 2040. These are: 1) handbook, 2) business asusual, 3) maximum sustainable production, 4) recovery, and 5) recovery with nature conservation.

Ad 1) The Handbook scenariomust be seen as purely theoretical. The model only runs on theincorporated thinning and final felling regimes as given in Figure 6.4 and6.5. This scenario showshow far off the present forest state is from the handbook management regimes. The model will tryto push the forest estate as quickly as possible into that handbook state, e.g. when there is too muchgrowing stock in the older age classes according to forestry handbooks, the model will log theseolder forests within a few time periods.

Ad 2) In theBusiness as usual scenariowe assume that the present (1995) total felling levels in theLeningrad Region will stay the same throughout the simulation period. It is assumed that the forestsector does not recover from its present decline and will continue at very low activity. The followingtotal felling levels (million m3 o.b. per year) were applied throughout the whole simulation period:

Total felling coniferous 3.2Out of which thinning coniferous 1.0Total felling deciduous 1.9Out of which thinning deciduous 0.6

Ad 3) In theMaximum sustainable productionscenario the search is for a maximum felling levelunder which the average standing volumes are maintained at present levels. To search for that level,total required felling was increased quickly and the following totals (per year) were used.

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Total felling coniferous 3.2 5.1 7.0 10.0 10.0Out of which thinning coniferous 1.0 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.6Total felling deciduous 1.9 3.0 4.2 5.2 5.2Out of which thinning deciduous 0.6 1.2 1.4 2.0 2.0

Ad 4) In the Recovery scenarioit is assumed that the Russian forest sector, and especially theregions close to Europe recover to their late eighties level within 20 years (by 2011). This is basedon the assumption that the Russian economy as a whole has recovered by that time and that theinfrastructure has improved a lot through which export is increased. After 2011, the productioncontinues to rise by 2% per year. This gives the following required total felling levels (million m3

o.b. per five year period).

1991* 2001 2011 2021 2031Total felling coniferous 3.2 3.9 4.6 5.5 6.6Out of which thinning coniferous 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3Total felling deciduous 1.9 2.4 2.8 3.4 4.0Out of which thinning deciduous 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7

* Even though not every5-year period is mentioned in the table, the required felling is specified in the modelfor each time period. Values for e.g. 1996 are the same as for 1991.


Ad 5) TheRecovery with Nature Conservation Scenarioassumes the same recovery rate as in the‘Recovery’ scenario but more attention is paid to the nature values of the forests in the region. Thisis done through:

A): setting aside the older age classes from final felling as of1990. For spruce and pine thismeans that all the forest area which is older or equal to 150 years in 1990, cannot beclearcut anymore. This comprises in 1990 an area of approximately 66,000 ha. For birchand other broadleaves this means that all forest area which is older or equal to 95 years in1990, cannot be clearcut anymore. This comprises in1990 an area of approximately 36,000ha. In total 2.7% of the forest area has thus been preserved.B) Additionally it’s specified that a larger share of the total fellings originate from thinning.This is to represent a move towards more selective cutting systems instead of clearfelling.At present, the thinned volume comprises only 19% of the total felling. In this scenario it isassumed that the thinned volume must be 50% of the total felling by the end of thesimulation period. A linear increase is assumed.

This gives the following required total felling levels (million m3 o.b. per five year period).

1991 2001 2011 2021 2031Total felling coniferous 3.2 3.9 4.6 5.5 6.6Out of which thinning coniferous 1.0 1.6 2.2 2.7 3.3Total felling deciduous 1.9 2.4 2.8 3.4 4.0Out of which thinning deciduous 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0

6.7. THE INITIAL STATE OF THE FOREST RESOURCE

The following tables and figures give an overview of the initial state of the forest resource in 1991.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230

Age

Cur

rent

Net

Ann

ualI

ncre

men

t(m

3/ha

.yro

b.)

Spruce, site class 1 Pine site class 1

Spruce, site class 2 Pine, site class 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

105

115

125

Age (yr)

Cur

rent

Net

Ann

ualI

ncre

men

t(m

3/ha

.yr

o.b.

)

Birch, site class 1 Other broadleaves, site class 1Birch, site class 2 Other broadleaves, site class 2

Figure 6.6. Current Net Annual Increment as derived from the yield tables by Moschkalev (1984)and Zagreev (1992). Note the difference in age classes.


In the data as obtained from the forest enterprises, 65% of the forest area consists of coniferousspecies (Figure 6.7). The majority of the forests are located on sites classified as 1 (II and III in theRussian yield table system in the case of spruce, birch and other broadleaves).

12

spru

ce

pine

birc

h

othe

rbr

oadl

eave

s(m

ainl

yas

pen)

0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000

1000000

Are

a(h

a.)

site

Figure 6.7. Graphical representation of the total forest area in the Leningrad Region over speciesand site classes (ha).

