PROCEEDINGS International Conference Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States Pushkino 21-22nd March 2007 Ján Ilavský and Elina Välkky (eds.) 2007 PROCEEDINGS International Conference Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States A contribution to the implementation of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe Resolution H3 on Forestry Cooperation with Countries with Economies in Transition Pushkino 21-22nd March 2007 Edited by Ján Ilavský and Elina Välkky Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry ARICEF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland In collaboration with the Joint FAO/ECE/ILO Experts Network to implement SFM 2 Ilavský J. and Välkky, E. 2007. Proceedings of the International Conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” 270 p. Publisher: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit, Yliopistokatu 6, FIN-80100 Joensuu, FINLAND Key words: forest policy, forest sector reform, countries with economies in transition, Russia, new EU Member States Cover photographs: Juha Laitila, Lauri Sikanen, Sari Karvinen Layout: Leena Karvinen ISBN 978-951-40-2054-4 Printing: Kopijyvä Oy, Jyväskylä 3 FOREWORD These proceedings result from the presentations of the international conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Accessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” held in Pushkino, Russia, on 21-22nd March 2007. The objective of the conference was to discuss the various choices of strategy in forest policy, administration and financing made in the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in Russia and in some countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The conference is one of the results of the project “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries” coordinated by the Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA) and funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland through the Finnish- Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia (NWRDP III) coordinated by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The conference brought together high level forest policy experts from 15 Central and Eastern European countries and 4 international organisations. The total number of conference participants was close to 90. Two days of stimulating and interesting presentations and lively discussions resulted in the formulation of a Message from the conference participants to the 5th Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe to be held in Warsaw 5-7th November 2007. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of all the invited speakers - without their time and insightful presentations the conference would not have been possible. Special thanks to the chairpersons of the conference sessions: Timo Karjalainen, Nadezhda Lovtsova, Jari Parviainen and Christian Salvignol. Furthermore, the active participation of the seminar participants is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank the All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry and Rector Anatoly Petrov for hosting the conference. Staff of the institute - in particular Natalia Bulygina and Zhanna Gerasimova deserve special recognition for coordinating the event and the dealing with the complex logistics involved. In closing we would also like to thank the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for their financial support in organising the conference. September 21st, 2007 Ján Ilavský Elina Välkky Senior Researcher Researcher Finnish Forest Research Institute Finnish Forest Research Institute 4 CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS OPENING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................7 Opening of the conference..................................................................................................................................9 Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute Opening address on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland..............................11 Mari Kurki, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland Opening address on behalf of the All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry.........12 Anatoly Petrov, Rector, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, Russia KEY ADDRESSES...................................................................................................................................17 Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with Countries in Transition......................................................................................................19 Piotr Borkowski, Head of the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - Lessons learned and challenges ahead..........................................................................................................27 Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia.............. ..........................................................34 Elina Välkky, Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute Project “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries”...........................................................................................................................................36 Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute Theme I: Forest Policies and Their Instruments Supporting Sustainable Forest Management..................................................................................................................41 New Forest Code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian Federation..........43 Anatoly Petrov, Rector, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, Russia Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia..................55 Jānis Birgelis, Director, Department of Forest Policy, Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Latvia Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria.....................................................................67 Ivan Paligorov, Dean, Faculty of Business Management, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria Serbian forestry sector - Political, legal and organizational reform...........................................................81 Dusan Jovic, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Directorate of Forests, Republic of Serbia Special features of national forest policy and forest management reform in Ukraine.........................93 Victor Tkach, Director, Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country ..........................................................................................103 Igor Lyzlov, Head of Department, Forest Committee of the Republic of Komi, Russia GENERAL OUTCOMES OF THE CONFERENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS....................................................................................................................13 MESSAGE TO THE 5TH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN EUROPE..........................................................................................................................15 5 Theme II: State Forest Administration and Institutional Framework..........................113 Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using networking and partnership..................................................................................................................115 Christian Salvignol, Chairman, UNECE/FAO/ILO Joint Experts Network to Implement SFM Organisation of state forest management under the conditions of forest leasing - Example of Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz, Tver Region............................................................................................................121 Aleksey Chernyshov, Director, Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz, Tver Region, Russia Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example..........................................................125 Živan Veselič, Assistant Director for Professional Matters, Slovenia Forest Service State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country.........................................................................................................................141 Alexandr Artemyev, Head of the Forest Field Inventory, Sevzaplesproekt, Russia Theme III: Management of State Owned Forests - State Forest Services..................155 Different models of public forests management in Europe......................................................................157 Ari Rautio, Head Auditor, Metsähallitus, Finland Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation.............................171 Larisa Orlova, Deputy Head, Department of Silviculture, Kostroma Region, Russia Management of state owned forests in Poland...........................................................................................177 Tomasz Wójcik, Head of Department, General Directorate of the State Forests, Poland Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible?...........................................................189 Kristjan Tõnisson, Senior Consultant, Estonian State Forest Management Centre, Estonia Management of state forests in Lithuania.....................................................................................................197 Andrius Vancevicius, Head of Department, Directorate General of State Forests, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA.......................................209 Dragos Mihai, Head of International Relations, National Forest Administration, Romania Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country............................................................................................221 Natalia Krotova, Head of Department, Forest Agency of Arkhangelsk Region, Russia Theme IV: Financing Sustainable Forest Management.....................................................229 Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic................................231 Ivan Kolenka, Professor of Forest Economy, Technical University, Zvolen, Slovak Republic Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic.......................................................241 Luděk Šišák, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Czech University of Life Sciences, Czech Republic Financing of sustainable forest management - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to Poland.................................................................................................................................................259 Natalia Bulygina, Docent, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, Russia ANNEX 1 - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS...........................................................................................................263 6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ARICEF All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries C&I Criteria and Indicators CiT Countries in Transition DF Directorate of Forests EC European Commission ECE Economic Commission for Europe EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FDF Forest Development Fund FSC Forest Stewardship Council ILO International Labour Organisation ICP International Cooperative Programme MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food MAFW Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Serbia MCPFE Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute MFP Multifunctional Planning Process NFA National Forest Administration NFB National Forestry Board NFP National Forest Programme NFPS National Forest Policy and Strategy NGO Non-governmental organization NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product NWRDP Northwest Russia Development Programme RDP Regional Development Programme SFM Sustainable Forest Management SFS State Forest Service SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise TBC Transboundary Cooperation ToS Team of Specialists UN United Nations UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WB World Bank 7 OPENING REMARKS Chairman Ján Ilavský Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA Presentations Opening of the conference Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA Opening address on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland Mari Kurki, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland Opening address on behalf of the All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry Anatoly Petrov, Rector, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry 8 Ilavský J. Opening of the conference 9 Opening of the conference Dear ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleagues, It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you, on behalf of the organizing institutes the Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit and the All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, to the international conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” here in Pushkino. I am really glad to see that the topic of the conference and its program has stimulated such interest that almost 90 participants from 15 countries and 4 very important international organizations are represented here. To set the background for fruitful discussions let me provide you with the basic information regarding the objectives of the conference and anticipated outcomes after two days of discussions. The conference is being organized as a part of the project “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries”, within the Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia. The main objective of the project is to strengthen the capacity of the forestry personnel currently employed in the state forest sector both at the strategic federal and regional levels in Northwest Russia. This will be achieved through the transfer of experiences and lessons learnt from other transition countries on relevant policy instruments and their impacts on regulatory framework and institutional development in those countries. We have set tangible goals for the conference with the aim of improving our understanding of the development strategies in forestry, including legislative basis and other regulatory and development framework as well as relevant forest policies and related instruments in countries with shared problems and conditions via exchanging of information and views on common or specific problems. Each country had its specific conditions at the beginning of the transition process and has chosen specific ways to deal with them. Thus, there are a variety of lessons we have learned and many solutions we have achieved. Some of them are successful, others not so and some even made the situation worse. The main aim of the conference is to benchmark those successful solutions. There has been a long list of important problems to be dealt with when we started discussions regarding the scope of the conference. Finally we have chosen 4 issues for the programme: 1. forest policies and their instruments supporting sustainable forest management; 2. state forest administration and institutional framework; 3. management of state owned forests; and 4. financing sustainable forest management. Of course, other topics could have been selected, but we believe that those are emerging issues for the creation of a well established forest sector in any country. For each of those topics 6 highly experienced speakers have been invited. One from a country with long tradition of market economy, two from the new EU member countries, one from either countries of Southeast Europe and from the Commonwealth of Independent States and two from the Russian forest sector. This structure gives us a unique opportunity to address each issue from different views. I would like to express my gratitude to all the invited speakers for their willingness to come and share their experiences with others. The final session of the conference is designated for the formulation of the best lessons we have learnt and recommendations of how to strengthen and accelerate the transition process in our countries. I do hope the results will prove to be really significant. In conclusion, I would like to stress the importance of the international cooperation in supporting the transition process. The key role of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and its Resolution H3 should be recognized as a milestone of the commitment of the international society for support of the transition process. Also the role of the FAO European Forestry Commission and the UNECE Timber Committee in facilitating the process is irreplaceable. Let me to express our appreciation for the presence of the Head of the MCPFE Liaison Unit in Warsaw as well as participation of the Chairman of the Joint UNECE/FAO/ILO Experts Network to implement SFM. 10 Ilavský J. Opening of the conference Last but not least, allow me to acknowledge our appreciation of the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for its support and for the financial contribution to cover the organizational costs of the conference. I wish you a very fruitful conference and enjoyable two days in Pushkino. Ján Ilavský, Project Coordinatorán Il P oject Coo Kurki M. Opening address on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland 11 Opening address on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, During the last few years Russia has initiated a process aiming at a reform of the national forest policy, which will define the direction of development in the Russian forest sector for the coming decades. The new policy will establish the strategic development objectives for forestry and forest industry, different forest uses and involvement of the state in the management of forests and their regeneration. Sustainable development in the forest sector will be based on effective forest resource management enabled by pertinent renewed state policies. Since 1997 the Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia (NWRDP) has been an important tool for bilateral cooperation in promoting sustainable forest management and nature conservation in the region. A great deal of knowledge, information and experience has been gained and exchanged between the two countries through commitment of the concerned parties involved in the joint development effort. Based on the experiences gained during the implementation of the previous phases of Finnish- Russian cooperation, the ongoing Phase III of NWRDP concentrates on the development of forest sector training and education. More specifically, the focus is on the improvement of further training for the forestry personnel currently employed in the state forest sector. One of the most crucial approaches in the Programme is the creation of the basis for educational reforms in the forestry sector in Northwest Russia. This important issue is addressed firstly by transferring experiences and lessons learned from other transition countries. These countries have faced or are facing similar problems in their forestry sector reform processes and have selected various kinds of policy instruments to solve them. Some of these forest policy objectives and development instruments are likely to be valid also in the Northwest Russian context. Seminar “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” organised in a framework of NWRDP, is a successful attempt to draw conclusions and make suggestions as to what extent and how to transfer experiences and results from other transition countries to federal, regional and district levels in Northwest Russia, particularly within state forestry. Mari Kurki, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland 12 Petrov A. Opening address on behalf of the All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry Dear ladies and gentlemen, The Forest Code of the Russian Federation enforces a radical structural and economic reform of the system of forest administration and management. The reform is carried out by: • decentralizing forest administration by delegating fundamental executive powers to Federal Subjects of the Russian Federation • making a division between state administrative functions and economic business functions in the forest sector • transferring the economic functions of forest management to private forest companies in the form of forest leasing Since the privatization of forest industry in the beginning of the 1990's, the forest sector of the Russian Federation has been left out from all reforms up till the adoption of the new Forest Code in the end of 2006. Forest administration and management were carried out by a state monopoly established by the Soviet system in the 1930s. On January 1st, 2008 this monopoly, represented by state organisations leskhozes, will be reorganised by establishing: • new state institutions (lesnichestvo) working under the State authorities of the Federal Subjects with an anticipated 25 000 - 30 000 workers. These structures are designated to carry out planning and control of the activities of the forest users in the fields of utilization and regeneration of forests. • state business units designated to manage those forest areas, which are not of interest to private companies. It is expected that the annual volume of harvestings (mainly thinnings) of these units will be around 50 million m3 with a workforce of 120 000 people. In order for the above mentioned new institutions to work effectively, it would prove to be invaluable to study the experiences in managing state forests in the Central and Eastern European countries with economies in transition, who have already finalized the economic and structural reforms in their forest sector. The on-going conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” provides an opportunity for gaining this knowledge. A continuation for the conference could be consulting services of experts from the European Union Countries in organising seminars and study tours. A.P. Petrov, Rector Opening address on behalf of the All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry General outcomes of the conference and recommendations for future actions 13 GENERAL OUTCOMES OF THE CONFERENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS The outcomes of the international conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” are based on the findings presented by the experts from different countries as well as on the discussions during the conference. The listed objectives for the future development and the instruments