The age class distributions in Figure 6.8. show a forest resource in which a large part of the forestarea is in the middle to higher age classes (50 to 90 years). 56% of the forest is older than 70 years.

spruce

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230

Mid-age (yr)

Area (ha)

pine

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230

Mid-age (yr)

Area (ha)

birch

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000200000

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115

Mid-age (yr)

Area (ha)

other broadleaves

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115

Mid-age (yr)

Area (ha)

Figure 6.8.Age class distribution of the forests of the Leningrad region per species and total. Situation as of 1991, based on the inventory of theRussian Federal Forest Service. Note the differences in age classes.

42

R.P

äivin

en

,G.J.N

ab

uu

rs,A.V

.Lio

ub

imo

va

nd

K.K

uu

sela


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

10 30 50 70 90 110

130

150

170

190

210

230

Mid-age (yr)

Are

a(h

a)

Figure 6.9.Age class distribution of the total forest lands of the Leningrad Region. Situation as of1991, based on the inventory of the Russian Federal Forest Service.

The total growing stock in 1991 as assessed from the forest inventory data amounts to 698.4 millionm3 (182 m3 ha-1), and the net annual increment as assessed with the yield table increments amountto 15.7 million m3 yr-1 (4.1 m3 ha-1 yr-1). The distribution of the growing stock over the age classesis given in Figure 6.10.

1030507090110

130

150

170

190

210

230 spruce

pine

0

10000000

2000000030000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

70000000

80000000

90000000

Gro

win

gst

ock

(m3)

Age (yr)

Distribution of the total growing stock of spruce and pine over theage classes

525456585105 birch

other broadleaves

0

20000000

40000000

60000000

80000000

Gro

win

gst

ock

(m3)

Age (yr)

Distribution of the total growing stock of birch and other broadleavesover the age classes

Figure 6.10.Distribution of the total growing stock of the Leningrad Region forests over the treespecies and the age classes. Note the difference in age classes between the species.

The growing stock is even more skewed than the area distribution. This is especially the case forspruce and pine where respectively 62 and 58 % of the growing stock occurs in the two age classeswith a middle age of 70 and 90 years.


6.8. RESULTS

Figures 6.11 to 6.15 present the results of the different scenarios per output variable at the regionlevel.

05

101520253035

1968

1978

1988

1995

2001

2011

2021

2031

2041

Time (yr)

Vol

ume

(mill

ion

m3/

yro.

b.)

historic handbookbusiness as usual recoveryrecovery w ith nature conservation Maximum su

Figure 6.11. Total annual fellings on forest lands in the Leningrad Region, historical and projected.Although these volumes were given as required volumes, this output shows whether it is possible tofind those required volumes given the thinning and final felling constraints from Figure 6.4 and6.5).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

Time (yr)

Gro

win

gst

ock

(m3/

hao.

b.)

Historic handbookbusiness as usual recoveryrecovery w ith nature conservation Maximum sustainable produ

Figure 6.12.Growing stock development in Leningrad Region under the five alternative scenarios.


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0-20

20-4

0

40-6

0

60-8

0

80-1

00

100-

120

120-

140

140-

160

160-

180

180-

200

200-

220

220-

240

Age class

Are

a(x

1000

ha)

1990 handbookbusiness as usual. recoveryrecovery with nature conservation maximum sustainable production

Figure 6.13. Age class distribution of the total Leningrad Region forests in 2041 under the fivescenarios.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

Time (yr)

Incr

emen

t(m

3/ha

.yr)

Historic mean incr. Historic net incr

Historic gross incr handbook

business as usual recovery

recovery with nature conservation Maximum sustainable production

gross

net

mean

Figure 6.14.Increment in Leningrad Region forest land, both historic and projected.


0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041

Time (yr)

Are

a(1

000

ha/y

r)

handbook business as usualrecovery recovery with nature conservationMax. sust. prod.

Figure 6.15. Areas of forest which are annually affected by either final felling or thinning under thefive scenarios.

Handbook scenarioThe handbook scenario results show that the present state of the Leningrad Region forests is farfrom what it should be according to the theoretical handbooks. The model starts to log away thelarge areas with forests over 80 years. In the first period, it fells just over 41 million m3 per year.This results in a decline of the average standing volume per hectare from 182 m3 ha-1 in 1991 to 135m3 ha-1 in 2006.

Because of large young forest areas originating, the average net annual increment increases to about4.5 m3 ha-1 yr-1 in 2016 and then slowly declines to around 4.0 m3 ha-1 yr-1 in 2040. More interestingis the fact that the model suggests a sustainable total felling level of approximately10.7 million m3

yr-1 at an average standing volume of 170 m3 ha-1. Under the handbook scenario all the theoreticallyavailable volume for felling will be logged. Therefore, the forest area which is affected annually byforest management (both thinning and final felling) is very large in the beginning (220,000 ha yr-1)and then quickly declines to around 67,000 hectares per year (1.8 % per year) in 2040.

Business as usualUnder the business as usual scenario, the low felling levels of1995 are applied throughout thewhole simulation period. This was a total felling level of 5.2 million m3 per year out of which 1.6million m3 came from thinning. It is shown that this results in older forests, with a high averagestanding volume. This indicates that the required total felling volume can easily be found. Becausethe required volume is far under the maximum sustainable felling level, the growing stock continuesto increase. By 2041, the average standing volume has risen from 182 to 322 m3 ha-1. However, theauthors want to note that the modelling approach underestimates the natural mortality and may thusoverestimate the growing stock (see also discussion on natural mortality) .


Because the age class distribution for coniferous species gradually shifts towards higher classes anddramatically for deciduous species, the average net annual increment decreases from 4.2 m3 ha-1 yr-1

in 1991 to 3.8 m3 ha-1 yr-1 in 2041.

The annual management affected forest area decreases from 39,000 ha to 32,000 where thedecrease is mainly in the final felling area. This is possible because the average growing stock perhectare increases.

Maximum sustainable productionThrough iteration the maximum sustainable production level for the region was found. A level oftotal felling of15.2 million m3 per year could be sustained. This results in a stable standing volumeof 200 m3 ha-1. However, the age class distribution is still shifting towards younger age classes (seeFigure 6.16).

Under this scenario the net annual increment decreases also to 3.8 m3 ha-1 yr-1 in 2041. Naturallythis scenario results in a large area being affected by final cutting and thinning annually, in total114,000 ha per year.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1991

2001

2011

20212031

2041

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Are

a(1

000

ha)

age class

Year of simulation

Figure 6.16. Development of the age class distribution for the total Leningrad Region under themaximum sustainable production scenario. This figure shows how the distribution as given in figure6.13 develops from the initial situation.


RecoveryThe recovery scenario shows that returning to the mid-eighties felling level in 20 years and 2%production increase per year thereafter is possible in the region. A required total felling level of10.7million m3 per year can continuously be found and results by the year 2041 in a still increasingaverage growing stock of 284 m3 ha-1.

Under the recovery scenario, the concentration of forest areas in the middle age classes in 1991results in a moderate shift towards more older age classes in 2041. But now, a larger area has beenregenerated, resulting in more young forests and a more evenly distributed total forest area over theage classes.

The average net annual increment is rather stable around 4 m3 ha-1 yr-1 . The annually affected forestarea increases from 40,000 ha to 52,000, simply because a larger volume is required.

Recovery with nature conservationThe recovery with nature conservation scenario shows that returning to the late eighties felling leveland 2% production increase per year thereafter is possible in the region even if the older age classesare set aside and more thinning is used instead of clearcuts. The average growing stock in 2041amounts to 276 m3 ha-1, rather close to the average growing stock in the recovery scenario.However, the managed part of the forest has a much lower average than the unmanaged part.

Because it was decided to set aside forests over a certain age, all forest areas which reach that agewill also be set aside during the simulation. This results in a total area under nature conservation in2041 of 1.16 million ha (this was0.102 million ha in 1991).

This scenario results in a larger forest area in the older age classes in 2041 (1.041 Mha) comparedto the recovery scenario (0.711 Mha) (Figure 6.17). It can also be seen that the difference in 50years of development is not very dramatic. This is because under the recovery scenario, large forestareas are gaining in age because they are not cut. In the longer term the difference would becomelarger. Under the recovery with nature conservation scenario, the shift towards older age classesresults in some decline of increment. The average net annual increment decreases from 4.2 m3 ha-1

yr-1 in 1991 to 3.6 m3 ha-1 yr-1 in 2041.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0-20 20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

180-200

200-220

220-240

Age class

Are

a(1

000

ha)

recovery recovery with nature conservation

Figure 6.17. Differences in area per age class in 2041 for the scenarios ‘recovery’ and ‘recoverywith nature conservation’. Both scenarios require the same total harvesting level, but the natureconservation scenario in which older stands are preserved, results in significantly larger areas of oldforest.

In the long term this scenario where the set aside area keeps increasing would probably not besustainable. The forest area designated for nature conservation in 2041, (1.04 million ha) may be themaximum given the required felling level of10.6 million m3.

The most dramatic impact of this scenario can be seen in the area affected by management in Figure6.15. This annually affected forest area increases from 39,000 ha to 94,000 through time, partlybecause a larger volume is required, but also because we required that 50% of the total felledvolume would have to come from thinning. The thinning which simulates small scale managementand, for example, selective logging systems, now affects a much larger forest area, although theseverity of the impact at the sites will be far less.