for achieving those objectives are not ranked according to their importance, as the objectives are of varying importance for particular countries and also instruments for their achievement could differ depending on the specific conditions in the forest sector of the country. It also means that not all the listed objectives and instruments to achieve them could be applied to all countries. The outcomes are divided into three groups: in particular for the new EU member countries, for the Russian Federation and for other Southeast European and CIS countries. New EU member countries: Generally accepted lesson learned from the transition process: It is a long lasting process requiring regular valuation of achievements and adjustment of next steps. Long term development objectives: • Forest and forest land is sustainably managed • Forest based industries are competitive and meet consumer needs • Knowledge and skills of human resources ensure reaching long term objectives Instruments for achieving the long term objectives: • Participation of all stakeholders, transparent and consensual approach in the decision making process • Formulation of clear decisions that are accessible to the public • Development of criteria for monitoring sustainable forest management • Cross-sectoral coordination of the development plans • Simplification and harmonization of the forestry financing system • Monitoring of forestry outputs not only in technical units, but also in monetary values • Financing should be divided into 3 categories: - compensation for economic losses (caused by restrictions in forest management) - purchase of particular services by governmental or societal authorities - production (market) subsidies for securing sustainable forest management and innovations • Combination of financial sources from business activities in forestry, from public sources and from EU subsidiary schemes should be utilized to achieve long term viability of sustainable forest management • Increase of additional economic activities in utilizing non-wood forest products and services of forests • Creation of supporting policies and development targets to increase efficiency of the management of state forests • Finding political solution for balance between commercial (marketable) and societal (non- marketable) functions • Use of benchmarking as a tool for making development decision • Establishing information system based on modern IT • Organizations managing state forest assets are independent from the state budget, having mainly status of autonomous public enterprise • State forest agencies increasingly use outsourcing of services • Strengthening of private forest sector through capacity building and extension, for example • Encourage private forest owners to allocate income from forestry to forest state improvement (recently it is often allocated out of forests), to secure economical viability of SFM 14 General outcomes of the conference and recommendations for future actions The Russian Federation The key strategic goals of the new forest policy in the Russian Federation are: • To convert the huge biological resources of wood into economic values (gross domestic product, added value and profit) • To establish new balance of power between Federation, Subjects of Federation and Private Business • To separate forest management and forest administration • To establish competitive environment in forest sector, including forest management Instruments for achieving the long term goals: • Establishment of competitive environment in the forest sector (via contractual organization of work) • Division of administrative and economic functions and establishment of new organizational structure in forestry - Lesnicestvo for executing state authority functions - State commercial enterprises for economic activities • Avoidance of concentration of different functions in one executive authority • Consideration of regional specificities when defining methods and norms of forest management • Regional special features of forest planning must contain elements of economic evaluation • Continuity for business environment should be kept when changing legislation. Business must be sure its rights deriving from legitimate acts of the state are protected. Southeast European and CIS countries in the process of transition: Key challenges: • Rapid changes in the forest ownership pattern during the restitution process • Reduction of the area managed by the state forest enterprises and thus need for frequent changes in their organizational structure • New competitors for the state forest enterprises in timber market • Increasing pressure from local communities and NGOs to reduce wood harvesting, hunting, forest roads construction and other activities in forests • Social responsibilities and impacts Instruments for achieving the long term goals: • New state forest sector policy and tools for its implementation; harmonize policies of other sectors influencing the forest sector (environment, energy, etc.) • Appropriate legislative framework • Forest law enforcement to prevent illegal activities • Forestry institutions set-up to be in line with their new functions; separate supervisory and managerial functions • Improvement of financing system of the forest sector • Better capacity building (education, training, extension and research) • New role of state forest enterprises and their structure • Regular forest inventories and monitoring of forests • Strengthen management of private forests; support for forest owners associations • Creation of a modern forest information system (collection, processing and dissemination of data and information) • Improvement of infrastructure in forestry, forest roads network • Formation of transparent timber market, improving marketing skills • Use of more environmentally friendly and economically efficient forest technology Message to the 5th ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe 15 MESSAGE from the International Conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” TO THE 5TH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN EUROPE to be held in Warsaw, Poland, on 5-7th November 2007 The experts, representing Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine, as well as the representatives of the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, the Joint UNECE/FAO/ILO Experts Network to implement SFM, IUCN - The World Conservation Union and WWF – World Wildlife Fund, participating in the international conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” held in Pushkino, Russia, on 21-22nd March 2007, have addressed issues relevant to the environmental, economic, social and cultural importance of forests and the forest sector in their respective countries. The forest sector represents one of the most important sectors of economy in many of the Central and Eastern European countries. Forests and other wooded land cover more than 960 million hectares of the region (including the Asian part of the Russian Federation), which accounts for about one quarter of the world’s total forest area. Forests are important in the majority of these countries as an economic factor, producing wood and non-wood resources for industrial development, exporting, with the employment and income impacts being especially important in rural areas. However, the contribution of forests to environmental stability, biodiversity conservation, and their social, cultural, recreational and other non-productive functions are of even greater importance. The Conference noted that the transition process from the planned economy in the forest sector involves a number of political and macroeconomic reforms, which have a much greater impact on the various countries’ progress towards a market economy than do changes in any other sector of the economy. The participants recognized the importance of international cooperation in fostering the transition process. The adoption of Resolution H3 at the 2nd Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe in Helsinki in 1993 on Forestry Cooperation with Countries with Economies in Transition, in which the signatory countries committed themselves to provide assistance in the forest sector’s transition, was the most important step forward in international cooperation. Great appreciation was expressed also to the FAO European Forestry Commission and the UNECE Timber Committee for their commitment to monitoring the implementation of Resolution H3 to facilitate the transition process by including monitoring in their joint program of work and to review the whole program of assistance to ensure it was in accordance with countries’ needs, as well as affective and efficient. The major goals at the beginning of the transition process were more or less the same in most countries. Nevertheless, the various countries launched the process from different levels of economic development, with differing internal political situations, different cultures and national customs. The transition process in the forest sector was influenced also by differences in the importance of the sector to the national economy, different natural conditions, different forest ownership structures, different states of the forests, and other factors internal to the forest sector. All of these pre- existing conditions have led to the present situation, wherein the countries are at different stages of the transition process. 16 Message to the 5th ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe have successfully accomplished the first phase of the transition from planned to market economy and this has also led to their becoming EU member states. They expressed their readiness to make available their experiences and lessons learned during the transition process to other countries of the region. It was emphasized that such cooperation and assistance is needed in particular among the countries in Southeastern Europe and within the Russian Federation. Therefore, the representatives of the countries and international organizations participating in the conference call upon the 5th Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe to reconfirm and reinforce its political commitment fostering the transition process to the market economy in all countries of the region by supporting international cooperation in the forest sector. Capacity building in state forest administration, in the non-state forest sector, as well as in research, education, training, and extension are of utmost importance. Moreover, cooperation in the development and implementation of forest policies and national forest programmes is of great importance in ensuring that all forests in the region are managed according to the principles of environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability. 17 KEY ADDRESSES Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with Countries in Transition Piotr Borkowski, Head of the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - Lessons learned and challenges ahead Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia Elina Välkky, Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute Project “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries” Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcher, Finnish Forest Research Institute 18 Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... 19 Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE): Political Commitments and Co-operation with Countries in Transition Piotr Borkowski Head of the Liaison Unit Warsaw Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe International conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” Pushkino, 21-22 March 2007 Contents • MCPFE Process – goal, structure • 17 years of commitments to European forests • MCPFE Commitments with CiT • Next steps 20 Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... MCPFE ProcessM FE Pr c • Voluntary cooperation on forest policy issues in Europe O verall goal: Promotion of sustainable forest management (SFM) through participatory and open cooperation • Addresses common policy issues • Commitments adopted at high political level MCPFE ProcessM FE Pr c • Co-operation and dialogue throughout the continent • Signatories: 46 European states +EC • Observers: 44 non-European countries and int’l organisations • Stakeholders participation Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... 21 M inisteria l Conferences Working Groups, Workshops Round Table Meetings Expert Level Meetings AT SPP L N Secretariat: Liaison Unit Warsaw (since 1st January 2004 in Warsaw, Poland) General Coordinating Committee MCPFEM F E Work ModalitiesW rk M daliti MCPFE ProcessM FE Pr c • 4 Ministerial Declarations • 17 Resolutions • Annexes and co-operation frameworks • MCPFE Work Programme 2004 - 2007 W SSD 2 0 0 2 1990 1998 2003 2007 UNCED 199 2 1993 22 Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... S 6: Research into Forests Ecosystems S5: Research on Tree Physiology S4: Ada pting the Management of Mountain Forests S3: Data Bank on Forest Fires S2: Genetic Resources S1: Monitoring of Forest Ecosystems H4: Ada ptation of Forests to Climate Change H3: Co-operation with Countries with Economies in Transition H2: Conservation of the Biodiversity of Forests H1: S ustainable Management of Forests in Europe L2: P an-European Criteria & Indic ators of SFM L1 : Socio-cultura l Aspects V5: Climate Change and SFM in Europe V4: Forest Biologic a l Diversity in Europe V3: Socia l and Cultura l Dimensions of SFM V 2: Economic V ia bility of SFM S US T AI NAB LE DE V E LO P ME NT S u s t a i n a b l e F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t Ecologica l E conomic Socio-cultur a l V 1: Cross-sectoral co-operation and NFP C r i t e r i a a n d I n d i c a t o r s f o r S F M Commitments with Cmm m w h iTiT Strasbourg 199 0: - continent wide co-operation Helsinki 199 3 - Resolution H3: Forestry Cooperation with Countries with Economies in Transition  UNECE/FAO – international co-ordinator of implementation (ToS), more than 650 projects in H3 Access Database Strasbourg/Helsinki Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... 23 Commitments with Cmm m w h iTiT Resolution H3 • Encourage CEECs to promote SFM according to H1 • Develop joint actions: bil ateral and multilateral projects on technical , scientific, institutional and legal m atters • Develop information exchange and monitoring systems on transboundar y forest damaging factors • Involvement of FAO, UNECE, UNEP , UNDP W B, EC and NGOs • F u rther promote transfer of knowledge, capacity bui l d ing, joint research projects and development of NFPs in CiT • International exchange of experts, researchers and students • Encourage CEECs to promote SFM according to H1 • Develop joint actions: bil ateral and multilateral projects on technical , scientific, institutional and legal m atters • Develop information exchange and monitoring systems on transboundar y forest damaging factors • Involvement of FAO, UNECE, UNEP , UNDP W B, EC and NGOs • F u rther promote transfer of knowledge, capacity bui l d ing, joint research projects and development of NFPs in CiT • International exchange of experts, researchers and students Commitments with Cmm m w h iTiT Lisbon follow-up: CEECs part of work programme Lisbon 1998 • International workshop on Forest and Forestry in CEEC – the transition process and Challenges Ahead (D ębe, Poland) •Continuation of UN-ECE/FAO work on CIT • International workshop on Forest and Forestry in CEEC – the transition process and Challenges Ahead (D ębe, Poland) •Continuation of UN-ECE/FAO work on CIT 24 Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... Commitments with Cmm m w h iTiT Vienna “Living Forest Summit” Declaration Vienna 2003 • Ad d ress the challenges that forest owners are facing in CEECs, especiall y those related to changes in forest ownership • F u rther develop co-operation among countries with different socio-economic situations, especiall y w ith regard to Central and Eastern Europe • Ad d ress the challenges that forest owners are facing in CEECs, especiall y those related to changes in forest ownership • F u rther develop co-operation among countries with different socio-economic situations, especiall y w ith regard to Central and Eastern Europe Commitments with Cmm m w h iTiT Vienna Resolution V 1: Cross-sectoral Co-operation and National Forest Programmes Annex 1: MCPFE approach to NFPs Vienna 2003 • Bu i l d new capa cities by means of training, education and research and mak ing best use of existing capa c ities in CEECs (capa c ity bui l d ing) • Bu i l d new capa cities by means of training, education and research and mak ing best use of existing capa c ities in CEECs (capa c ity bui l d ing) Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... 25 Commitments with Cmm m w h iTiT Vienna Resolution V 2: Enhancing Economic Viability of SFM Vienna 2003 • Promote the development and encourage the particip ation in associations of forest owners, of the forest workforce and forest entrepreneurs, in particul a r in CEECs • Promote the development and encourage the particip ation in associations of forest owners, of the forest workforce and forest entrepreneurs, in particul a r in CEECs MCPFEM F E nextx stepsp • HLM of MCPFE ministers (20 September, 2006, Warsaw, Poland) • ELM (9-10 October, 2006, Warsaw, Poland) decisions: – Timing for the ministerial summit in Warsaw – Content – Format of the conference and the documents 26 Borkowski P. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe: political commitments and cooperation with countries in ... MCPFEM F E nextx stepsp 5 th MCPFE ( 5- 7 November 20 07, Warsaw, Poland) ”Forests for Quality of Life” 1. Warsaw Ministerial Declaration - MCPFE role as regional forest-policy process • Vehicle for forest policy in Europe • Interface between int’l & national levels • Contribution to the international forest dialogue 2. Issues to be raised in Warsaw Resolutions : • Wood, biomass, energy • Forests & Water Thank you for attentionk Большое Спасибо See you in Warsaw !S y u i W aw ! www.mcpfe.org. . Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... 27 The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector – lessons learned and challenges ahead Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcherá Senio Resea che Project Coordinator Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit e-mail: jan.ilavsky@metla.fi 1. Introduction There have been deep and sudden changes in the forest sector of Central and Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, during the last 15 years, resulting from the collapse of the centrally planned system. Political movements have led to substantial changes of the political map of Europe with several new countries on it. The former centrally planned economies have started a new process of transition towards market economy conditions. The forest sector represents one of the most important sectors in many of the countries concerned. Forests and other wooded land cover 9.8 million km2 of the region (including Russia), which is about one fourth of the world’s total forest area. Forestry is an important sector in the majority of countries due to the extent of their forests. Forests are important as an economic factor, producing wood and non-wood resources for industrial development, exports, employment and income. However, their contribution to environmental stability, biodiversity conservation, their social, cultural, recreational and other non-productive functions are of even higher importance. Therefore there was an urgent need to analyse and to understand the impacts of all political, economic and social changes on the forest sector as an important segment of the process of transition to the market economy. 2. International cooperation supporting the transition process The international community recognised already at the beginning that the process of transition could be much shorter, less painful and more successful with the help of intra- and inter-regional cooperation. The international collaboration was at the beginning focused mainly on the identification of the state of affairs in the forest sector of particular countries. Studies showed an extremely wide range of specific conditions and problems, countries had been faced with in the transition process. Due to the different factors internal to forestry, as well as external factors directly or indirectly influencing the forest sector, the most important and difficult part of the transition process was the identification of main common forestry related problems and strategies to overcome them at which the international cooperation should be focused. The most important step forward in the international cooperation was the adoption of the Resolution H3 at the 2nd MCPFE in Helsinki in 1993 on Forestry Cooperation with Countries with Economies in Transition, in which the signatory countries committed themselves to provide assistance in theto vide assistance in the forest sector’s transition.The Resolution has encouraged Countries with Economies in Transition The Resolution has encouraged Countries with Economies in ransition (CIT) to promote actions for the sustainable management of forest resources as well as signatory states and European Community to support and complement these actions, based on the principle of partnership and taking into account the needs, priorities and commitments of the CIT themselves. Cooperation was expected in the form of transfer of knowledge and of bilateral and multilateral projects, focused on technical, scientific, institutional and legal matters. The Resolution stressed the importance of an adequate assessment of the forest resources and of the environmental impacts before initiating cooperation projects. As the main areas of cooperation were identified particularly: strengthening of institutions, development of legal and policy framework for the sustainable development of forestry and the forest products sector and support to development of market oriented and ecologically sound enterprises. 