7. DISCUSSION ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

7.1. GENERAL

All scenarios show that recovery of the forest sector in the Leningrad Region is very well possiblefrom a biological forest point of view. We found a maximum sustainable production level of 15.2million m3 per year. A more realistic recovery level of the forest sector gave a continuous annualproduction of 10.6 million m3 per year by 2041. However, under this latter level, the age classdistribution is still shifting towards older stands and increasing growing stock. Under all scenariosthe present concentration of forest area in the mature classes, is reduced. Both more younger andolder stands develop.

The recovery with nature conservation scenario has shown that recovery and further development ofthe forest sector in the region is possible from a biological point of view, while at the same timepaying full attention to other values of the forest as well. It was in principle possible to set aside27% of the forest area while still maintaining a fully developed forest sector.

Even under the recovery scenarios where we return to mid-eighties felling levels in 20 years andassume a further increase of 2% per year, this development is sustainable. Both recovery scenariosproduce 10.6 million m3 per year by 2041. We found a maximum sustainable production level forthe region of 15.2 million m3 per year. Under this scenario the present concentration of areas in themiddle and higher age classes has disappeared by 2041. This sustainable production level is veryclose to the annual fellings of15.9 million m3 as estimated with the forest balance method inChapter 5.

Under the business as usual and recovery scenarios the age class distribution is pushed towards amore even distribution, where the nature conservation scenario leads to a higher degree of oldforest. For example, the recovery with nature conservation scenario results in 1.041 Mha in the setaside age classes in 2041 against 0.71 Mha under the recovery scenario. Based on these results wecan conclude that recovery and further development of the forest sector in the region is possiblefrom a biological point of view, while at the same time paying full attention to other values of theforest as well.

The way a set aside policy was incorporated (i.e. by not logging in forests over certain age classes)leads to the fact that the set aside area continuously increases (to 1.04 million ha. in 2041) evenunder the recovery scenario where the logging intensity is quite high. This is not a very realisticoption as a simulated set aside policy. It is more likely that such a set aside policy would beincorporated by a fixed forest area throughout the period. But even the simulated large set asidearea seems to be possible under rather intensive forest management. It is more likely that the presentway in which the Russian forests are divided (Group I [protection forest], II [multi-purpose forests],and III [wood production forests]), would be the basis for a conservation policy by region. It shouldalso be realised that setting aside 150-year old forests which have been managed until that age arenot immediately valuable from a biodiversity point of view. It could be argued that setting aside atthe point of regeneration would be better because the forest can then develop undisturbed from thebeginning.


7.2. INPUT DATA

The input data concerning areas and growing stock by age class can be seen as the best dataavailable. The area estimates are usually characterised as very accurate. However, compared toEuropean standards, the inaccuracy as regards the growing stock may be quite high. Thisinaccuracy is mainly affected by the use of the so-called ‘standard’ tables for the growing stockdetermination. The underestimation of the growing stock varies usually from 10 to 30% dependingon a stand’s structure, age and species composition (Moschkalev, 1984). However, others report astandard error of the growing stock assessment for the forest management enterprises to be 5 to15% at 95% probability (Sukhikh1989, Shvidenko and Nilsson 1997).

Concerning the increments, we used yield tables which are not always representative for all forestarea. We could not use the mean annual increment from the Russian forest inventory data, becausethey represent a net increase in the growing stock, calculated as the growing stock divided by theage, and therefore ignore any natural mortality or thinning.

The net annual increment presented in the yield tables may be higher than generally found in theforest, because yield tables always represent a well developed fully stocked stand. In the currentsituation, stands may be denser and therefore have a higher natural mortality. As a result of that ourincorporated net annual increment may be an overestimation. Therefore the output concerningincreasing volumes or sustainable felling levels has to be used with care.

Still, yield classes from yield tables had to be chosen in such a way that they represent the region inthe best way. Based on the standing volumes given by the National Forest Inventory data, localexpertise, and increment data for comparable Finnish forest types, it was decided to use thefollowing yield classes for our two class system in the scenarios:

• Norway spruce: class II and III (Moschkalev 1984);• Scots pine: class III and IV (Moschkalev 1984);• birch: class II and III (Moschkalev 1984);• other broadleaves: class II and III (Zagreev 1992).

Table 7.1 Distribution of species groups over site classes as a percentage of the total forest areabased on the Russian National Forest Inventory data of 1988 and Nilsson et al. 1992.

Site classI I + II III IV V Va

coniferous 32 40 16 8 4deciduous 66 6 6 2 0All spp (Nilsson et al. 1992) 9.3 42.4 28.7 10.4 9.2

This distribution justifies a concentration on sites II and III, where it is likely that the somewhatlarger area of coniferous species on site class IV is mainly Scots pine. The choices made for siteclasses in the present study result in an average net annual increment in the region of 4.1 m3 ha-1 yr-

1, (for the total area of 3.8 million ha an increment of15.6 million m3).


Our initial data used, in the scenario runs for growing stock in 1991, 698 million m3 with a totalincrement of 15.7 million m3 yr-1. Whereas these data in Table 4.9 are, for growing stock 639million m3 and for mean annual increment 9.9 million m3 yr-1 (for only 3.4 million ha). Based on thiswe estimate that an overestimation of 15% for the net annual increment is made by using yieldtables. It remains difficult to estimate how the mean annual increment in the Russian forestinventory system relates to any net annual increment.

7.3. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER PROJECTIONS

Two other projections for comparable regions have been made in the past. These are Nilsson et al.(1992) for the entire European part of the former Soviet Union, and Salminen (1997) for theLadenso area north of Lake Ladoga. A comparison is made in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2. Forest resource analyses made for Leningrad Region and comparable regionsForest land areaincluded

Time frame Initialincrement(m3 ha-1 yr -

1 )**

Initialgrowingstock(m3 ha-1)

Finalgrowingstock byscenario(m3 ha-1)

Annualfellings byscenario(m3 ha-1)

Nilssonet al.1992

Centralaggregate*20.9 mill. ha.

1989-2089 2.75 NWR3.6 Aggr.

132 1. 1412. 157

1. 4.62. 4.3

Salminen1997

Ladenso0.37 mill. ha.

1990-2040 5.2GAI, ob

210 1. 2612.1683. 149

1. 2.22. 4.43. 4.0

Forestbalance byKuusela inthis study

Leningrad Region3.4 mill. ha

1983-1995 5.81 ob.GAI

3.51 obNAI

164 186calculatedby balance184.5

Fellings1.80 ob

This study Leningrad Region3.8 mill ha

1990-2040 4.1NAI

186 1. 1712. 3223. 2004. 2845. 276

1. 4.52. 1.43. 3.74. 2.25. 2.2

*: the output was aggregated at the Central aggregate (Aggr.) level, although some of the initial values weregiven at the level of the North-West Region (NWR) as well.**: In case of Nilsson et al.: mean annual increment as defined in Russian inventory;In case of Salminen: gross annual increment (out of which he assumed 5% for natural mortality and possiblethinnings); In case of this study: net annual increment.

The best comparison can be made with the study by Salminen in which the projection was madewith the MELA system. The study by Nilsson et al. (1992) has covered a much larger area of whichthe Leningrad Region is only a small part and they used the mean annual increment as input data. Inthe study by Salminen the Ladenso Region was inventoried with a method modified from themethod used in the National Forest Inventory of Finland. The scenario runs with the MELA systemwere carried out with Finnish growth functions based on gross annual increment.

The higher growing stock figure from the Ladenso area seems reasonable because the area has hada lower harvesting activity in the past than the Leningrad Region. The higher increment in the


Ladenso area is caused partly by the fact that it represents the gross annual increment, but that doesnot explain the whole difference. This difference is an indication that we may have chosen too lowyield classes from the yield tables. This increment difference also results in different results for themaximum sustainable yield: in Ladenso 4.4. m3 ha-1 yr-1, in our study 3.7. Salminen’s highermaximum sustainable yield is also caused by the fact that their modelling approach with grossincrement allows the implementation of the effect of increased thinning activity reducing naturalmortality.

In the forest balance (chapter 5), the mean values of the period of 1983-1995, the gross annualincrement (GAI) is 5.81 m3 ha-1, the annual increment (NAI), 3.51 m3 ha-1 and natural losses 2.30m3 ha-1. Taking into account the more southern location of the Leningrad Region, the gross annualincrement measured in the Ladenso inventory, 5.2 m3 ha-1, is relatively well in proportion with theabove mentioned gross annual increment estimated in forest balance.

7.4. DEATH RATE AND GROSS AND NET INCREMENT

Since our model does not take into account natural mortality, the net annual increment had to bechosen. The figure below shows that in that way we disregard about 28% of the total grossincrement. The respective percent in the forest balance calculation is 40 in 1983-1995. Thedisadvantage of not regarding natural mortality is that the model cannot evaluate the effects ofchanging management intensity on natural mortality rates. By changing towards a more intensiveforest management (e.g. the recovery scenarios), it is quite likely that the mortality rates woulddecrease.

Nor can we evaluate now to what degree the mortality increases under a very low level ofmanagement activity (e.g. business as usual scenario). Under the business as usual scenario, theaverage standing volume increases to 322 m3 ha-1. This seems to be very high for the region and it islikely that part of this increase will die because of the dense stands.