28 Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... The following priority programme areas and themes for assistance were identified: Programme area I Institution building and framework conditions, building of the legal and policy infrastructure for sustainable development of the forestry and forest products sector. • Development of forest policy (application, monitoring) • Information systems for policy formulation and administration • New role of the state (all functions) • Strengthening forest services • Education, training, research • New role of people (forets owners, users of forest products) • Legislation and legal aspects • Ownership issues (structure, privatization, restitution) • Valuation of forests, including non-wood goods and services • Financial support aspects for the development of the forest sector • Other economic aspects • Taxation • Forest health assessment • Occupational safety and health Programme area II Activities related to the development of market oriented and ecologically sound enterprises in the forestry and forest products sector. • Organization of associations of private sector enterprises • Price formation for roundwood and forest products and cost calculation • Marketing skills and market organisation • Public relations issues • Documentation and information bases on market developments • Management, skills • Accounting systems • Extension • Joint-venture agreements Programme area III Issues of general importance for the protection of forests, forest conservation and sustainable development of the forest sector and issues of concern for individual countries or groups of countries have to be identified in the process of the implementation of the activities related to the programme areas I and II. The major goals at the beginning of the transition process were more or less the same in mosthe or oals at the beginning of the transition ocess or less the same in most countries: many similarities in the development of countries during several decades could be found. Nevertheless, countries started the process at different level of economical development, in different internal political situation, different cultures, national habits, etc. Several countries passed through a process of disintegration, some peacefully some with war conditions. Despite many similarities, the transition process was also influenced by a different level of initial economic development, actual political situation, cultural backgrounds, national habits, etc. Also different natural conditions, climatic differences, amount of forests, forestry traditions, state of wood processing industries and some other issues have had to be taken into consideration during the transition process of the forest sector. All of these pre-existing conditions led to the present situation, wherein countries are at different stages of the transition process. A group of countries whose political and economical development has been better adapted to the market economy conditions were identified and those countries 3. Transition from the centrally planned to the market economy is a long lasting process Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... 29 have completed the first stage of transition through EU membership. Other countries have also been taking different routes in their transition to the market economy. It is expected, that the transition process will last for several decades. According to the analysis and forecasts of the economic growth in Eastern European Countries for the period 2000-2040, published by UN-ECE/FAO [ECE/TIM/DP/24], in the base line case the most developed Central European countries will reach in 2040 ca. 84-92% of the level of the economical development of former EU15, other Central European countries will reach the level of 70-80%, Balkan countries and the former Soviet Union countries 65-75%. Currently conditions vary enormously between the countries, as they have reached different levels of the transition process. Therefore, the strategy on future cooperation with countries in transition has to take into account also the stage achieved by countries in the transition process and specific conditions in the particular countries. In order to deal with specific problems of different countries, appropriate strategies and tailor made solutions should be based on scientific analysis of lessons learned during the transition process and on the analysis of future needs of the countries. Despite the fact that it is not possible to set up a unique transition pattern that can be followed by each country, analyses show that there is a possibility to cluster countries to several groups with similar problems. This helps to identify appropriate actions needed and to select the best possible solutions to foster the transition process. The grouping does not have an intention to propose the same solution for each country in the respective group. It just reflects some similarities in the basic problems of the transition process to help to structure them and to take appropriate measures by the countries themselves as well as by the international society. The grouping is as follows: • New EU members (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia) • EU applicant countries (Croatia, Turkey) • South East Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) • CIS in Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine) • The Russian Federation New EU members are the forerunners of the transition The transition process in those countries was officially finished when they joined the EU. Nevertheless, the process of movement towards full integration, mainly economic, will continue for several decades. There are also some aspects of the reform in the forest sector, which countries should still deal with for several years. Forests in the majority of new member countries play an important environmental role. Natural and semi-natural forests with a rich variety of species remain in new EU member countries and also in the applicant countries. At the same time forests are a crucial renewable natural resource. Round wood is an export product in many of them, accounting for at least one fifth of fellings. Forest industries consist predominantly of the wood products industry, however approximately half of all production is exported in the form of low value added products. Wood pulp and paper production are rather small and these countries are net importers of paper. Consumption of wood based products is small, in sawn wood less than half and in wood pulp and paper only one third of that per capita of the former EU15. Creation of a new private forest sector has been one of the most important political, economic and social changes during the transition process. It is estimated that over 3 million new private forest 4. Country specific approach in the accomplishment of the transition process is needed 30 Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... holdings have been established in new EU member countries. Although the restitution process has lasted more than 15 years, it has still not been finished in some countries. Thus cooperation between forest owners and setting-up forest owners’ associations are seen as key ways of promoting private forestry. At the same time state forest administration agencies have had to face new tasks and demands. Overall advantages and strengths of the new EU member countries were: • Proximity of historical development and traditions with their neighbouring old EU member countries • Geographical closeness to the old EU members • Relative political and economic stability • Active involvement in the international collaboration • No or peaceful separation from their former states (Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia) Specific forestry strengths were: • Long forestry traditions, biologically sustainable forest management • Increase of growing stock and felling potential • Biologically based forest inventory, planning, including reforestation policies, established • Network of educational and research institutions with an old tradition • Proximity to major markets • Low labour costs Large forest resources and low domestic consumption provide a strong base for the development of the forest sector in those countries. To meet the increasing demand for all types of wood products by their higher domestic production is also an important challenge. Political stabilization provides one of the preconditions to attract foreign investors as well as domestic investments in the forestry sector. Those countries can also profit from harmonisation of their forest policies, legislation, standards and national forest programmes with the EU forestry strategy done during the accession process. However, EU membership and direct participation in the decision making process, access to the development programmes, economical incentives and other tools give them an advantage to foster their economic growth, political and social stability. The most important issues on which the internal attention and the international cooperation should be focused to accomplish the transition process in the new EU member countries are: • Capacity building and institutional development in the non-state forest sector The position of forest owners associations, created in all new EU member countries, is still rather weak. They do not have enough human and financial resources to provide their members sufficient information in marketing, pricing, recent technical development, policy and legislation development, etc. In some cases the state administration does not involve them appropriately into policy and legislative decision making process. • Capacity building and institutional set-up in the state forest administration The reorientation of the state forest administration towards providing effective support to all stakeholders has still not been fully completed in all new EU member countries. It does not have adequate capacity, human or financial, to provide non-state forest owners all the advice or information they need. In some countries the control function still predominates. Frequent changes of civil servants in the decision making positions at all levels of the state administration were also often a common symptom of the transition process. This had a negative influence on the efficiency of measures taken in policy, legislative and institutional development. • Improving efficiency in forest management practices Forest management planning and practical management of forests in some countries is still based mainly on traditional principles not taking into account economic impacts of the measures proposed in the forest management plan. The involvement of forest owners Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... 31 in decision making process is still weak. Inclusion of an economic chapter into the forest management plans is an important issue. • Balance of ecological, social and economic aspects of sustainable forest management Due to the traditional approach of forest managers to forest management practices, the economical and social impacts of measures taken in forests and forestry are not assessed adequately. Consequently, inefficient consumption of available financial sources can cause their shortage for necessary silvicultural and protective operations. Transformation of the forest sector also caused some social instability by reducing the staff in the public forest enterprises. Programs for retraining those foresters for the specific needs of management of non-state forests were missing. • Implementation of innovative, efficient and more environmentally-friendly technologies Due to the insufficient availability of investment capital for purchasing new and modern technology, contractors and small private harvesting companies were forced to buy old redundant machines from state forest enterprises. Those machines are not appropriate to fulfil all requirements for nature protection. Measures are needed to replace them by modern, environmentally sound and economically efficient technology. • Improvement of marketing and pricing skills Improvement of marketing and pricing skills of wood and non-wood forest products and services is still needed mainly in the private forest sector. This issue is directly connected to improvement in institutional and capacity building not only in private forestry but also in the state administration and institutions providing training and extension. • Increasing investments in the forest industries Low efficiency in local forest industries was identified by several workshops and seminars as one of the serious drawbacks influencing negatively the economic viability of sustainable forest management and development of the whole forest sector. The processing industry has developed much faster after countries entered EU, mainly due to foreign investments. Still, a substantial share of the industries is producing products with very low added value, mainly products of the sawmilling industry. Most of them are very small, with outdated technology. • Increasing investments in the infrastructure, information and communication technologies Besides investments in improvement of harvesting technologies, substantial investments in road construction and maintenance are also needed in the majority of new EU member countries. Implementation of modern harvesting technologies with onboard computers and GIS/GPS systems require development of the whole information and communication system of the sector. It is also needed for good and efficient marketing of forest product and services. Increased use of information and communication technology is an urgent issue mainly for the private forest sector. The advantage of the new EU member countries is in their direct participation in the decision making process, where they can put forward proposals fostering the accomplishment of the transition process. The other advantage is in their access to different EU funds, which are the financial instruments to speed up economic, social and territorial convergence, as well as to narrow the development disparities among regions and the Member States. However, the new EU members have accumulated a huge amount of experience and knowledge during their forest sector reform. These lessons learned could be transferred to other countries in transition to help them to speed up the reforms in their forest sectors. Their bridging role between the traditional market economies and the transition countries is irreplaceable. It can be recognized that those countries feel some obligation to extend the positive outcomes of the international cooperation to those who are going through the same exercise. The new EU members have begun to play an active role in organizing seminars, workshops and other events in recent years, including providing financial support to the participants from the transition countries. 32 Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... Possible forms of future cooperation are: • Organization of workshops and seminars on lessons learned from the transition process and transfer of them to the other countries in transition • Financial support and in-kind support for those seminars and workshops • Study tours for decision makers • Exchange of students and experts • Joint research projects • FAO Trust Fund projects • Joint projects in the EU INTERREG and other EU programmes EU applicant countries benefiting from the accession process This group of countries has made substantial progress in the transition process. Each of them hasEach of them has both specific and common problems. The common issues to be dealt with are quite similar to those which the new EU member countrieshe common issues to be dealt with quite similar to those which the EU member countries have been dealing with during the last few years of the transition process: • Capacity building in the non-state forest sector • Capacity building in the state forest administration • Implementation of ecologically, socially and economically balanced forest management • Improving cost efficiency in the forest management practices • Implementation of innovative and efficient technologies • Implementation of more environmentally-friendly technologies • Improvement of marketing and pricing skills • Increasing investments in the forest industries • Increasing investments in the infrastructure They can profit mainly from participation in the EU negotiation process and from the cooperation in it with the neighbouring new EU member countries. In addition, there are opportunities for a broader cooperation based on bilateral agreements with the western donor countries and agencies, as well as from the multilateral cooperation through programs such as: • FAO Technical Cooperation Programme • FAO Fellowships Programme • FAO National Forest Programme Facility • Pre-accession financial instruments Other groups of countries in transition There have been several workshops and seminars during the last 2-3 years on the formulation of priorities and ways of cooperation with those groups of countries. The situation is similar to that at the beginning on 1990s with the recent new EU member and applicant countries. However, the outcomes of the recent meetings are rather different than those of 15 years ago. They are more declarative than action oriented. There is a huge variation of natural, economic, social and other conditions in those countries. That is the reason why it is not so easy to put forward few generally useful proposals for actions. Also the starting position was in almost all of those countries different to that in the new EU member and applicant countries. At least the following issues are of crucial importance: • basic institutional structure should be established in the majority of countries • data track on forest resources and the system for forest inventory, data collection, processing and dissemination is missing in some countries • research, educational, training and extension institutions are weak or even missing • the private forest sector is very weak or does not exist • post war reconstruction is necessary in some countries Ilavský J. The transition process from the centrally planned to the market economy in the forest sector - lessons learned and ... 33 Nevertheless, the experience from the previous years could be, at least partly, used. Three main programme areas of the international cooperation identified at the beginning of the transition process are of a general value also in those countries: • Building of legal, policy and institutional infrastructure and framework conditions for sustainable development of the forest sector • Development of market oriented and ecologically sound enterprises • Issues of general importance for forest protection, forest conservation and sustainable development. Also many outcomes and recommendations adopted by the workshops and seminars, which were analysed during the past decade, could be a good source of inspiration during the next stage of the transition process. Of course, there are many new specific emerging issues which should be taken into account when the future actions of international cooperation are proposed. These issues include law enforcement, illegal logging, corruption, forest fires and other. Those are the reasons why a new, specific approach of international assistance to each group of countries should be discussed. New priority areas and ways of cooperation should be defined taking into account recent situation and lessons lerned during the transition process. 5. Education and science are bridging the barriers The crucial issue in the transition process is to have people ready to understand the problems, to deal with them and be fully committed to solve them. The complexity of sectoral and cross- sectoral aspects of the transition of the forest sector towards the market economy needs new knowledge and information. Therefore the international cooperation in education, research, training and extension are of crucial importance for the successful accomplishment of the transition in the entire region. 34 Välkky E. Finnish-Russian development programme on sustainable forest management and conservation of biological diversity in... Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia Elina Välkky, Researcher Resea che Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit e-mail: elina.valkky@metla.fi Russian forest legislation is currently undergoing significant changes. The implementation of the new Forest Code has created a need to renew a substantial number of practical forestry guidelines, thus making it necessary to organise further training for a significant number of people working in the Russian forestry administration. To support this massive task of further training, the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Russian Federal Forestry Agency have launched a Forest Sector Capacity Building Programme with a number of education-related projects under the umbrella of the Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia (NWRDP). The conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Accessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” is one the outcomes of this Programme. The Finnish-Russian Development Programme on Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Northwest Russia is a bilateral cooperation programme between Finland and Russia covering both forestry and biodiversity issues. Since 1997 a significant part of the cooperation between Finland and Russia in the field of sustainable forestry and nature conservation has been organized in the framework of the NWRDP programme through bilateral projects. From the Finnish side the forestry related projects are coordinated by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. The Russian coordinator and financier of the projects is the Ministry of Natural Resources. The overall objectives of the programme have been to promote the development of sustainable forest management in Northwest Russia and to support the operational preconditions of the Finnish forestry organisations in Russia. The geographical scope of the programme covers the Republics of Karelia and Komi, as well as the Arkhangelsk, Murmansk and Leningrad regions. The NWRDP programme is divided into three phases. During the first phase (1997-2000) the foundation was laid for future cooperation. The second phase (2001-2004) concentrated on forest management practices, forest planning and information systems, forest certification and bioenergy. In 2005 the Programme entered the third phase (NWRDP III), where the particular objective is to support the reform process of the Russian forest education sector. The focus is especially on further training. The overall objective of the Forest Sector Capacity Building Programme (NWRDP III) is to develop efficient and competitive further training systems for improving the competence and performance of the forest sector employees, to establish supportive educational structures and programmes, and to improve training capacities. The Programme finances, during 2005-2009, five different projects with a number of subprojects: Project 1 Development of the Normative Basis of Sustainable Forest Management at Region Level (Leningrad oblast) Project 2 Improved Educational Structure and Training Delivery System in the Forest Sector at the Regional Level Project 3 Training Programme for Workers Project 4 Educational Resources 4A Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries 4B Capacity Building of Trainers and Teachers 4C Development of Training Manuals and Materials Project 5 Forest Sector Capacity Building Programme 5A Training Programme for the Top-Management of State Forests 5B Training for Managers and Specialists Välkky E. Finnish-Russian development programme on sustainable forest management and conservation of biological diversity in... 35 The projects are coordinated by Finnish and Russian educational and research institutes and private consulting companies. Coordinators were chosen through a tender process in 2005. The conference “Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Accessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States” is one of the results of the project 4A “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries” funded from the NWRDP III programme and coordinated by the Finnish Forest Research Institute. 