The decrease in net annual increment as given in Fig. 7.1. seems to represent an increase inmortality. However, this decrease is mainly caused by some disadvantages in the way the modedeals with growth in the top volume class and by the effect thinning has on net increment.Therefore, this decrease has to be viewed with some care.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20 40 60 80 100 Age

m3/ha

Standing vol. accumulated mort.

Figure 7.1. Accumulation of the gross and net annual increment in pine forests on site class 2 in theEuropean part of the Former Soviet Union according to Zagreev (1992).


7.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION

Most scenarios rely on assumptions on the recovery rate of the Russian forest sector. This rate isvery uncertain and some think a major recovery will not happen soon i.e. within a couple of years(Komlev 1997). However, all recovery scenarios indicate that the forest sector can in principlecontribute with a significant share to the socio-economic development of the region.

If we take the average stumpage of 15 RUB m-3 (2.5 $) for a logging concession, our scenario of 10million m3 yr-1 would yield an annual income of 25 million US$. Although that is not a large sum inthe short term, these funds can be used for further developing infrastructure and processing industryin the region (Anttonen and Petrov 1997, Lioubimov and Teschmyr 1997). In that way the incomesfrom logging concessions can serve as a start for developing the region. The key works to increasethe utilisation of the wood production potential are increased thinning and the construction of forestroads.

8. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The present report has described the state and management of the Leningrad Region forests over thepast two to three decades. It also presents alternative visions on the possible developments for thenext 50 years. Here we look at possible ways to improve the present situation of low activity, anduncertainty over sustainability of the forest use.

The present state is characterised by an (from forestry point of view) underutilisation of the forestresources. This, together with the excessive logging activities in the thirties of this century has led toa forest resource in which middle to older age classes now dominate. The activity in the logging andprocessing industry is low caused by a combination of low domestic demand, poor mechanisationlevel, and poor accessibility of the forest resource.

The results of this study show that the biological potentials for felling would be approximately 3times higher than the felling level in the1990's. Notably, the present felling levels will lead to anaccumulation of old stands during the next century. To increase the utilisation of forest resources,technical, economical and infrastructural barriers should be broken.

On the one hand, the new Forest Law has created a way to break from the current impasse. Byattracting (foreign) wood products users, income can be generated and can (when wisely used) helpto start developing the region, processing industry, employment and preserve forest areas for natureconservation. However, this situation has also caused uncertainty over the sustainability of logginglevels because of the large number of individual companies now active and because of the low levelof control over the execution of lease agreements.

The way forward from this situation would, in our opinion, have to include especially the followingissues:

1. insight and control of number and execution of lease agreements2. mechanisms to create resources for forest management and administration from leaseagreements3. development of logging and regeneration methods in the easily accessible forests


4. finding the balance between timber production and establishment of forest reserves withtourist industry in the areas where untouched forests exists5. stimulating the development of infrastructure and both small and large scale processingindustry in the region by providing assistance and subsidies for small scale enterprises

These points should be worked out in an integral development plan for the region. Such a planshould involve the local government, nature conservation organisations, the tourist industry, donorsand the enterprises of the Federal Forest Service. For further reading, we recommend for instance,the World Bank study on Russian forest policy (World Bank, 1997).


REFERENCES

Alimov, P. G. et al. 1995. The assessment of rates of pollution of industrial enterprises in the atmosphere ofLeningrad Region. In: Frolov, K. (ed.) The state of environment of the Russian North and North - West. St.Petersburg. Nauka. 370 p.

Anttonen, T. and Petrov, A.P. (eds.). 1997. Potential of the Russian forests and forest industries. ResearchNotes 61. University Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. 144 p.

ARICFR 1995. Instructions on inventory and planning operations in the Forest Fund of Russia. All RussianInformation Center for Forest Resources (ARICFR), Moscow.

Burdin, N., Myllynen, A.L. and Strakhov, V. 1998. Russian Forest Industry Production. Trends and prospects.North Carelia Polytechnic Publications C: North Carelia Poytechnic 1998. Reports, 5. 64 p.

Federal Forest Service of Russia. 1995a. Instructions for inventory of Russian forests. Vniitslesresurs (AllRussian Information Centre for Forest Resources) Moscow.

Federal Forest Service of Russia. 1995b. Forest fund of Russia: referencebook. Moscow. Vniitslesresurs.Forest Fund of Russian Federation 1996. The Yearbooks of forest statistics1956 - 1995. Moscow. Lesproekt

and VNITSLESRESURS.Isatchenko, A.G., Dashkevitch, E.V. and Karnaukhova, E.V. 1965. Physio - geographical classification of the

USSR’s Northwest. L. LGU. 246 p.Komlev, S. 1997. Financial possibilities for investing in Russian pulp and paper industry. In: Anttonen, T. and

Petrov, A.P. (eds.). Potential of Russian forests and forest industries. Research Notes 61. UniversityJoensuu, Faculty of Forestry. Pp. 105-116.