36 Ilavský J. Project “Analysis of the forest sector reform and best practices in the transition economy countries” Project “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries” Ján Ilavský, Senior Researcherá Senio Resea che Project Coordinator Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit e-mail: jan.ilavsky@metla.fi 1. Background of the project During the last few years Russia has initiated a process aimed at the reform of national forest policy and legislation, which will define the development of the Russian forest sector in the coming decades. The new policy will establish the strategic development objectives for forestry and the forest industry, different forest uses and involvement of the state in the management of forests and their regeneration. Sustainable development in the forest sector will be based on effective forest resource management enabled by pertinent reformed state policies. Based on the experiences gained during the implementation of the previous phases of the Finnish- Russian cooperation, capacity building has been identified as a basic element of the whole reform. One of the most crucial preconditions for the implementation of the Forest Sector Capacity Building Programme in the Russian forest sector is the creation of appropriate legislative, policy and institutional frameworks for educational reform. This will be approached firstly by transferring experiences and lessons learnt from other transition economies, particularly from the countries, which have accomplished the first phase of transition through the EU accession. They have gone through the process in which they were obliged to harmonise their policies, legislation and institutional set up with appropriate EU policies and regulations related to the forestry and other sectors. This created the basic preconditions for sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation and nature protection. Those countries have selected various forest policy instruments to fulfil the commitments arising from EU membership. Some of these forest policy objectives and development instruments would be valid also in Northwest Russia. Thus it is of utmost importance to study the relevant policy instruments and their impacts on regulatory framework and institutional development used in other transition economies, so as to enable the support of the reforms in the Russian state forestry. The main reason for focussing on the countries, which have finished the transition process through EU membership is that those changes in forest policies and institutional set up were discussed and accepted as appropriate solutions by several international forums as well as by the EU authorities. Of particular interest are the Baltic States, which were part of the former Soviet Union and had thereby similar background at the beginning of the transition process as Russia. This is not the situation in the countries of Southeast Europe, because of the different overall environment. In Southeast Europe the transition process is at its beginning or ongoing. The idea of the project “Analysis of the Forest Sector Reform and Best Practices in the Transition Economy Countries” is to strengthen the human resources and capacities in forest policy and institutional development processes of selected Russian experts currently employed in the state forest sector both at strategic federal and regional levels in Northwest Russia. These selected experts will act in core positions both in respect to forest sector reforms and educational modernisation regarding forest sector development. They will be used as trainers for other projects in the Programme within forest policy, institutional and regulatory framework issues. 2. Main beneficiaries The main beneficiaries of the project are the government bodies responsible for preparing and recommending new policy and legislative instruments needed for securing sustainable forestry development in Russia. Other beneficiaries will be the selected specialists in the forestry sector, representing both public and private key actors, who are expected to have an instrumental advisory Ilavský J. Project “Analysis of the forest sector reform and best practices in the transition economy countries” 37 role in the development of future forest policies in Russia in general and Northwest Russia in particular. Experts selected to participate in the project implementation will be in senior positions and are therefore expected to express their views and make recommendations both in respect to forestry sector reforms and relevant educational modernisation. They are also expected to be used as trainers for other projects within the NWRDP Programme, e.g. in forest policy, institutional and regulatory issues. 3. Objectives and main results The overall objective of the Forest Sector Capacity Building Programme is to provide high skills and knowledge for the forest sector employees that enable improvements in sustainable forest management and forest sector development in Northwest Russia. Another strategic objective of the Programme is an efficient and competitive further training leading to improved competence and performance of forest sector employees and supportive educational structures. The purpose of the project is the improvement of the present regulatory and development framework in the Russian state forestry to support the educational reform by an appropriate legislative, policy and institutional framework. The objective of the project is to strengthen the capacity of the forestry personnel currently employed in the state forest sector both at strategic federal and regional level in Northwest Russia to create appropriate legislative, policy and institutional frameworks for educational reform. The main objective will be achieved by fulfilling the specific objectives, which are: • Improvement of understanding of the development strategies in state forestry, including legislative basis and other regulatory and development frameworks as well as relevant forest policies and related instruments in other countries with corresponding problems and conditions; • Creation of favourable regulatory and policy conditions for implementation of those experiences of other countries that are of particular interest to the Russian context; • Strengthen capacities of state forest sector managers for transformation of the potentially applicable approaches to the Russian conditions to support forest sector reform with particular attention to further training. The main results of the project will be: • Country case studies on experience and lessons learnt from the transition period in six selected new EU member countries; • Recommendations for the implementation of the best practices from the transition period of those countries into the Russian forest sector reform; • Short- and medium term training action plan for training of all levels of management of the state forest service at ARICEF. 4. Approach and methodology The project is aiming at the transfer of experiences and lessons learnt from selected transition countries on relevant policy instruments and their impacts on regulatory framework and institutional development in those countries. This will be achieved by: i) Studying the relevant documents to understand the development strategies in state forestry, including legislative basis and other regulatory and development framework as well as relevant forest policies and related instruments in other transition countries with similar problems and conditions. 38 Ilavský J. Project “Analysis of the forest sector reform and best practices in the transition economy countries” ii) Selecting and analysing those experiences of other transition countries which are of particular interest to the Russian context. iii) Modifying and transforming the potentially applicable approaches to the Russian conditions and disseminating the results of the exercise where feasible, with particular attention to further training. iv) Proposing appropriate changes in policy development, institutional and regulatory framework to support the reform in the Russian state forestry. Work will be based on an in-depth analysis of recent forest policy strategies and forest sector development plans/programmes with emphasis on the state forestry in the following countries with different models of institutional framework and forest management: • Estonia – country with a common history of forest sector development with Russia during the former Soviet Union period. Forestry is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. Forest policy and The Estonian Forestry Development Programme, approved in 1995 and updated in 1997 and 1999, is based on the National Environmental Strategy and National Environmental Action Plan. Regulatory framework is based on the Forest Act approved in 1998 and revised in 2002-2003. Focussing in privatization of forest land. Specific institutional set up for state administration responsible for policy implementation, supervision, forest inventory, forest monitoring and extension services and separate State Forest Management Centre, a profit-making state agency responsible for management of state forests. • Latvia – also a country with a common history with Russia. Since becoming an independent state has a different policy, legal and institutional set up. Policy frame from 2000 and legislative frame are determined mainly by the Law on Forests, the Law on State Forest Service and the Law on Specially Protected Nature Areas. Forestry under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture with a Deputy State Secretary for Forestry. State administration fulfilled by the State Forest Service, responsible for implementing of the state forest policy, supervision over compliance with the regulatory act and effecting support programmes aimed at sustainable forest management, including supervising forest research stations. Latvia is the only transition country to have established state joint-stock company for management of public forests. • Lithuania – the third Baltic country with a common history. However also with different policy, regulatory and institutional framework since independence. The main forest policy document from 2003 also defined its implementation strategy. Forestry included under the remit of the Ministry of Environment as a separate Department. State forest administration as the Forest Control Division included into the State Environmental Protection Inspection. Public forests are managed by the General Directorate of State Forests. Separate state organizations for forest management planning, forest survey service, sanitary forest protection, forest tree and seed breeding and forest seed and plant quality control. • Poland – the largest transition country with a very high percentage of state owned forests and a fragmented private forest sector. Almost 80% of forests are state owned. Those forests are managed by the State Forests National Forest Holding, an organization under the Ministry of Environment. Its organizational structure is quite complicated with several horizontal and vertical levels of management. It also organises educational activities for technical staff, forest workers and for the public in 24 educational centres all over the country. • Czech Republic – country with a long history of forest management on the basis of traditional Middle European knowledge and principles with strong institutional structure. A regulatory framework has been established by a new Forest Act of 1996 and amended in 2002. The main policy document is the National Programme of Sustainable Forest Management. State authority function is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture via the regional inspectorates. Public forests are managed by a state forest enterprise established by the Ministry of Agriculture. Its main function is the supervision of forest management in line with obligatory forest management plans. Silvicultural and harvesting operations are carried out by private companies based on contracts. The Czech Republic has a very long tradition of forestry education and training with several educational institutions for different levels of education. Ilavský J. Project “Analysis of the forest sector reform and best practices in the transition economy countries” 39 • Slovakia – also a country with a long history of forestry traditions. Forestry is under the Ministry of Agriculture. State authority function is fulfilled by county and regional forest offices. Public forests are managed by a state forest enterprise. Recent discussions on new Forest Act and state forests management – combination of Austrian and Czech model. NFP and long term forest policy are recently discussed. Similarly to Czech Republic there is a long tradition of forestry education and training. As can be seen from the above brief description of the situation in respective countries, there are six different approaches to the transition process and also different policies, legislative and institutional frameworks for forest management. Those will be studied in the project by the Russian experts to identify the best solutions which could be implemented into its new reform. The four remaining new EU member countries have not been included into the list of countries suggested to study the outcomes of their transition process. Malta and Cyprus because they have not been passing the transition process from centrally planned economy, as well as because of very low importance of their forest sector and specific Mediterranean conditions. Hungary because of low country forest cover and a specific organizational set up with many small enterprises managing state forests. Slovenia is also a specific case with prevailing private forest ownership with very small holdings (more than 55% of holdings are smaller than 1 ha and only 1% with an area over 20 ha). Countries from Southeast Europe and from Balkans are only at the beginning of the transition process or not yet finished, e.g. there is high uncertainty what will be the final result. Six Russian experts will be selected to study the situation in the countries described above. Each expert will analyse one of the selected countries in a form of a case study. Work will be done in the following phases: 1. In-depth analysis of selected transition countries in order to understand their development strategies in state forestry. Each expert will cover one country in the form of a case study. Analysis will be based on a literature study, short term visits to the respective countries and consultations with the Finnish and other experts. Short term visits of ministries and other relevant organizations in respective counties for 4-5 days will be organized in the second half of 2006. 2. Formulation of conclusions and recommendations on how to transfer the best practices to the Russian state forest sector. The experts will draw conclusions and make suggestions as to what extent and how to transfer experiences and results from these countries to federal, regional and district levels in Northwest Russia, particularly within state forestry. Finnish specialists will comment on the conclusions and recommendations and make suggestions for their improvement. 3. Design of short and medium term action plans for ARICEF and the territorial forestry agencies in Northwest Russia. Based on these assessments and recommendations, short- and medium term training action plans will be formulated. The advantage of networking and partnership with Forestry Training Centres in other European countries in cooperation with the Joint UNECE/FAO/ILO Expert Network to Implement Sustainable Forest Management will also be taken when drafting the proposals for changes and short- and medium training action plans for ARICEF and other Russian training institutions. 40 41 THEME I Forest policies and their instruments supporting sustainable forest management Chairman Timo Karjalainen Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA Presentations New Forest Code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian Federation Anatoly Petrov, Rector, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry ARICEF, Russia Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia Jānis Birgelis, Director, Department of Forest Policy, Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Latvia Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria Ivan Paligorov, Dean, Faculty of Business Management, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria Serbian forestry sector - Political, legal and organizational reform Dusan Jovic, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Republic of Serbia Special features of national forest policy and forest management reform in Ukraine Victor Tkach, Director, Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration Forest policy and its instruments in the Czech Republic - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Igor Lyzlov, Head of Department, Forest Committee of the Republic of Komi, Russia 42 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 43 1 . Wh y do es Ru ssia n e ed a new Fore st Co d e? 2 . Sta g e s of d ev e lopm en t and imp lem en ta tio n o f th e new fo re st le g isla tion . Sl i de 1 New Forest Code and its Implications for Management of Forests in the Russian Federation Anatoly Petrov Rector, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, Pushkino, Russia 44 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation Goals of the new forest legislation of the Russian Federation 1. To turn biological forest resources into economic potential for the country; 2. To establish a market-oriented balance between the state power of the Federation and its subjects (regions); 3. To separate government and economic functions in the forest sector; 4. To establish a competitive environment in forest industry and forestry; 5. To create an effective investment climate in the forest sector. Slide 2 ”Triangle” of key issues solved by forest policy and forest legislation Power of federal authorities in the sphere of state forest management Private forest business Power of the authorities of the subjects of the Federation in the sphere of state and economic forest management Slide 3 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 45 Development of federative relations in the system of forest fund management 0000Control 000 (+)+Property management 0000ConstitutiveAdministrative district 0000Control +0+0Property management +0+0ConstitutiveSubject of the Federation ++++Control 0+00Property management ++++Constitutive Federation Forest Code, 2006-2007 Federal Act no. 199, 2004, 2005-2006 Forest Code 1997 Basics of forest legislation, 1993 M anagement levels and functions 0000 000 (+)+ 0000vAd v 0000 +0+0 +0+0v ++++ 0+00 ++++v F r d , 2006-2007 F d ral Ac . 199, 2004, 2005-2006 F r d 1997 B ic f f r l gi la i , 1993 M a ag l v l a d fu c i Slide 5 + - functions 0 – no functions The principle of federalism is established in the Constitution of the Russian Federation , whereas Article 72 attributes the issues of ownership, use and disposal of land, riches from the Earth, water and other natural resources to be under the joint management of the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation. Slide 4 46 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation Mechanism of delegating rights of federal ownership Rights of federal state ownership to the forest fund Federal executive authorities Executive authorities of the subjects of the Federation Private forest business Municipalities Slide 6 Forest Code (2006) about distribution of federal ownership rights to forest Article 81. Power of the authorities of the Russian Federation in the area of forest relations Article 82. Power of the authorities of the subjects of the Federation in the area of forest relations Article 83. Transfer of certain powers of the Russian Federation in the area of forest relations to state authorities of the subjects of the RF Article 84. Powers of local authorities in the area of forest relations Slide 7 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 47 I mplementation of the principle of federalism in forest relations via delegating rights of federal ownership to the forest fund to the subjects of the Federation Federal organisation with responsibility for managing state forest fund Agreement Regional authority of the Federation A R Slide 8 Rights and duties of the subjects of the Federation in realizing the power delegated for forest fund management 1. Earning pre-agreed amount of forest income in the form of fees from the use of forest fund. 2. Transfer of pre-agreed amount of forest income to the federal budget. 3. Forestry operations in compliance with fixed tasks, including those derived from Federal orders. 4. Annual reporting to the Federal Forest Agency on forest income earned from the use of forest resources. 5. Annual reporting to the Federal Forest Agency on the volumes of forestry operations. 6. Periodic reporting to the Federal Forest Agency on the condition of the forest fund managed on the basis of the delegated power. 1.Provision of forest fund areas for use under the terms of long and short-term leasing according to relevant tender procedures and on the basis of agreements. 2. Organization of forestry operations on the basis of long-term lease agreements. 