Krott, M., Tikkanen, I., Petrov, A., Tunytsya, Y., Zheliba, B., Sasse, V., Rykounina, I. and Tunytsya, TLegal,administrative and policy strategies for securing sustainable development of the forest sector in Russia,Belarus and Ukraine. EFI research report. . (In press).

Lioubimov, A.V., Kudriashov, M.M., Nabuurs, G.J., Päivinen, R., Tetiuhin, S.V. and Kuusela, K. 1998.LesaLeningradskoj oblasti: sovremennoe sostoianie i puti vozmojnogo razvitiia. Uchebnoe posobie dliastudentov lesnyh vuzov. Sankt-Peterburgskaia gosudarstvennaia lesotehnicheskaia akademiia, St.Petersburg.

Lioubimov, A.V. and Tcshmyr, A.F. 1996. The role of the forest management in development of St. Petersburgand Leningrad region. Joensuu University, 25 p.

Moschkalev (ed.) 1984. Forest inventory handbook for Northwest of USSR. St. Petersburg Forest TechnicalAcademy.

Nabuurs, G.J., Päivinen, R., Sallnäs, O., and Kupka, I. 1997. A large scale forestry scenario model as aplanning tool for European forests. In: Moiseev, N.A., Von Gadow, K.and Krott, M. (eds.), Planning anddecision making for forest management in the market economy. IUFRO conference, Pushkino, Moscow. 25-29 September 1996. Cuvillier Verlag, Goettingen. Pp. 89-102.

Nabuurs, G.J., Pajuoja, H., Kuusela, K. and Päivinen, R. 1998. Forest resource scenario methodologies forEurope. EFI Discussion paper 5. European Forest Institute. Joensuu. 30 p.

Nilsson, S., Sallnäs, O., Hugosson, M., and Shvidenko, A. 1992. The forest resources of the former EuropeanUSSR. Internatonal Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). The Parthenon Publishing Group. UKand USA. 407 p.

Päivinen, R. and Nabuurs, G.J. 1997. Scenario modelling for European forests as a tool for assessing criteriaand indicators for sustainable forest management In: XI World Forestry Congress. Part G, Session 33:Forestry Sector Planning. Antalya, Turkey 13-22 October 1997. p. 291 (summary)

Regional Forest Committee 1996. Forests of Leningrad region 1995: The analysis of the forest dynamics.Regional Forest Committee and North - West State Forest Inventory Enterprise. St. Petersburg, 22 p.

Sallnäs, O. 1990. A matrix growth model of the Swedish forest. Studia Forestalia Suecica. No 183. SwedishUniv Agr. sci. Faculty of Forestry. Uppsala. 23 pp.

Salminen, S. 1997. The forest resources of the Ladenso procurement area in the Russian Ladoga Karelia, 1991.Information Bulletin 630. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki. 92 p.

Shvidenko, A. and Nilsson, S. 1997. Are the Russian forests disappearing? Unasylva188(48): 57-64.Shvidenko, A., Nilsson, S. and Roshkov, V. 1997a. Possibilities for increased carbon sequestration through the

implementation of rational forest management in Russia. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 94: 137-162Shvidenko, A., Venevsky, S. and Nilsson, S. 1997. Generalized estimation of increment and mortality in

Russian forests. In: 7th Annual conference of the IBFRA: Sustainable development of boreal forests. St.Petersburg Forestry Research Institute, Russia. August 19-23, 1996. p. 184-191.

Stoliarov D.P., Burnevsky, Iu.I., Knize, A.A. and Romaniuk, B.D. 1994. The general principles of strategy ofthe forest exploitation and regeneration. LenNIILKH. p. 114 - 118.


Strakhov, V.V., Teplyakov, V.K., Borissoff, V.A., Goltsova, N.I., Saramaki, J., Niemela, P. and Myllynen,A.L. 1996. On the ecological and economic impacts of wood harvesting and trade in North-west Russia. OYFEG, Forest and Environment Group Ltd. All Russian Research and Information Centre for ForestResources, Univ. Joensuu, St. Petersburg State University, and Russian Academy of Sciences. 152 p.

Uuttera, J., Maltamo, M. and Hotanen, J.P. 1997. The structure of forest stands in virgin and managedpeatlands: a comparison between Finnish and Russian KareliaForest Ecology and Management 96: 125-138.

Wardle, P. and Michie, B. 1998. Markets for forest products in Europe in the face of integration andglobalisation. Discussion paper 3. European Forest Institute. Joensuu, Finland 28 p.

World Bank 1997. Russia, Forest Policy during Transition. A World Bank Country Study. The World Bank,Washington, D.C. 279 p.