3. Organization of forestry operations in the territory of the forest fund not provided for long- term leasing carried out by state commercial organizations owned by the subjects of the Federation (leskhoz). 4. Organization of the work – done by leasers and state-owned commercial entities – of fire safety and protection against infestations. Responsibilities delegated according to the agreementDelegated power (rights) E x , A A A A 6 P A P O z O z z z O z – – RD Slide 9 48 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation Financial mechanism for transferring (delegating) power, i.e. subsidies from the Federal budget. The subsidies are to be aligned with the forest plan of a subject of the Federation. Slide 10 Federal authorities in the system of forest management Government of the Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources – forest policy and constructive functions Federal forest management body Federal Service for Inspecting the Utilization of Natural Resources Institutions and unitary enterprises Regional bodies working in the subjects of the Federation G R M R – I U R I R Slide 11 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 49 Powers of the Federal forestry management body 1. Forest monitoring 2. Forest planning and inventory 3. Forest protection 4. Seed production 5. Scientific research 6. Secondary vocational forest education 7. Further education in forestry 8. Subsidies from the Federal budget 9. International cooperation Slide 12 Authorities of the subjects of the Federation in the system of forest management Body of executive power of the subject of the Federation A body responsible for the financial and supervisory forest management functions Forest districts (lesnichestvo) – state management Commercial organisations – economic management Leasers Forest users Slide 13 50 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation Instruments of State forest management 1. Forest plan of a subject of the Federation 2. Forest management regulation (reglament ) 3. Forest development plan 4. State or municipal review of the forest development plan 5. State forest inventory 6. State Forest Ledger Slide 14 Stages of reforming of leskhozes 1930’s – 1993 2005 – 2006 2007 - Slide 15 Forest management Forestry production Industrial production Leskhoz - state forest enterprise Private business Forest management Forestry production Leskhoz – federal state body State forestry management bodies (lesnichestvos, bodies of the Inspection of Natural Resources) Forest users under the conditions of forest lease State commercial entities Trustees Federal Subject of the Federation Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 51 Ways of establishing and developing commercial entities of subjects of the Federation Slide 16 Executive power body of a subject of the Federation Leskhoz – state enterprise Unitary forestry enterprise of a subject of the Federation Governmental joint stock company of a subject of the Federation Approaches to cover costs of regeneration, protection and conservation of forests under lease agreements and economic activities 1. From the fees for using the forest fund via budgetary system or earmarked funds. The work is performed by users, evaluated by contractual prices, accepted by lessor and are paid for. 2. From the prime cost or profit of forest users. Slide 17 52 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 1. Allocation of costs for forestry work to the prime cost in parallel to fees means double taxation of income. 2. Violation of the principle of equal access of companies to forest resources under forest lease with silvicultural operations (when costs are included in the prime cost) and without silvicultural operations (when cost are not included). 3. Inability to execute effective control over the results of silvicultural operations separately from the control over financial flows. Slide 18 Why the costs for forestry operations cannot be allocated to the prime cost or profit of forest users? Economic organisation of silvicultural operations under the conditions of long-term lease State forest fund management body Forest lease agreement Forest user Acceptance of sites Finished forest sites Payment for sites Federal or regional budget Fees for the use of forest fund 4 Earmarked fund for forest regeneration Federal and regional budgets 1 2 3 Slide 19 Petrov A. New forest code and its implications for management of forests in the Russian federation 53 Formation of payments for the use of forest fund in the environment of decentralized forest management Federal forest management authority Basic rate of fees for forest fund use State authority providing forest fund areas for use Starting prices for standing timber before the auction Auctions for selling forest use rights Fee rate per resource unit and lease payment Slide 20 54 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia 55 Development of Forest Policy and Its Instruments during the Transition Period in Latvia J ānis Birgelis Director Department of Forest Policy Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia  brief introduction • forest resources • forest sector  transition period • land reform • privatization milestones of forest sector development • Forest Policy • institutional reform • National forest and related sectors’ programme CONTENT 56 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia LAND USE IN LATVIA 1,94,23,3 1,41,9 4,4 44,4 38,5 F a rm land Forests Scru b land Bogs Inland water Bu ilt-u p -a reas Roads Other >5 0 <33 FORESTS IN LATVIA Forest cover >50 % Scots pine Norway spruce Birch Other 48 % 7 % 24 % 21 % Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia 57 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1935 1988 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1000 ha State Private Collective farms Other 150,000 forest owners 8.5 hа - average holding OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE 0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Roundwood Sa wnwood Wood der ived fuels Pla y wood F u rnitu re Boar ds Carton, p a per Other Источник: Министерство земледелия FORE S T P R ODUCTI ON E X P ORT S M ln E UR 58 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia -1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 Forest sector Light industry Metals and related products Engineering industry Chemical industry Other Agriculture and food industry. Minerals Building materials IMPORT-EXPORT BALANCE TRANSITION PERIOD 1990 - 1996  understanding market economy  land reform  privatization of state owned forest industry companies  favourable conditions for export of forest production  development of private forestry  inefficient management of state forests  fixed prices  export custom tax (1991 – 1998)  stakeholders formation Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia 59 , 1996 1998 1999/2000 2000 2003………. FORESTSECTORSTAKEHOLDERS F O RES T P O LICY ST AT E F O RE ST GO VE R N ANC E O P TIM I ZAT IO N N A T I ON A L F OR E ST A N D R E L A T E D SE C T OR S ’ P R OGR A M M E F O RES T LE GI SL A TIO N P ROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT 60 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia FOREST POLICY FORMULATION 1996 - 1998 Why ?  to agree on general development principles for the Latvian forest sector  to create a favourable environment for economic development  to preserve the ecological values of Latvia's forests  to ensure the social functions of forests  to start defining a strategy for achieving these goals  to optimize legislation FORE S T M AN AGE M E NT CYCLE In Latvia 50In Latvia 50 –– 100 years100 years Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia 61 V A LUE ADDING PROCESS CONSUMERCONSUMER F orest ry pro d ucti o n 0.3 bln EUR Va lue o f f o r e st se c t o r pr o duc t io n ~ 1.7 bln EUR The regulatory function includes formulating forest policy and preparing the necessary legislation for its implementation, while providing information to and making possible the participation of all stakeholders. 62 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia The supervision function includes the creation of an institutional system that ensures implementation and enforcement of legislation in all forests, regardless of ownership type. FOREST POLICY The ownership f unction means state forest management that ensures fulfillment of the socially a c cepted ecological and social functions chara cteristic of state forests, the preservation and increase state forest value and income to the forest owner- the state. FOREST POLICY Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia 63 The support function includes activities carried out by state institutions and/or with state funding to create conditions for long- term forest function stabilization and to promote private entrepreneurship . FOREST POLICY R E GU L A T O R Y fo rmu lat i n g fo rest p oli cy an d d raft i n g t h e n ecessa ry l egi s lat i on fo r i t s i mp le men t at i on SU P E R V I SI ON To en su re i mp l em en t a - t i on an d en force men t of leg i s lat i on i n all fo rest s, rega rd le ss of own e rsh i p t yp e OWN E R S ' M an agemen t t o mai n t ai n and in crease st at e fo rest valu e an d i n come t o t h e fo rest own er - t h e st at e SU PP OR T To creat e con d i t i on s for lon g- t erm fo rest fu n ct i on st ab i li zat i on an d t o p romot e p ri vat e en t rep ren eu rsh i p LVM Lt d FDF Pri vat e En t rep ren eu rsh i p SI I SF HI D e par tme nt of F or e s t State F or e s t SHE Se r vi c e State F or e s t Se r vic e Minis try ; F orest Secti on INSTITUTIONAL REFORM-2 1999 64 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia S JS C " Lat vi j as valst s me ži " 8 region al c en t res Supe r vi si o n Sha r e ho l de r Advi so ry M i ni stry of Ag ri cul tu re F or e st Advi so ry B oa r d F or e s t Se c ti on Sta te Fo r e st Ser vi c e F or e s t R e s e ar c h Stati on 12 Regi onal F or e s ts STATE FOREST AUTHORITY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT 2003….  formulation of National forest and related sectors’ programme (process started just after institutional reform)  understanding complexity of the issues  first stage completed  long term development goals formulated and approved by Government (in 2006) Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia 65 De ma nds o f so c ie t y Non-market products and services and other considerations Market products and services Po l icy fr ame wo r k Internal (forest) policies External (other) policies Market framework Supply and demand relationships Fo re st s ec to r External factors So c io-eco nomic Env iro nme nta l Fo r e st o wne r s a n d mana g er s Fo r e st ba se d in d us t ry CROSS -S ECTOR AL COORDI N AT I O N SECTORAL VERSUS INTERSECTORAL COORDINATION FORE S T AN D FORE S T P RODUCTS E duca tio n Science B uilding Architecture, Des ig n Tra nsp ort, Log i sti cs Wo o d- pro ces s ing Pa cka g ing T o uris m, Recrea tio n Info r ma ti o n Tech n ol og i es Sta te Autho rity Co ns ulta tio n Service Che mica l I ndus try E nerg y Fo res try 66 Birgelis J. Development of forest policy and its instruments during the transition period in Latvia LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES forest and forest land is sustainably managed forest based industries are competitive and meet consumers’ needs knowledge and skills of human resources ensure reaching long-term objectives T H ANK Y OU! JANI S BI RGELI S Dep a rtm en t of Forest P olicy Min istry of Ag riculture ja n is.b irg elis@zm .g ov.lv Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 67 1 Forest Policy and Challenges to the Forest Sector in Bulgaria Assoc. Prof., PhD Ivan Paligorov Dean of the Faculty of Business Management University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria 2 Bulgarian forests – a short review Bul ga ri a Area: 11 1 0 0 0 k m 2 Population: 8 million. Bulgaria Romania Macedonia Serbia Slovenia Albania Bosnia Turkey Greece Croatia 68 Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria. 3 Bulgarian forests – a short review Forest Resource Potential  In 2005 total area of the forests amounts to 4.08 million ha - 36% of the country. With its forested areas of 31% Bulgaria ranks 19th in Europe.  The distribution by tree species: conifers – 31% deciduous - 69%. Bulgarian forests – a short review 4  The estimated total forest stock - 598 million m 3 standing timber – 31% coniferous and 69% deciduous.  The estimated total average increment amounts to 14.12 million m 3 /year.  The average yield – about 4.6 m 3 /ha/year.  The average age - 49 years.  More than 85% of water flow or 3.6 bill. m 3 of fresh water. Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 69 5 Changes in the forestry in the period 1997-200 5  The adoption at the end of 1997 of two basic acts – the Forest and Forestland Ownership Restitution Act (2 5 Nov 1997) and the Forest Act (29 Dec 1997) marked the beginning of the structural reform in the forestry sector.  The related legal framework of 7 regulations, 11 ordinances and 6 instructions were prepared in the period 1998-2000. 6 Changes in the forestry in the period 1997-200 5  In the end of 2006 the restitution of an area amounting to 24% of the forests was returned to private individuals, legal entities and municipalities.  We have more than 840 000 (in 1939 – 456 000) private forest owners. The average area – 1.5 ha. More than 30% of owners live in the big cities. 70 Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria. 7 Changes in the forestry in the period 1997-200 5  In 2000 the business activities in state forests from the forest ranges was allocated to 63 shareholder companies with 100% state capital, subsequently the number increased to 82, and after that the majority of them started privatization procedures. 8 Changes in the forestry in the period 1997-200 5  In 2005 there were over 2600 private SMEs (companies) and sole traders (about 29 000 ) engaged in the business activities in state forests.  More than 1500 are the private SMEs (companies) in wood-processing and furniture industry (about 15 000).  The lives of more than 1 mill. people depends on forest products, goods and services. Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 71 9 The main challenges to forest sector in Bulgaria  Sustainable close to nature forest management in a context of EU membership. 1.To protect forests and biodiversity. 2.To meet the people`s needs. 10 Biodiversity of Bulgari an forests Forestry areas of Bulgar i a contain:  More than 80 % of protected flora species;  More than 60 % of threatened fauna species;  More than 60 % of the habitats with hi gh pr iority for conservation;  Ei ght of the twelve landscape complexes, defined in the National Biodiversity conservation Strategy as unique and representative for Bul gar i a’s biodiversity;  Populations of 43 globall y threatened species. 72 Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria. 11 Biodiversity of Bulgari an forests Habitats Directive  216 types of habitats  78 occur in Bulgaria  26 – only in forest areas  24 – well represented in forest areas  15 – partially in forest areas Bulgarian Biodiversity Act  106 types of habitats  40 – only in forest areas  21 – predominantly in forest areas  31 – well represented in forest areas 12 Restrictive factors  Diversified use of more and more forestry areas;  Increasing use of more forest products;  F rag mentation of forest ecosystems;  O ccu rrence of perm anent barriers for migrating animals;  Homogenization of forest stands in terms of species composition and age;  Change of species composition in forests at a national level;  Significant changes of bio- and landscape diversity due to forest fires;  Increase influence of climate changes. Al l these factors lead to permanent and ir reversible loss of biodiversity in Bulg arian forests gene, species and ecosystem level. Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 73 13 Significant changes of bio - and landsca pe diversity due t o forest fires. Forestry had to meet the challenge of regeneration as a result of the consequences of the intensive forest fires in the period 1999-2001. 14 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 area, h а 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 area, h а 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 area, h а 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1991 1992 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 1997 1998 199 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 01 20 0 2 area, h а Fore st f i re areaFore st f i re area :: 74 Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria. 15 To meet the peoples needs?  To investigate the resource capacity and needs for timber consumption, desires and expectations about all functions and services.  To involve the civil society in solving forest related issues at local level – multifunctional forest planning.  To train and consult the private forest owners about sustainable forest management. 16 The main strategy management vision “The Bulgarian forest is a national asset. The resources of the forest ecosystems retain their ecological, social and economic functions for improving the quality of life of people. Forests are professionally managed in a stable forest sector with broad public support and mutual respect and integration of the interests of all stakeholders.” Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 75 17 The main goals of the NFPS are: 1. Sustainable development of an economicall y vi ab le forest sector through multifunctional forest management in market economy conditions . 2. To compl y the goals and the means for the sustainable development of the forest sector with international criteria . 3. To provide national and international financial resources and to support the development of the sector . 18 What is the main goal for the future? To meet the people`s needs… …with the resources capacity in a changeable en vironment! To harmonize the interests of each one of us in a small area! 76 Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria. 19 To put into practice the multifunctional forest planning  Capacity building of forest administration staff at national/regional level and of forestry stakeholders in participatory planning mechanisms;  Facilitate and assist the Regional Forestry Boards in the development of multifunctional forestry plans in 6 regions, using Geographical Information System (GIS);  Develop criteria for monitoring the plan implementation;  Provide for exchange of experiences and lessons learned at a national and local level. 2 0 Mu l ti f u n cti on al Pl an n i n g Proce ss  S upports forest ad ministration in the introd uction of new approaches  I ntrod uces b est international practices in B ulgaria  Prov id es a platform for all interested parties to participate in the planning process  Prov id es consultancy to local initiativ es related to MFP  A nalyses and d isseminates experience Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 77 21 Multifunctional Planning Process 22 Multifunctional Forest Planning - Lessons Learnt in Bulgaria  Transparent process with the participation of all stakeholders  Achievement of consensus in decision making  Decisions must be: clear and achievable, accessible for the broad public  Involvement of all stakeholders in the development of monitoring criteria on the implementation of the plan  Coordination with other plans and programs  Necessity of arranging the legal status of the process 78 Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria. 23 Multifunctional Forest Planning - Trainings  O b jectives: ? To support NFB structures through capacity build in g of their employees ? To introduce MFP for all stakeholders involved in the process at a national, regional and local level ? To support PhD students to link their scientific results with managerial decisions in Multifunctional Forest Planning through Ad vocacy Training ? To improve forest workers’ implementation in order to contribute to sustainable forest management  Target Groups ? State Forest Administration ? Non-state Forest Stakeholders involved in MFP process ? Forest Workers and instructors ? PhD Students 24 Multifunctional Forest Planning - Trainings  Scope  Multifunctional Forest Planning  Soft Skills Development  Vocational Training of Forest Workers and Instructors  Vocational Training of PhD students  Advocacy Training of PhD students  Results  Increased capacity of NFB staff for implementing reforms in the forestry sector  Involvement of civil society in MFP process  Increased number of certified forest workers to reduce the number of labor accidents and adverse impacts on forests  Better linkage between PhD thesis and real practice and policy change Paligorov I. Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 79 25 Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria 26 Forest policy and challenges to the forest sector in Bulgaria To harmonize the interests of each one of us in a small area! Thank you for your attention! 80 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 81 Serbian Forestry Sector – Political, Legal and Organisational Reform Dusan Jovic Senior Adviser Directorate of Forests Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Serbia Total area 88 3 60 kmT a l a r a 88 3 60 km 22 Central pa rt ~ 63 % Vojvodina ~ 24 % Kosovo & Metohija ~ 1 2 % Forest areaF r ar a ~~ 2 6 ,7 %2 6 ,7 % - Central pa rt ~ 32 % - Vojvodina ~ 7 % - Kosovo & Metohija ~ 3 9 % 2 ( 2 4) 82 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 1 1 0 . 6 m 3 / ha AV E R AG E W O O D VOLUME (~ 5 0 % of optimal) 6 . 1 8 mi l. m 3TO T AL AN NU AL I NCREMENT O FW OO D V O LUME 2 . 6 7 m 3 / haAV E R AG E AN NU AL I NCREMENT O FW OO D V O LUME 2 3 5 63 1 6 0 0 m 3TO T AL W O O D VO LUME 2 4 1 2 9 40 . 00 ha 2 6 . 7 % TO T AL ARE A U NDE R FO RE S T (~ 6 5 % of optimal) 3 ( 2 4) • insufficient forest area and forest density,i uffi ci f r ar a a d f r d i y, • unfavourable forest structure (from aspectu fav ur abl f r r u ur (fr m p of silvi culture form and tree species)f ilvi cul ur f rm a d r p i ) • unfavourable stand conditions (level ofu fav ur abl d c di i (l v l f conservation, vitality and tending)c r i , vi l i y a d di g) • insufficient production fund,i uffi ci pr du i fu d, • unsatisfactory forest health state,u i r y f r h l h , • excessive cutting (hi gh percentage ofiv cu i g (hi gh p r g f coppice forests)c ppi c f r ) 4 ( 2 4) Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 83 • Establishing balance between large demands on forests and ecosystem conservation needs;d v ; • Integration of all interested parties (local communities,d NGOs, private sector) in decision making and governancev ) d d process;; • Adopting new balance between government institutionsAd b b and private sector, and other institutions at central andd v d d local level;v ; • Active participation in solution of interv -- sectoral issues, especially those related on land use, poverty reduction,d d v d food production, energy needs, environment etc.d d v . 5 ( 2 4) • introduction of interi c i f i r -- sectoralc a l pl anning;pla i g; • Increasing aw areness and resources mobilisation;I cr a i g aw a r a d r c bi l i a i ; • effective increase of public and private activities forff c i v i c r a f publ i c a d pri va a c i vi i f r sustainable development in forestry;u a i a bl d v l i f r y; • pa rtnership initiatives at local, national and internationalpar r hi p i i ia i v a l c a l, a i a l a d i a i a l level;l v l ; • mobilisation and organising all national andili a i a d ga i i g al l a i al a d international resources;i a i al r urc ; • pl anning and conducting of activities;pla i g a d c c i g f a c i vi i ; • sustainable development of forests;u ai a bl d v l f f ; • national sovereignty and state governance;a i al v r i y a d a v a c ; • pa rtnership;pa r r hi p; • pa rticipation;par ic i pa i ; • comprehensive and crossc h iv a d c -- sectoralc a l approac h;a ac h; • longl g -- term process and periodicity.rm c a d p ri di c i y. 6 ( 2 4) 84 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform Reformf r m necessities 1. Accu mulate1. Accu mula intrasectorali r ral problems and necessitiespr bl m a d 3. P resent and3. Pr a d future internationalfu ur i r a i al commitmentsc mmi m 2. Reform process2. f r m pr c and needs of othera d d f h r sectorsr 7 (24) O verdimensionedOv r dim i d anda d underu d r -- quali fied staffquali fi d aff Outdated technicalOu d a d ch ical and producti vea d pr d uc i v processespr c Forest certific ationF r c r ific a i processpr c 1. Accu mulate1. Accu mula intrasectorali r ral problemspr b m and necessitiesa d Unsatisfactor yU a i fa c r y conditionsc di i of forestsf f r S FMS FM as an imperative fora a im p r a i v f r respect of all forestr p c f all f r functionsfu c i Requirements ofR quir m f new Constitutionw i u i UndevelopedU d v l p d infrastructuresi fra r uc ur Unsatisfactor yU a i fa c r y scope and qual ity ofc p a d qual i y f scientifi c and researc hci ifi c a d r ar c h acti vitiesac i vi i Incompati bility ofI c m pa i bili y f appropriateappr pr ia financial mechanismfi a cial m c ha i m at state levela a l v l Complex processmpl x pr c of restructuring forestf r ruc ur i g f r enterprisesrpri UnderdevelopedU d r d v l p d wood processingw d pr c i g industry afteri du r y af r pr i vatisation processpri va i a i pr c Unfa vour ableU fa v ur abl demograp hicd m gr ap hic structure inruc ur i r ur al areasrur al ar a Lack ofLack f adequate supportad q ua upp r for pr i vate forestsf r pr i va f r FORESTRYFORESTRY SECTORSE TOR 8 ( 2 4) Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 85 Strategy of thera g y f h state administrationa admi i ra i reformr f rm Ru ra lRu ra l developmentd v l pm strategyra g y (( d ra ftdraf )) SustainableSu ai ab l DevelopmentD v l pm Strategy of thera g y f h RSRS BiodiversityBi di v r i y p reservation strategypr rva i ra g y of the RSf h RS Strategy ofra g y f sustainableu ai a b l utilisation ofu ili a i f natural resourcesa ural r u rc of thef h RSRS National program meNa i a l p r g ra m m for the environmentalf r h vi r m a l p rotection of thepr c i f h RSRS Energy developmentE rg y d v l p m strategy of thera g y f h RSRS Ag ri c u lturalAg ri c u l u ra l developmentd v l pm strategyra g y FORES TRYFORES TRY SECTO RO R 2a. Reform processes and necessities of2a. f r m pr c a d f other sectorsh r r 10 (24) 2. Reform processes and necessities2. f r m pr c a d of other sectorsf h r r Law onLaw environmentalvir m al protectionpr c i Law onLaw nature protectiona ur pr c i (( dr aftdr af )) Law onLaw Environmental I m pa ctE vir m al I m pa c AssessmentsA m Law onLaw National P ar ksNa i al P ar k Law on WatersLaw W a r Law onLaw Agr icu ltur a l LandAgr icu l ur a l La d Law on AssetsLaw A of thef h Republic of SerbiaR pu blic f S r bia Law onLaw P ublic EnterprisesPublic E r pr i and JSCa d JS Law onLaw Forest ReproductionF r R pr d uc i M aterialsMa r ial Other relevantO h r r l va lawslaw Law onLaw associationsa cia i FORES TRYFORES TRY SECTO RO R DefiningD fi i g ““ pursuit of common goodpur ui f c m m g d ”” of thef h new Constitutionw i u i 9 ( 2 4) 86 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 3. INTE RN AT I O N AL COMMITM E NTS3. INTE RN AT I O N AL OM M ITM E NTS CONVENT I ONSONVENT I ONS CITESITE S R amsarRam ar U N ConventionUN v i on protection of worldpr c i f w r ld cultur al andcul ur al a d natur al heritagea ur al h r i a g B iodi versityBi di v r i y U N ConventionUN v i on transboundar yr a b u d ar y air pollutionair p l lu i U NU N FCCCF EU DIRECTIVES ANDEU DI RE T I VES AND ST RAT EGI ESST RAT EGI ES E U Strategy onEU S r a g y theh S ustainableSu a i a bl Use of NaturalU f N a ur al ResourcesR urc E UE U S ustainableSu ai abl DevelopmentD v l pm StrategyS r a g y E UE U Forest Action PlanF r Ac i P la Council of Europeu cil f E ur p D irectivesDir c i v (( ForestF r FocusF c u )) F OREST RY SECTORFOREST RY SE T OR GL OB AL AND REGI ON ALGL OB AL AND REGI ON AL I NI T I AT I VESI NI T I AT I VES N A TU R AN A TU R A 20002000 MCPFEM P FE A gendaAg da 2 12 1 U N FFU N FF 11 (24) 2003. F AO TCP/ YUG/2 902( A )2003. F AO T P / Y U G/2 902( A ) ““ I nstitutional development andI n i u i n l d evel m e n nd capacity bui ldi ng fori y bui ldi ng f n fpnf of Serbiaf Se bi ”” 2004. N FG (2004. N FG ( Nor wa yN r wa y )) ““ Program for forest sector ofg m f f e e f S erbiaSe bi ”” (( p hase Ipha I )) 20042004 -- 5. CES O (5. E S O ( Canadaa a da )) technical supportch i cal u pp r –– PRR Strategy of forest sector; ISO standards for stateS e gy f f e e ; I S O n d d f e admin istration; preparation for forest certificationdmin i i n; e i n f f e e i fi i n 2005. N FG (2005. N FG ( Nor wa yN r wa y )) ““ Program forestg m f e sector of Serbiae f Se bi ”” p hase IIp ha II )) 2005.2005. ObfObf Consultingul i g (( A ustri aAu r i a )) ““ D evelopment of plan for implem entationDevel m en f l n f im l em en i n of reorganization of PEf e g niz i n f ““ SrbijasumeS bij u m e ”” -- through participationug i i i n ”” 200200 77 . N FG. N FG (Nor wa y)(N r wa y) ““ P rogram for forest sectorPr gr am f r f r c r of Ser biaf S r bia ”” (ph ase III)(ph a III) 2005. F AO GCP/ 003/ FIN2005. F AO G P / 003/ FIN ““ Foreste Sector Deve lopment in S erbiaSe Deve l m en in S e bi ”” 2005. E FI2005. E FI -- FinlandFi la d ““ Capacity bu ildi n g in educationi y bu ildi n g in edu i n and traini ng in f ield of forest policy and economicsnd ini ng in f ield f f e li y nd e n m i in the West Balkan countriesin e W e B lk n un ie ”” (FOPER project)( O R j e ) 2003.2003. D irectorate of Forests &Dir c r a f F r & OSCEOS E –– P repar ation of law onPr par a i f law forest reproducti ve materials (in use from the beginning off r r pr du c i v m a r ial (i u fr m h b gi i g f 2005)2005) Projects whichP j c w hic h support(edupp ( d ) the) h processc …… 12 (24) Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 87 PR I V AT E FO R E S T O W NE R S ( ca . 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) NAT I O NAL PAR K S ( 5 ) W O O D I ND US T R I E S O T H E R S E C T O R SE NV I R O NME NT AL NG O ’s LO C AL C O MMUNI T I E S US E R S O F O T H E R FO R E S T G O O D S AND S E R V I C E S O T H E R NO NG O V E R NME NT AL O R G ANI S AT I O NS AND I ND I V I D UALS S T AT E FO R E S T E NT E R PR I S E S FO R MANAG E ME NT O F FO R E S T S ( 2 ) S T R AT E G Y & LE G I S LAT I ON Ap pl ied partici pative approach in strategy andAppl i d par i ci p iv appr ac h i r g y a d legislative development processl gi l i v d v l p pr 13 (24) ACHIEVE M ENTS,A HI EV E M ENTS, UNTI L NO WUNTI L NO W . ... .. 88 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform FORESTRYDEVELOPMENTSTFORESTRYDEVELOPMENTST RATEGRATEG YY ROLE OF T HE ST AT EROLE OF T HE ST AT E I N T HE FOREST SECTORIN T HE FOREST SE T OR DEVEL OPMENT DEVEL OPMENT (( conservation and enhancement of forest statec r va i a d ha c m f f r a and the development of forestry as a br anch of economya d h d v l pm f f r r y a a br a c h f c m y )) ROLE OF T HE FORE ST SECTOR INROLE OF T HE FORE ST SE T OR I N EE CONOMONOM ICI AN DAN D SOCIAL DE V ELOPME NTSO I AL DE V ELOPME NT ,, ENVI RONMENT AL PROT ECTION ANDENVI RONMENT AL PROT E T I ON AND N AT URE PROT ECTION I SSUE SN AT URE PROT E T I ON I SSUE S F OREST ST AT US ANDF OREST ST AT US AND PROT ECTIONPROT E T I ON (( statea ,, pri vatepriva )) ST AT USST AT US ANDAND PROT ECTION OFPROT E T I ON OF G AM EG AM E W OOD I NDUST RYW OOD I NDUST RY AN D M ARKETAN D M ARKET EDUCATION ANDEDU AT I ON AND T RAI NI N GT RAI NI N G RESEARCHRESEAR H I NF ORM AT I ONI NF ORM AT I ON DI SEM I NAT I ON,DI SEM I NAT I ON, PRPR ’’ s AND PUBL ICAND PUBL I EDUCATIONEDU AT I ON I NT ERNAT I O N ALI NT ERNAT I O N AL AN D REGI ON ALAN D REGI ON AL COOPER AT I ONOOPER AT I ON T AR GET ST AR GET S . . .. . . 15 (24) FORESTRYDEVELOPMENTSTFORESTRYDEVELOPMENTST RATEGRATEG YY I M PL EM ENT AT I ONSI M PL EM ENT AT I ONS . . .. . .  SectoralS c a l pl anningpla i g  SectoralS c a l investmentsi v m  SectoralS c a l coordinationc i a i  Institutional reformI i u i a l r f m  Forestry legislationry l gi l a i  International and regional cooperationI a i al a d r gi a l c ra i  Followll w -- up and evaluation of the Sectorup a d va l ua i f h S c r 16 (24) Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 89 LEGISLATIONLEGISLATION (( draftdraft )) Law on ForestsLaw F r L aw on State ForestsLaw a F r M anagementMa ag m L aw on Game andLaw Ga m a d HuntingHu i g L aw on ForestLaw F r Reproductive MaterialsR pr du c i v Ma ri al (( in usei u )) 17 (24) LAWONFORESTSLAWONFORE STS (( ke yn o velt y key no velt y ...)(1)...)(1) 1 .1 . Al l forests under unique legal actAl l f r u iqu l ga l a c (NP ,(NP , P AsPA ,, etcc .). ) w ith defining specialw i h d fi i g p ci a l interesi r t of state inf a i management of forests ofma ag m f f f SS erbiarbia ,, 2 .2 . Clearl y defined the principles of forest managementl arl y d fi d h pri c i pl f f ma a g m in accordance with Pani acc a c w i h Pa -- EuropeanE a C & I,& I , 3 .3 . E x pl ic itly defined rights and responsibilities ofExplic i l y d fi d ri gh a d r i bi li i f state and experts dealing with management ofa a d x p r d al i g w i h ma a g m f forestsf ,, 4.4 . P referabl y defined protection and discouragementPr f ra bl y d fi d pr c i a d di c ra g m of forest and forest land assignment changesf f a d f l a d a i cha g ,, 5 .5 . Better defined question of forest protectionB r d fi d qu i f f c i (( legall gal ownership ri ghts and biologicalw r hip ri gh a d bi l gi c al ),), 6 .6 . I dentified needs of overall development ofId ifi d d f v ra l l d v l f I SI S ini forestryf r y 18 (24) 90 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform DESI GN AT EDDESI GN AT ED RESOURCESRESOUR ES F ORF OR PROT ECTION ANDPROT E T I ON AND I M PROVEM ENT OFI M PROVEM ENT OF F OREST SF OREST S (( Forests Fundd )) INP UTINP UT SS OUTP UOUTP U TSTS S OL UTI ONS W I LL BE P ROP OSE D I N A SEP AR ATE S TUDY OF S US T AI N ABL E F IN ANCING I N F ORE S TRY DEV EL OPED THROUGH F AO P ROJECT LAWONFORESTSLAWONFORE STS (( ke yn o velt y key no velt y ...)...) (( 22 )) Compensation for forests & forest land utilisation; Compensation for using of general usefulness of forest functions; Bud get; Incentives for management of pri vate forests; Other FOREST REPRODUCTION, ICP, RDP SERVICE, PLANNI N G (nfp, forest areas, priv. for.) 19 (24) LAWONFORESTSLAWONFORE STS (( ke yn o velt y key no velt y ...)...) (3)(3) PROPOSED NEW ORG ANI Z ATI ON AL M ODELPROPOSED NEW ORG ANI Z ATI ON AL M ODEL M I NIS TRY OF AGRICULTURE , FORE S TRY AND W ATE R M AN AG EM E NTM I NIS TRY OF AGRI UL TURE , FORE S TRY AND W ATE R M AN AG EM E NT DI RECTOR ATE OF F ORE S TSDI RE TOR ATE OF F ORE S TS (( DFDF )) AA Regulatory functionR gul a r y fu c i BB Ad m inistrativAdm i i ra i v e funfu ctionc i C SS tate forest owner functiona f r w r fu c i DD InspeI p ctionc i FORES T AGE NCYFORES T AGE N Y A dm inistration of financi al resour cesAdmi i r a i f fi a ci al r ur c P rofessional support for:Pr f i al up p r f r : • D F, especiall y national inventor y,DF, p c iall y a i al i v r y, monitoring, p lanning andm i r i g, p la i g a d program m ingpr gr am m i g • P r ivate forestryPr iva f r r y E NTE RP RISE (S ) F ORE NTE RP RISE (S ) F OR M AN AG M AN AG E M E NTE M E NT OFOF S T ATE S T ATE F ORES TSF ORES TS Ac cor ding to special law (?) P R IV ATEP R IV ATE FOR E S TFOR E S T OW N E R SOW N E R S AS S OCIAT.AS S O I A T. (P FO A )(P FO A ) Or ganisedOrga i d for economicf r c m ic and othera d h r pur posespurp PRI VAT E FO RESTPRI VAT E FO REST O WNERO WNER 11 PF O 2 PF O 3 PF O n SCIENTI F IC, PROFE SS I ON ALS IE NTI F I , PROFE SS I ON AL AN D E XP E RTAN D E XP E RT ORG ANI S ATI ONS ORG ANI S ATI ONS •Forestry facu ltyF r r y facu l y •Forestry instituteF r r y i i u •Other organisationsO h r rga i a i // institutions (NGO, ch u rches)i i u i (NGO, ch u rch ) M U N IM U N I -- CIP AIP A -- LITIE SLITIE S FORES TFORES T COUNCILL Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform 91 Development StrategyD v l p m S ra g y ( adopted)(ad p d ) Forestry L aw ( d rafts)F r r y L aw ( d raf ) National Forestry Action PlanNa i al F r r y Ac i Pla I S S UE S:I S S UE S: • Development of institutionsD v l pm f i i u i • Capacity build ingapa ci y b u ild i g • SF M ( criteria & indicators ofSFM ( cri ria & i d ica r f SM )SM ) • Priv ate forestsPriv a f r • SM ESM E • Nature conservationNa ur c rv a i • Hunting and WildlifeHu i g a d W ild lif m anagementma ag m • Communication and PR inmmu ica i a d PR i ForestryF r r y • Sustainable financingSu ai ab l f i a ci g • Illegal activ itiesIll gal ac iv i i • International cooperation andI r a i al c p ra i a d h armonizationharm iz a i • Wood industryW d i d u ry Pa rticip atory app roachPa r i c i p a r y a p p r a c h 21 (24) REQ UIRE M ENT S, D EM ANDSREQ UIRE M ENT S, D EM ANDSREQ UIRE M ENT S, D EM ANDS 2 2 ( 24 ) • Need for reorganisation of forestry institutions,d • Need for better financing system in forestry,d b • Need for attention on private forests,d v • Need for better public education & forest extension systems,d b b d & • Need for transfer of technologies,d • Need for better forest roads networkd b d k …… . .. . • Started updating the legislation,S d d • Started forest inventories and bioS d v d b -- statistics, • Development of a forest information system,D v • Started capacity building process,S d b d • Concern with illegal activities in forestry,v • Started restructuring forest enterprisesS d …… ... . REQ UIRE M ENT S, D EM ANDSREQ UIRE M ENT S, D EM ANDSREQ UIRE M ENT S, D EM ANDS 2 2 ( 24 ) dd d bd b d vd v d b b d &d b b d & dd d b d kd b d k …… . .. . S d dS d d S d v d bS d v d b -- D vD v S d b dS d b d vv S dS d …… . .. . 92 Jovic D. Serbian forestry sector - political, legal and organizational reform ACHIEVE M ENT SE VE M ENT S • forest administration reorganised,f r admi i r a i r r ga i d, • pr i vate forests in focus,pri v f r i f cu , • forest extension service necessity,f r i r vi c i y, • forests inventory completed,f r i v r y c mpl d, • capacity bui l ding process adopted,capaci y bui l di g pr ad p d, • nature protection and increasingur pr i a d i cr i g environmental awareness,vir l awar , • partici pative and crosspar ici pa i v a d cr -- sectoralr al approach,appr ach, • active international cooperationiv i r i al c p r i …… .. 2 3 ( 24 ) CONCLUSIONON LU S ION T here is a lot of hard work to be done!Th r i a l f h ard w rk b d ! 2 4 ( 24 ) Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 93 Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine Professor, Dr. Viktor Tkach Director Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration 2 Ukrain e is 8th in terms ofUk in e i 8 in e m f forest area and 6th in timberf e e n d 6 in im b e stock in Europek in u e Foreste mapm off UkraineUk in e 94 Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 4 Dynamics of forest area in Ukraine Total area of the forest fund is 10.8 million ha; percentage ofT d 10.8 m ; p c forested area is 15.7d 1 5 .7 % . In 50 years percentage of forested area has increased by 1.5% . I 5 0 y p c d c d b y 1 . 5 times, and volumem , d m of growing stock by 2 .5 times, reaching 1.8 billion mck by 2 .5 m , c 1 . 8 b m 33 . Average annual increment in. A c m GoskomleshozG k m z of Ukraine totals 4.0 mUk 4 .0 m 33 per 1 ha and varies from 5.0 mp 1 d m 5 .0 m 33 in Carpathians to 2.5 mC p 2 . 5 m 33 in steppe zone.pp z . 7131 8261 8621 9400 9500 0 100 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 700 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 100 0 0 1961 1978 198 8 199 6 2 0 0 6 Ye ar 1000ha Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 95 5 Key fig ur es in fo r es try 0.215.6940060350Ukraine 2.443.28213091902230Eastern Europe 0.224.259479245569Western Europe 2.846.852538112329 Northern Europe 1.341.39333262260128Europe Forest area per capita, ha Percentage of forested area, % Forest area, 1000 ha Total area, 1000 ha Region 6 Percentage of forest area in Ukraine 26. 8 13 5. 3 42 10. 4 15.7 32 18 9 45 19 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 П олесье Л есостепь С тепь Карпаты Кры м Украина Ф актическаялесистость,% О птим альналесистость,% marshy woodland forest-steppe steppe Carpathians Crimea Ukraine 6 real forest area, % optimal forest area, % 96 Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 7 Timber harvesting  Древесина является основным видом лесных ресурсом. Ежегодный объем заготовки ликвидной древесины от всех видов рубок в Украине составляет около 1 5 млн. м3 ( по Госкомлесхозу – 1 2 млн. м3 ). При этом от рубок главного пользования заготавливается 6 , 5 млн. м3 ( по Госкомлесхозу – 5 , 6 млн. м3 ). T i mb er is the main forest resource. Annual volume of harvesting of merchantable timber from all harvestings in Ukraine makes about 15 m i llion m3 (i n Goskomleshoz – 12 m i llion m3). Final felli n gs – 6,5 mi llion m3 (in Goskomleshoz – 5,6 m i llion m3) . . . . S aw logs 39%Firewood17% Technical r aw m aterial 23 % R awm aterial for planing 1% R awm aterial for peeling 4% Construction wood 8 % P ulpwood 8% 8 Use of annual increment Ш вей цар ія Ф ін ля нд ія По ль щ а Ш вец ія Ав ст рія Ф ран ція Уг ор щ ин а Нім еч чи на Ук раї на 0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 % 8 0 % 9 0 % Sw ize rla nd Fi nl an d P ol an d Sw ede n Aus tri a Fr an ce Ita ly Ger m an y Ukra in e Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 97 9 Dynamics of timber volume in forests of Ukraine 733 968 1025 1239 1320 1736 1800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 1961 1973 1978 1983 1988 2002 2005 vo lume, 1000m 3 Year 10 Problems in forestry  Special features in political, social and economic situation in the country;  Lack of dev elopment in le gal basis of forestry and i n d evelopment of forest relations;  Low demand for timber in domestic market, especially for low quality timber;  Imperfection of forestry management in forests that belong to diff erent forest owners;  Imperfection of financial mechanisms of forestry d evelopment;  Weak correspondence between machine en g in eering and needs of forestry;  Lack of regulation of foreign trade includin g e xport and import relations;  In vestment climate not favourable enough. 98 Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 11  State programme “Forests of Ukrain e” for 2002- 2 0 15 ( 200 2, review ed in 2 007 );  Concept of forestry d evelopment in Ukrain e for the period till 2015 ( 2 006 );  Forest Act of Ukraine ( 20 06);  Priority activities on creating protection forests on wastelands and in basins of rivers (2001 );  Other documents on the strategy of dev eloping in d ivid ual areas of forestry activities adopted by the parliament, government, Ministry of Nature and Goskomleshoz. Documents on implementation of forestry development strategy in Ukraine 12 Basic provisions of Forest Act  Un i fi e d state management in the area of forest conservation, protection, rational use and extende d regen eration of forests;  Possibility of state, communal and private ownership on forests;  Securing e q uality in property rights for forests among people, l e gal entities, territorial communities and state;  Re g u lating the authority of all branches of power in the area of forest relations;  Totally ne w principles of divid i n g forests by their functions with the aim of planning economic activities based on principles of sustainable de v e lopment (forest division into groups has been abolished);  T e mporary forest use that can be long-term (from 1 to 50 years) and short-term (up to 1 year);  New clauses were introduced for financing costs for conservation, protection, rational use and regeneration of forests; forest certification; biodiversity conservation in forests etc. Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 99 13 Dynamics of key figures of the forest fund (State programme ”Forests of Ukraine”) 17.116.115.615.6%5. Forested area of forest fund 4.24.03.83.8m 34. Average change in volume per ha 220210195186m 33. Average volume per ha 2.272.041.831.74 billion m 3 2. Total volume of forests 10.39.79.49.4 million ha of which covered by forests 11.711.310.910.8 million ha 1. Total area of forest fund: 2015201020052001UnitIndicators 14 Concept of reforming forestry in Ukraine  Transfer of state-owned forests to Goskomleshoz;  Support for communal and private ownership of forests;  Enhancement of payments for forest resources;  Supporting the development of recreational and tourism infrastructure in forests; environmental education activities;  Ensuring environmentally oriented forestry;  Reduction of volumes of clear cuts, their substitution by thinnings and selective fellings;  Ensuring biodiversity conservation in forests;  Solving the problem of protective afforestation at the level of the state. 