Zagreev (ed.) 1992. Forest Inventory Handbook, all Union rules and regulations for the forest inventory. Kolos,Moscow. Pp. 298-321.


TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Age groups: groups of stands in forest management planning based on a system of age classes.Usually the first two age classes (1-20 or 1-40 years) are included in the group ofyoungstands; the third age class (21-30 and 41-60 years) consist of themiddle-aged stands; thefourth age class (sometimes the fifth)premature or undermature stands; and the age ofthe final harvesting (50 for the soft broadleaves and 81-101 for the coniferous ) make thestandsmature and overmature

Actual fellings: that part of the prescribed fellings which have actually been felled.Allowable cut (AC): planned amount of wood for annual felling, both final felling and thinning. AC

is mainly based on the mean annual increment and usually equals mean annual increment,so it is biologically based.According to the Russian ‘Methods for determination of allowable final cut’ AC :Determines the possible amount of annual forest use and forms the basis for planningforest fund use. It should provide continuity and non-exhaustive forest use, obtaining themaximum amount of mature wood per rotation period, producing a relatively stable finalcut amount during no less than 20-30 year periods for timely and rational use of maturewood stocks for continued meeting of the requirements of the national economy in forestproducts. It should allow improvement of age structure of forests, preservation andstrengthening of their water, environment and other useful natural resource protectiveproperties.

Block: an exact square management planning unit of usually 1 x 1 km, consisting of severalcompartments.

Compartment: a relatively homogeneous territory of forest with the same soil conditions, relief anddrainage pattern but sometimes with a number of stands, varying in age and speciesmixture.

Dominant tree species: the dominant tree species in a stand defined by the largest share of treecrown space within that stand of a particular species.

Drain: the volume of trees removed from growing stock by forestry measures (total felling) andmortality (natural losses).

Exploitation fund: the total growing stock (m3 of the stem volume over bark) allowed andrecommended for final harvesting according to the forestry rules and regulations. Itconsists of the mature and overmature stands.

Felling(s): all wood cut down in the forest either by final harvest clearcut method or in thinning.Final harvesting: total volume of timber (m3 over bark) harvested from mature and overmature

stands by the final cut usually by clearfelling.Forest fund: all lands and inland waters under the Federal Forestry Service of Russia administration.

However, the land can be in use by varying owners, like the Regional Forest Committee,or Agricultural Organisations, or the Ministry of Defence.

Forest land: all land which is in use for growing forest, this includes both forest covered area (FCA)and temporarily open areas like clearcuts.

Growing stock: the growing part of standing volume. See stanfing volume.Increment increase of any parameter of a stem: diameter, height, basal area etc. :Increment:

• gross annual increment (GAI) during the period n is the difference between growingstock on two occasions, including the volume of that part of initial growing stock whichhas been felled (FGS) or died (MGS) during the period.

• net annual increment (NAI) is the difference between gross increment (GAI) andnatural losses (MGS).


• mean annual increment (MAI) is the increase of growing stock per area unit and peryear (m3 ha-1 yr-1). The MAI is calculated as the difference between two estimates ofthe growing stock per unit area on two occasions divided by the time period. In theRussian forest inventory the time period in assessing MAI is the age of the stand. Thus,the MAI is the growing stock divided by the age.Note that this is different from meanannual increment as commonly used in the yield tables in some other countries.

Mature: all stands of harvesting age are included in the category of mature, all stands older areovermature. One age class before age of maturity includes maturing stands; all otherclasses of age have to be subdivided into young and middle-age categories. Example:harvesting age for pine is 120 years. All stands of VI age class are mature, older stands -overmature; stands in the age of 81 - 100 years (V age class) are premature; 41 - 80 yearsold (III - IV) are middle-age and 1 - 40 years old (I - II age classes) are young stands.

Planned or Prescribed felling: based on the allowable cut, the management plans assess a prescribedfelling based on actual expected demand and technical possibilities of the enterprises. Forexample allowable cut may be 10 million m3, while prescribed fellings are only 7.5 millionm3.

Stand: trees in a continuous area (usually) of the same species, age, origin and developing in thesame growth conditions. ‘Stand’ as a management unit, is not often used in the Russiansystem, more common is compartment.

Standing volume: stem volume overbark (without stump volume) of living and dead trees (bothstanding and fallen) including branches and tree tops with diameters greater than 3 cmover bark (total in m3 or m3 ha-1 ). The trees of volume less than 8 cm dbh are notincluded. See growing stock.

Total felling: Volume, measured to the same specifications as standing volume of all trees, living ordead, felled during an annual period, whether or not removed from the forest. It includesfinal harvesting and intermediate thinnings in premature stands.

Download as a PDF-file

Documents

Transcript of Download as a PDF-file