100 Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 15  Development of a competitive basis for a service market in forestry;  Formation of transparent timber market by sales of harvested timber on a tendering basis via auctions and sales;  O ptimization of the structure and number of forestry enterprises;  Reorganization or abolishment of some inefficient enterprises;  Separation of the woodworking sector from forestry by establishing independent enterprises acting on the basis of market principles;  Establishment of production units on the basis of woodworking workshops acting on the principles of joint ventures. Concept of reforming forestry in Ukraine 16 Distribution of forest fund lands of Ukraineb by subordination, %.by b Forest fund of Ukraine in subordinate to over 50e fund f Uk i ne i n i n e v e 5 0 mi nistries, administrative bodies and organizationsmini i e , dmi ni i v e di e nd g ni z i 68% 17% 7% 1%1%2% 2%2% Goskomleskhoz Ministry of Ag ri c . Policy Ministry of Defence EMERCOM Ministry of T ransport Ministry of Environment Others Reserve land Tkach V. Special Features of National Forest Policy and Forest Management Reform in Ukraine 101 17 Reform of forest planning and inventory  Center of National Forest Inventory and Monitoring to be established under the entity «Ukrgoslesprojekt» (2007) ;  Basic GIS for national inventory of forests – new technology «Field– Мар» has been chosen (developed by the Forest Ecosystem Research Institute, Czech Republic);  First cycle of national forest inventory (2007- 2012)  From 2013 – collection and analysis of information about all forests of Ukraine on the basis of sampling and statistical methods;  Creation of a unified geographic information system on forestry branch of Urkaine. “Smallworld” software is a basis for the geographic information system being developed;  Provision of PCs for all levels of forest management. 18 Reforming forestry in Ukrainianm y CarpathiansC  I m provement of the legal basis of forestry;Imp m b y;  I m plementation of state normative acts:Imp m m c : ? law on moratorium on clear cutting in sprucem m c c p c -- beechb c -- silver fur forests in Carpathians;C p ; ? long-- term program on construction of forest roads in them p m c c d Carpathians;C p ;  Execution of a series of organizational andEx c z d silviculturalc activities in forests of Ukrainian Carpathians:c Uk C p : ? wide use of natured -- friendly technologies in the mountaind y c m conditions;c d ; ? construction of forest roads in the mountains;c c d m ; ? limited use of tracked machinery and gradual switch tom d ck d m c y d d c cable logging.c b . 102 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian... 103 Forest Policy and Its Instruments in the Czech Republic – Overview of a Study Tour by a Russian Expert to a New EU Member Country Igor Lyzlov Head of Department Forest Committee of the Republic of Komi, Russia K ey doc ume nts i n fore st l e gi sl ati on  Fo res t Act  Na ti o nal Fo res t Prog ra mme  Na ture a nd La ndsca pe Co ns erva ti o n Act  Pro gra mme fo r the Dev elo pment o f Na ti o nal Pa rks  Sa les o f Fo res t Repro ductiv e Ma terial Act 104 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian.... M inistry of Agricu lture – Forestry Section Vice-Minister of Forestry Section Forest Director Department of Economic Development Department of Forest Policy, State Planning and Protection Deparment of Fishing and Hunting Forest and Hunting Research Institute Institute of Forest Planning and Inventory I ns titutio na l s tru cture o f fo r es t s ecto r I Fo rest s o f th e C zech R epu b lic (S ta t e En t erp rise) In st it ut e of Fo rest Pla nn ing an d Inv ent o ry Fo rest an d Hun t ing R esea rch In st it ut e Structu ra l bo dies I I Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian... 105 Forests of the Czech Republic Forests of the Czech Republic (main office) Regional branches (13) Forest enterprises (5) Seed growing station (1) District branches (80) Regional water resource management authorities (7) Institute of Forest Planning and Inventory - Conducting forest inventory - Development and use of data of regional forest development plans (RFDP) and maintenance of a unified typological scheme in forests - Function of an information centre (IC) for forest and hunting sector - Consultancy and services for the forest certification process 106 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian.... Sha re o f fo r es t la nd Forest land 2,643,058 ha 33.4 % Other land 5,251,940 ha 66.6 % Fo res t o w ners hip dis tributio n (a s o f 2002) Communal 15 % Forest co- operatives 1.0 % Private 23.3 % State 60.7 % Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian... 107 Cha ng es in o w ners hip s truc ture Own e rsh ip s tru ctu r e , % Ye arF or e sts 1990 2002 (+/ - Change ) State 95.8 60.7 ( - 35.1) Communal - 15.0 (+ 15.0) Chur c h - - F or e st c oope r ati ve s - 1.0 (+ 1.0) Private 0.1 23.3 (+ 23.2) C o ope r ati ve farms 4.1 - ( - 4.1) Species co mpo s iti o n Lar c h 3 .8 % Othe r c oni fe r ous 1 .1 % S pr uc e 53.8 % Pi ne 17.4 % B e e c h 6 .2 % Oak 6.5 % Othe r br oadl e ave s 10.1 % 108 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian.... Ag e s tru ctur e o f s ta nds 0 20 40 60 80 100 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2002 % 121 + 101-120 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40 1-20 ope n ar e as Fo res t reg ene ra ti o n F o rest reg en era tio n ( h a ) F o rest reg en e ra tio n meth o d 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 Artificia l 33 615 30 128 21 867 19 109 18 120 Natura l 908 1 163 3 422 2 944 3 940 Total 34 523 31 291 25 289 22 053 22 060 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian... 109 Ro le o f th e fo r es t s ecto r in the na tio na l ec o no my Gro ss inco me o f which fo rest ry based Y ea r bi l l i on EUR bi l l i on EUR % 2001 57.3 0.60 1.05 2002 66.5 0.65 0.97 Operati on Uni t 2000 2001 2002 Forest regeneration ha 1 593 1 801 1 892 Forest planting ha 200 218 251 Thinning ha 203 214 230 Protection activities ha 2.5 2.5 2.2 Felling m3 4.2 4.5 4.7 Skidding m3 5.6 5.5 6.6 Short distance transportation m3 4.2 4. 5 4.7 Road repairs and use ha 14.3 14.8 15.0 Avera g e pri me co s t E UR/unit 110 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian.... Pro fits o f fo res t o w ners E UR/ha 9.0 14.1 5.5 8.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sta te Co mmuna l P riv a te Av e ra g e EUR/ha 2000 2001 2002 Financing o f fo re s t s e cto r M illio n E UR 2000 2001 2002 State fin a n cin g 7.7 8.1 9.2 Subsidies fo r fo rest o wn ers 15.9 10.5 12.6 Services fo r fo rest o wn ers 3.3 3.1 3.6 Funds fo r re fo resta tio n o f a g ricu ltu ra l la n d s 2.2 2.9 2.9 Funds fo r m a n a g emen t o f fo rests 1.7 1.9 2.0 Resour ces f r o m th e sta te en v iro n men t a l fu n d 1.5 1.8 4.1 Total 32.9 29.0 35.6 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian... 111 E x po rt a nd i mpo rt o f ro undw o o d in 2002 1000 m 3 Bala nce: + 82.7 million E URB a la nce: + 82.7 million E UR Fo res try educa tio n Lev el of prof essio na l t ra ining Schoo l N umber of schoo ls University Faculties of Forestry 2 Further training Higher forestry school s 2 Technical training Forestry secondary schools 5 Vocational training Vocational school s 13 112 Lyzlov I. Forest policies and their instruments in the Czech Republic - overview of a study tour by a Russian.... Summary (distinctive features) 1. Transfer of forest management to a state body (to representative of the owner) 2. Development of regional forest development plans and information database 3. Reduction of volumes of artificial regeneration 4. Favouring of thinnings 5. It is more profitable for the state to sell products than standing forest 6. Contractual forestry operations 113 THEME II State forest administration and institutional framework Chairman Christian Salvignol UNECE/FAO/ILO Joint Experts Network to implement SFM Presentations Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using networking and partnerships Christian Salvignol, Chairman, UNECE/FAO/ILO Joint Experts Network to implement SFM Organisation of state forest management under the conditions of forest leasing - Example of Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz, Tver Region Aleksey Chernyshov, Director, Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz, Tver Region, Russia Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example Živan Veselič, Assistant Director for Professional Matters, Slovenia Forest Service State forest administration in Lithuania - overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Alexandr Artemyev, Head of the Forest Field Inventory, Sevzaplesproekt, Russia 114 Salvignol. C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using... Salvignol C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using.. 115 Forestry Education and Training - Competencies, Methods and Tools for Forest Sector Reform Using Networking and Partnerships Christian SALVIGNOL Chairman of the Joint FAO/ECE/ILO Experts Network to implement SFM Director of a Forestry training Centre in France (La Bastide des Jourdans) Con t en t s : > The Joint FAO/ECE/ILO E xperts Network > Forestry training in Europe > Interest of training > Interest of networking > Interest of partnerships > Concrete proposal I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States 116 Salvignol. C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using... Christian SALVIGNOL C hairman o f th e J oin t FA O/ EC E/ I L O E xp erts N et w ork to implement SFM Director of a Forestry training Centre in France (La Bastide des Jourdans) w w w .eduforest.eu Who? Wh ere? What for? Int ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States T h e Joint FAO /ECE/I LO Ex p erts Network to implemen t S F M Work area : Social, environmental and cultural aspects of SFM. The principle: > Networking using modern methods of communication. > Networking process helps to identify the needs and the priorities. > Some participants, in the networking process, will eventually decide to create partnerships, and will undertake activities such as seminars, conferences, work programmes with results to be implemented (to share and use the results). > Partnerships and funding help to achieve the work programme of the Network. I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States Salvignol C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using.. 117 T h e Joint FAO /ECE/I LO Ex p erts Network to implemen t S F M > 1 9 official national contact points already registered and many forest experts. > Links with MCPFE, EN F E , European Commission. > The network is created, updated and maintained by people who are volunteers and who do this in addition to their regular work. > To work and make its activities known, the Joint Experts Network uses the most up to date methods of communication : internet, email and newsletters I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States Forestry training in Europe: > Vocational high schools / universities > Technical training centres with a strong link with professional associations > International cooperation > An example in France I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States 118 Salvignol. C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using... I n t erest of training: > Training in order to improve competencies > Training in order to acquire adapted methods > Training to get the appropriate tools I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States I n t erest of Ne tworking: > E xchange of experiences > Communication between experts > Opportunity for partnerships (all types of partners included) > A tool for networking: w ww.eduf orest. eu Int ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States Salvignol C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using.. 119 I n t erest of partnerships: > Addition of ideas and sharing experiences to satisfy the needs > Funding for cooperation > Efficient work programmes > Adaptable and low-price products > Real progress that meets the needs Examples: Eduforest, Safety and Forestry Training, Learn For Work, Albania I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States Con crete proposal: > Registration to the Joint FAO/ECE/ILO E x perts Network (National contact point and experts) > Registration to the Eduforest network (training centres) www .eduforest.eu > Start to network using Eduforest website. > Start to elaborate a concrete project with partners. I nt ernational co n ferenc e – Pushkino (Russia) – 21- 22 March 20 07 Supporting the forest sector reform in Russia and in the Southeast European countries by assessing the experiences of the New EU Member States 120 Salvignol. C. Forestry education and training – competences, methods and tools for forest sector reform using... Bureaux meeting – 2 October 2006 Progress report on th e impleme n tation o f th e programme o f w ork Kee p in mind: Next partnership operation: A seminar on safety in Forestry 23-25 May 2007 – France & Switzerland ww w. safety- forestry-200 7 . net ww w.eduforest. eu Contact: Christian SALV IGNO L + 3 3 . 49 0 .7 7 .8 8 .0 0 Chernyshov A. Organisation of state forest management under the conditions of forest leasing - Example of... 121 Organisation of State Forest Management under the Conditions of Forest Leasing – Example of Maksatikhinksiy Leskhoz, Tver Region Aleksey Chernyshov Director Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz, Tver Region, Russia MaksatikhaNo vgo rod reg ion Mo sco w r egi on Smolensk region Vologda region Yar os la vre gi on P skovregion 122 Chernyshov A. Organisation of state forest management under the conditions of forest leasing - Example of... Brief description of the forest fund of the Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz 291,31000 m 3Total average increment 10360,51000 m 3deciduous 53% birch, 19% aspen, 14% spruce, 8% pine, 4% black alder, 2% grey alder Average composition of exploitable stands 37% birch, 16% aspen, 20% pine, 18% spruce, 4% grey alder, 4% black alder,1% willow Average composition of stands 247m3Average volume of mature and overmature stands 201m3Average volume per 1 ha of forest covered area 0,75Average density 1,7Average growth class 60yearAverage age 168,31000 m 3deciduous 123,01000 m 3of which conifers 51,21000 m 3of which conifers 244,41000 m 3Annual final fellings 7935,01000 m 3of which coniferous 18295,51000 m 3Total volume 36822haof which manure and overmature forests 91122haForest area 105558haTotal area Forest inventory data 2006UnitIndicator Economic parameters of the lease holder ”Maksatikhinskiy Lesopromyshlenniy Kombinat” 55RUB /m 3 Costs for silvicultural operations at the expense of payments 1549 7053 2090 234 8051 255 65 193,7 In 2006 RUB /haAssistance to natural forest regeneration RUB/haPre-commercial thinning RUB/haThinning of young stands RUB/haEarly tending of planted seedling stands RUB/haForest planting RUBPrime cost of harvested cubic metre RUB/m 3 Average payments to the budget for the use of forest fund 1000 m 3Volume of final fellings UnitParameter Chernyshov A. Organisation of state forest management under the conditions of forest leasing - Example of... 123 Instruments of State management under the conditions of lease 1. Forest plan of a subject of the Federation 2. Forest management regulation 3. Forest development plan 4. State or municipal review of the forest development plan 5. State forest inventory 6. Forest declaration 7. State Forest Ledger The scheme of payment for forestry operations State forest fund management body Forest lease agreement Forest user Acceptance of sites Federal or regional budget Payments for the use of forest funds 4 Earmarked fund for forest regeneration Federal and regional budgets 1 2 3 Payment for sites Finished forest sites 124 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 125 Forestry Administration and Institutions - the Slovenian Example Živan Veseli č Assistant Director for Professional Matters Slovenia Forest Service S lovenia 126 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example The variety of Slovenian landscape and forests is very hig h Some important data on Slovenian forests  The share of total area under forests 5 8 %  Total forest area 1 17 4 0 0 0 h a  The mean growing stock 26 2 m 3 / ha  Coniferous: broad- leaves trees 4 7 (%) : 5 3 ( %)  Main tree species: beech, spruce, oak, silver fir, p ine Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 127 Changes in forest area in the period 1975-2000 (S lovenian Forestry Institute, dr. M ilan Ho čevar ) The changes in forest area and growing stock (per ha) for the last 50 years 6 0 0 700 8 0 0 9 0 0 1000 1100 1200 1947 1961 1970 1980 1990 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 Leto Area (in 1000ha) 5 0 .0 100.0 150.0 2 0 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 0 0 .0 Gro win gs to ck(m3/ha) Area (in 1.00 0 h a ) Grow ing stock (m3 /h a ) 128 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example S hort view on the history of Slovenian forestry  1 9 4 5 -1 99 0 S lovenia w as a constitutional part of SFR Yugoslavia  F irst Federal Forest Act - 1947  L ast Federal Forest Act – 196 1  Republic Forest Acts: 19 50…  1 9 9 1 - Republic of Slovenia  Forest Act - 199 3 The main features of Slovenian forestry before 1990  Forest owners had to sell all woods to the 14 regional forest enterprises.  Forest owners had to pay prescribed share of income from wood for silvicultural and forest protection works and for building and maintaining forest roads and skid trails.  Forest enterprises were in charge of all professional works in state and private forests.  Forestry was organized well, it was independent in the economic sense, yet the professional links between forest enterprises were weak.  State forest service was run by forest enterprises; all forest works were paid by special fund, its money was arriving from each m 3 of wood that was sold.  Forest were managed well by forest enterprises. The growing stock increased, the quality of stands increased, they built many forest roads and skid trails in state and private forests.  Forest owners were dissatisfied with their rights regarding their forests. Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 129 There were several scenarios of the forestry transition in Slovenia  Fi rst scenario:  To disperse forest profession completely – there would be only one ore two foresters within the staff of each community.  Second scenario:  To form a separate administration for public and private forests.  Thi rd scenario:  To form one administration (Slovenia Forest Service) for all forests regardless of their ownership. Forestry enterprises would become independent forestry firms. After long discussion, also in mass media, the third option was accepted and was included in new Forest Act. Forestry transition – institution and organisations  Forest Act prescribed to establish Slovenia Forest Service.  Each of 14 forest enterprises was divided in two parts: Experts for forest planning, silviculture, forest protection and forest rangers joined to regional unit of Slovenia Forest Service – that is why SFS has 14 regional units.  Other part of each forest enterprise transformed to the independent firm.  By special act the Fund of Agricultural Land and Forests was established - the State organisation that manage all state agricultural land and forests; all professional works in State forests are planned and realised by SFS.  Forest enterprises have got a longterm (20 years) concession for utilising State forests. 130 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example Forestry transition – forest owners  Through denationalisation approx. one third of State forests (approx. 10 % of all forests) have returned to the private ownership.  The market for timber is free.  Forest owners have, nowadays, rights and duties that are usually derived from the private ownership in developed countries.  In the Managing Council of SFS there are also the representatives of forest owners, forest owners participate in forestry planning, ranger of SFS and forest owner mark together trees for cutting.  Forest owners are not obliged to cut forest, they are obliged to realize protection works and some silvicultural works.  Because of public significance of forests the State finance SFS and several protection works and co-finance silvicultural works and building and maintenance of forest roads. Forestry transition – public and forests  Free entrance to forests for people regardless the ownership of forests.  People may use forest roads.  People may pick mushrooms and other goods in all forests within the scope of recreational activities.  Based on the maps of forest functions we are just designating the zones for different types of recreational activities in the forests. Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 131 Forestry transition – financing of forestry  Because of public significance of forests the State: finance:  Slovenia Forest Service  most protection works  co-finance:  silvicultural works (approx. 40 %)  building and maintenance of forest roads (35 %) Forestry institutions and organisations in Slovenia State institutions:  Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Food (Forestry inspection operates within MAFF.)  Slovenia Forest Service  F und of Agri cu ltural L and and Forests  Slovenian Forestry Institute  Biotechnical faculty, Department of Forestry  Secondary Forestry School Legend: Forestry organisations: Bold – new instit., organ. Underlined – transformed organ.  Forestry enterprises  Ag ri c u ltural and forestry cha m ber  Association of forest owners 132 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example Or ganisational scheme of SFS SFS Forestry Departments  Department of forest management planning  Department of silviculture and forest protection  Department of forest technique  Department of game and hunting  Department of forest owners and public relation  Department of forest informatics Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 133 The main tasks of SFS  Collecting and keeping data on forests,  Monitoring biological balance and damages of forests,  Forest management planning and game management planning,  Elaborating programmes for protection of forests,  Elaborating programmes of investment in forests,  Cooperating in regional and state land use planning,  Planning the maintenance of forest roads,  Preparing documents required for providing subsidies to forest owners,  Popularisation of forests and informing public on forests,  Providing education and advice to forest owners,  Controlling all works in forests that are financed or co-financed by the State budget. Forest Act permits to SFS to execute professional works for Fund of Agricultural Land and Forests. The main, sunny, side of Slovenian forestry transition  We preserved appropriate number of forest experts (as regards to possible scenarios).  The forestry planning and other professional activities are better coordinated and implemented.  The forestry and hunting planning are better coordinated.  SFS (without exploiting activities) is an appropriate partner in the field of nature conservation. 134 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example Tree species - Beech Tree species – Norw a y S pr uce Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 135 Tree species – Sil ver Fir Forest reserves and protection forests 136 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example Skidding distance Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 137 H yd rological function of forest Fire hazards in the forest 138 Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example Browsing intensity (in %) – for 2000 The balance between the allowable cut and household consumption of wood Veselič Z. Forestry administration and institutions - the Slovenian example 139 The main draw backs of Slovenian forestry transition  There is less money in forestry for forests – State Fund, forestry enterprises and forest owners allocate it out of forestry – as a result forest roads building and other investment in forests and forestry have decreased dramatically.  Many forest owners are not capable to conduct silviculture works in their forests – the implementation of forests guidelines in private forests decreased. Cuttings and investments in forests in the period 1976- 2005 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996- 2000 2001-05 Ye a r % Cutting P l anting Forest roa d bu i l d ing 140 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 141 State Forest Administration in Lithuania – Overview of a Study Tour by a Russian Expert to a New EU Member Country Aleksandr Artemyev Head of Forest Field Inventory Northwest Forest Inventory Enterprise ”Sevzaplesproekt”, Russia Forest administration system in Lithuania M inistry of Environment Forest Department Lithuanian Agri cultural University Faculty of Forestry L ithu anian Forest Institute Kaunas Forestry College Directorate General of State Forests Environmental Inspection Regional subd i visions for nature protection Private forests Private Forest Association (2) State Forest Enterprises (2) State Servi ce for Conservation Areas National parks (4) State reserves (4) Regional parks (28) Forest Planning and Inventory Servi ce Institute of Forest Planning and Inventory Forest Selection, Seeds and Seedling Servi ce Forest Sanitary Protection Service Journal ”Ou r Forest” 142 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Key parameters of Lithuanian forests (01/01/2006 ) 118115113110109106Timber volume per capita, m 3 0,610,610,600,590,570,57Forest area per capita, ha 32,532,031,731,331,230,9Forest area percentage 3,43,33,33,43,43,3Increment share accumulated per ha, m 3 6,56,46,46,26,16,1Current annual increment per ha, m3 13,112,812,51211,911,7Total annual increment of timber with bark, million m 3 254250250251251250Average volume of mature stands per ha, m 3 83,381,579,677,474,473,7Total volume of mature stands, million m 3 199198197196195193Average timber volume per ha, m 3 401,1393,2387,9382,6378,1371,7Total volume of timber with bark, million m 3 472463464459453445including artificial stands, 1000 ha 201419881968195119381928Forests 1000 ha 212120912069204520342020Forest land according to state inventory, 1000 ha 210020382026200819981998Forest land according to land inventory, 1000 ha 200620052004200320022001Parameter Source: State Forest Science Service Forest land distribution by forest groups I reserves III protection forests II special designation forests IV commercial forests 71,0 % 1,2 % 11,9 % 15,9 % Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 143 Forests by types of ownership (01/01/2006) Forests reserved for privatization 16.6% Private forests 33.8% State forests 49.6% STRUCTURE OF A S T ATE FOREST ENTERPRI SE (UREDI J A) URE D AS (DI RECTOR) Deputy Director of Sil vic ulture Deputy Director of Roundwood Har vesting and S ales Chief Accountant Forest use and inventory engineer Forest regeneration engineer Forest protection engineer Forest nursery Head Foreman Assistant Chief Accountant Accountant-cashier Accountant Internal Audit Service Head of internal audit Economist Personnel Officer Public relations specialist Informatics specialist Lesnichestvo Forester Assistant Forester Forest rangers Roundwood harvesting engineer Department of Harvesting and Sales of Roundwood and Machinery Head Foreman Chief Mechanic Power engineering specialist Dispatcher Storekeeper Labour safety and civil defense specialist 144 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Forest use in private and state forests 1991-2005 3.3 0 . 0 3 . 3 0 . 0 4 . 6 0 .1 4.0 0 . 2 5 . 3 0 .7 4.8 0 . 8 4 . 3 0 . 9 4 .1 0.8 3 . 9 1.0 3.9 1.4 3.7 2.0 3 . 9 2 . 4 3 . 8 2 .7 3.6 2 .7 3.6 2 . 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 State forests Private forests Million m3 3.3 3. 3 4 .7 4.2 6 . 0 5 . 6 5 . 2 4 . 9 4 . 9 5 . 3 5 .7 6.3 6 . 5 6 . 3 6 . 2 Silviculture 11862 11952 11904 12358 12670 12488 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 1 1 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 1 2 8 0 0 Га . 2000 г. 2001 г. 2002 г. 2003 г. 2004 г. 2005 г. Уход за молодняками .Tending of young stands ha Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 145 Silviculture 13397 16015 22870 25605 32174 33118 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 Га . 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Уход за лесными культурами .Management of artific i a ll y regenerated stands ha Distribution of Lithuanian territory by regional departments of environmental protection 146 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Forest policy International forest policyI Strategic principles of the EUEU Lithuanian forest policyL • Rio de Janeiro Declaration •UNFF Recommendations •Other international conventions and regulations •Pan-European process •Baltic 21 process •EU extension process •EU silvicultural strategy •Other international conventions and regulations •Forest policy of Lithuania and strategy of its introduction •Forest Law •Other normative acts Lithuanian forest policy Lithuanian forest policy and strategy of its introduction (adopted in 2002) includes: – Principles of policy formation – Key areas of forest policy – SW OT analysis and visions of forest sector of Lithuania – Mission of the State – Strategic goals of forest sector development – Introduction strategy etc. B asics of forest polic y of Lithu ania and strategy of its introduction: • Increase of forest area by means of afforestation of agricultural land • Strengthening of private forest sector • Focusing on social and ecological functions of forest - Forest Law (adopted by the Parliament in 2001): • Forest policy and principles of economic activities widely presented in the Forest Law Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 147 Лесистость Литвы , 2003 68,7% 31,3% Леса другая земля 34,3% 65,7% forest land other land W ith supportWi h up p r from EU fundsfr m EU fu d ~ 5 0 0 thousand ha of~ 500 h u a d ha f a g ri c u ltural l ands are to beagric u l u ral l a d a r b a fforestedaff r d After the increaseA r h i c r a To increase Current situationurr i ua i forests by 3% Forest cover in Lithuania 20 03 Forest Other land Structure M IN IS TR Y O F E N V IR ON M E N T ST AT E SECRET ARY M IN IST ER’ S AD V ISO R F O REST DEPART MENT DI RECT ORAT E G ENERAL O F ST AT E F O REST S U N DER T HE M INIST R Y O F EN VIR O NM ENT STATE SERVICE OF FOREST GENETIC RESOURCES, SEEDS AND SEEDLEINGS FOREST INVENTORY AND PLANNING SERVICE FOREST SANITARY PROTECTION SERVICE STATE ENTERPRISE “STATE FOREST INVENTORY AND PLANNING INSTITUTE” ST AT E SERVICE OF PROT ECT ED T ERRIT O RI ES UNDER T HE MI NIST RY OF ENVI RO NMENT 42 ST AT E FO REST ENT ERPRI SES NATIONAL PARKS AUKSTAITIJA, DZUKI JA, ZEMAITIJA, KURSI U NERIJA RESERVES CEPKELIAI, KAMANOS, VIESVI LE, ZUVINTAS 8 REGIO NAL DEPARTM ENTS O F ENVI RO NM ENTAL PRO TECTIO N 28 REGIONAL PARKS 405 FO REST DI ST RICT S 1161 RANG ER DI ST RICT S PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS ST AT E INSPECT ION O F ENV IRO NM ENT AL PRO T ECT ION 148 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Directorate General of State Forests under the Ministry of Environment: 1. Enjoys the rights and duties of a founder of State forest enterprises and coordinates their activities; 2. Sets compulsory norms on forest regeneration, forest protection and forest inventory for state forest enterprises; 3. Facilitates general state fire safety measures and sanitary system of forest protection; 4. Facilitates and coordinates introduction of advanced technologies in forest regeneration, forest protection, and forest inventory. Data on state forest enterprise ( uredija ) inventory in Lithuania 1997-2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 149 Number of private enterprises working in the state forest enterprises 5 7 21 6 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number o fs tat e fo res t en te rprise s <5 5-10 10-25 >25 >50 Figures on state forests of Lithuania 250, 3 2, 726, 7 27, 1 22, 3 3 2 9 . 1 256, 2 2, 018, 2 25, 5 21, 8 3 2 3 . 7 284, 8 2, 0 24, 5 13, 6 3 2 4 . 9 328, 1 2, 9 28, 1 16, 1 3 7 5 . 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 Dynami cs and stru cture of revenues (mi l l ion LTL ) Roundwood Standing forest Woodworking revenues Transport services Other revenues 150 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 13. 7 38. 8 3418 91. 5 24. 3 35. 8 308. 4 13. 6 33. 9 3582 98. 4 25. 1 34. 9 306. 8 14. 4 29. 3 3413 109. 6 23. 2 35. 8 309. 0 16. 5 20. 8 3624 127. 1 26. 2 37. 3 339. 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 Cost structure and dynami cs (mi l l ion LTL ) General and administrative costs Transport services Forest regeneration, protection and tending Roundwood harvesting Other forestry needs Compulsory deductions to the central fund and State budget Figures on state forests of Lithuania 0 .5 0 .3 4 .4 5 , 2 3 .9 1 .0 1 4 .4 1 .9 0 .9 2 2 , 1 2 .6 0 .9 1 3 .6 1 .6 0 .8 1 9 , 5 4 .2 1 .1 1 4 .4 1 .6 1 .7 2 3 , 0 6 .8 1 .1 1 6 .5 0 .9 1 .6 2 6 , 9 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 Millio n LTL 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 Comp u lsory dedu ctions from State forest enterp r ises (u redija ) to state bu d get Other compulsory deductions (insurance fund, env ironmental payments) Road tax Compulsory deductions from revenues sold timber and standing of forest Interest rate for using State funds Profit tax Figures on state forests of Lithuania Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 151 Avera ge sales price and production cost of 1 m 3 of roundwood in 19 9 9 -2 0 0 5 8 5 ,7 8 1 ,2 7 5 ,5 7 6 ,6 7 6 ,7 8 9 ,9 1 0 3 ,8 1 0 0 3 0 ,5 3 0 ,4 2 9 ,9 2 7 ,3 2 5 ,7 2 6 ,4 3 0 ,1 3 3 ,7 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 L T L /m 3 Aver a ge sales pr ice Aver a ge produ ction cost Figures on state forests of Lithuania Regional Environmental Protection Departments: 1. Control the implementation of the Forest Law and execute State control over all national forests monitoring the condition of forests, forest regeneration, forest use and forest protection; 2. Provide logging permits; 3. Control the quality of forest inventory and planning; 4. Consult private forest owners on the issues of forest use, forest regeneration, management and protection. 152 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Other important functions: Organisation of forest protection against illegal harvesting Implementation • In June 2003, a joint meeting was organized for the managers of the Directorate General of State Forests and Police Department devoted to the issue of coordinating activities aimed at exposing those guilty in forest theft; • A joint decree no. V-345 / 1B-114 of June 17, 20 0 3 was issued by the Chief Director of the Police Force of Lithuania and the Director General of the State Forests “Suppression of Law Violations Connected with Illegal Harvesting, Timber Procurement and Processing, as well as Poaching”. Ac cording to it, heads of territorial police departments and managers of state forest enterprises are to prepare joint action plans for exposing cases of illegal harvesting, illegal transportation and processing of round timber, as well as ascertain the cases of poaching, exchange information about people advertising sales/purchase of forest, timber and game, at regular intervals to check up enterprises dealing with woodworking and carry out other proactive measures. 654 287 1596 885 468 93 113 51 1444 301 1022 258 565 894 742715 634 1180 769 1130 253 436 746 352 494 226 478 321 279274 0. 65 0. 68 0. 53 0. 54 0. 54 0. 78 0. 17 0. 49 0. 47 0. 39 0. 480. 40 0. 360. 39 0. 43 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 0.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0.7 0. 8 0. 9 Number of fires Total area of one seat of a fire Average area of one fire, ha Other important functions: Organisation of fire safety of forests Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country 153 Other important functions 1016 3009 4178 5165 2673 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 L T L 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Development and management of recreation sites Changes in the forest area of Lithuania in 1938-2005 21,8 19,7 22,6 23,9 26,4 27,9 30,1 30,3 31,2 31,3 31,7 32,0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1938 1948 1956 1961 1973 1983 1993 1998 2001 2003 2004 2005 Year Fore st area % Source: Ministry of Environment 154 Artemyev A. State forest administration in Lithuania - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Strategy of harvestings in state forests • To increase the volume of third party wood transportation. In 5 years, minimum 50% of transportation work are to be bought from private enterprises. To increase the amount of machinery in state forest enterprises. • Minimum 50% of logging operations are to be done by contractors. • Up to 50% of final fellings and 20% of thinnings can be done by harvesters. • Long-distance transportation of timber shall be done by transportation companies. (from the Order of the General Director of the Directorate General of State Forests № 1B-36, 03-05-2005) D ynamics of forest area and number of employees in state forest enterprises 1,11,11 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 1Average area of a ranger district *Managed by state forest enterprises (without national parks). 1 1 501 1 611 1 931 2 201 2 571 3 781 4 18Number of ranger districts 25672 4 762 9 483 2 763 5 814 1 845 3 27workers 28252 8 652 9 502 9 943 2 053 3 043 7 40of whic h state officers 53925 3 415 8 986 2 706 7 867 4 889 0 67Average number of employees 337,73 6 8 ,53 7 4 ,54 2 64 8 55 4 86 3 2reserved for restoring property rig hts 992,39 9 2 ,39 4 1 ,29 4 19 4 19 4 19 4 1of whic h state-owned 1330 , 01 3 60 , 81 3 15 , 71 3 671 4 261 4 891 5 73Total forest area*, 10 00 ha 2005200420032002200120001999Indicator 155 THEME III Management of state owned forests – state forest services Chairman Jari Parviainen Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA Presentations Different models of public forests management in Europe Ari Rautio, Head Auditor, Metsähallitus, Finland Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation Larisa Orlova, Deputy Head, Department of Silviculture, Kostroma Region, Russia Management of state owned forests in Poland Tomasz Wójcik, Head of Department, General Directorate of the State Forests, Poland Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? Kristjan Tõnisson, Senior Consultant, Estonian State Forest Management Centre, Estonia Management of state forests in Lithuania Andrius Vancevicius, Head of Department, Directorate General of State Forests, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA Dragos Mihai, Head of International Relations, National Forest Administration, Romania Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU member country Natalia Krotova, Head of Department, Forest Agency of Arkhangelsk Region, Russia 156 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 157 158 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 159 160 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 161 162 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 163 – protect Fennoscandian boreal nature in the vicinity of the Finnish border – Russia, Estonia, Sweden and Norway – network of protected areas on both sides of the national border – backbone in the protection of boreal nature – backbone in the protection of the Fennoscandian Green Belt (in Finland and Russia) – EUROPARC´s Basic Standards for Transfrontier Cooperation as a tool in TBC development Transboundary Co-operation Lapl andsky Lesh Tuulos Eastern Gul f of Finland Lahem aa Ingermanlandsky Karelsky lesh Val aam Ladoshsky Shkeri Tolvaj är vi Koitajoki Kolovesi Linnansaari Koli Ul vinsalo Patvinsuo Petkeljär vi Fr iendship Park Kaleval a Kaleval a Kostamukshsky Paanajär vi Tresky coast Kutsa Kandal akshsky Khi biny Lapl andsky Aina Islands (Kandalakshsky) O ulanka Ri isitunturi Sukerinjärvi M altio Värri öUr ho KekkonenNational Par k Som pio Pasvik Kevo Lemmenjoki Reisa Mall a ”Green Bridge” Perämeri S wede n R ussia Norway Gogland Ovre PasvikO vre Anarjokka O vre Di vi dal Arctic O cean Gulf of Bothnia Gulf of Finland Estonia 164 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 165 166 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 167 168 Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe Rautio A. Different models of public forests management in Europe 169 Process of changing roles and relationships of public forest resource management • forest and natural resource agencies to shift their orientation from: · Protective conservation to... collaborative conservation; · Patronistic bureaucracies to... partnership organizations; · Patriarchal, line staff tiers to... open, adaptive, interdisciplinary teams; · Linear-thinking specialists to... synergistic integrators; · Output-oriented managers to... social value managers and stewards; · Technical functionalists to... ecosystem-based management facilitators 170 Orlova L.. Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation 171 Problems of Forest Management Faced by the Subjects of the Russian Federation Larisa Orlova Deputy Head Department of Silviculture Kostroma Region, Russia Карта-схема Костромской области Сусанинский Мантуровский Шарьинский Поназыревски й Октябрьский Вохомский МежевскийКологривский Чухломской Буйский Костромской Нерехтский Судиславский Островский Кадыйский Макарьевский Парфеньевски й Нейский Антроповский Галичский Солигалический Красносельский Пыщугский Павинский С ВЗ Ю Forest distribution by agencies Forestry Department of Kostroma Region 76.6% Kostromaoblles 23.1% Other 0.3% . Layout of Kostroma region 76 . 6% 23 .1% 0 . 3% 172 Orlova L. Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation Reformed leskhozes of Kostroma Region Сусанинский Мантуровский Шарьинский Поназыревски й Октябрьский Вохомский МежевскийКологривский Чухломской Буйский Костромской Нерехтский Судиславский Островский Кадыйский Макарьевский Парфеньевски й Нейский Антроповский Галичский Солигалический Красносельский Пыщугский Павинский С ВЗ Ю 2637222926Total 57455Workers 11111Economist 1-1-1Accountant 11111Chief Accountant 510475Foreman 34343Assistant Forester 610476Forester 11111Engineer 11111Engineer 11111Chief Forester – Head of Dept. 11111Director Soligalic hky le s kho z C hul oms ky le s kho z S udis lavs ky le s kho z Galic hs ky le s kho z A ntr op ovs ky le s kho z P os iti on St a f f o f ma na g ing le s kho z e s Orlova L.. Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation 173 57Chuhlomsky branch 39Sudislavsky branch 48Soligalichsky branch 41Galichsky branch 33Antropovsky branch 7Main office 225 pers ons w or k at t he s tate c ompa ny ”Kos tr oma ho zle s ”, of w hic h i n: 2 years of work as an economist Financing and creditHigher economicEconomist 7 years of work as an accountant Accounting and auditingHigher economicDeputy Chief Accountant 10 years of work as an accountant Accounting and auditingHigher economicChief Accountant 2003 – 2006 Director General of OO O «Foria-Kostroma» 1995-2003 Director General of ООО «Lespromservice» Engineer-Technologist (Faculty of Forest Mechanics) Higher technicalActing Director General W or k e xpe r ie nc eSpe c iali za ti onE d uc ati onP os iti on Q ualif ic ati on of pe r s onne l of t he mai n of f ic e of the s tate c omp a ny ”K os tr oma ho zl e s ” Di rect or Ge ne ral Organisational and management structure of the state company ”Kostomahozles” De puty Dir e c to r o f Ha r ve sti ng s De puty Dir e c to r o f F o re str y Chi e f Ac co unta nt De puty Chie f Ac c o unta nt E co no mi st M ain of f ic e , Kos tr oma Antropovsky branch Galichsky branch Soligalichky branch Sudislavsky branch Chuhlomsky branch 174 Orlova L. Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation Organisational and management structure of the branches of ”Kostomahozles” E xe c uti ve Di r e c to r De puty Dir e c to r Chi e f Ac co unta ntMe c ha ni cT e c hni ca l Di r e c to r F o re ma n o f L oa di ng F o re ma n o f F o re str y T ea ms o f wo r ke r s Ac c o unta nt Off i ce 5Maintenance of chemical stations for firesafety 163Clearing of forest compartment lines, km1921Thinning in young stands, ha 775Allocation of thinnings, ha5Putting up signs, units 1Bridge repairs, units1Bridge construction, units 9Improvement of forest roads, km23Fire safety roads, km 681Scarified strip management, km566Scarified strips, km 4809Development of green zones, ha245Facilitation of recreation sites, units 10Planting of Christmas trees, 1,000 pieces234Pricking out, 1,000 pieces 2.7Organic fertilization, ha1134.5Assistance to natural regeneration, ha 340Soil preparation, ha140Adding up seedlings, ha 3Sparge in nurseries, ha8,4Tending of seedlings, ha 6Weedfree fallow in nurseries, ha6Sowing in nurseries, ha 3210Tending of planted seedling stands, ha5,2Growing of seedlings, ha 335Planting of forest, ha1446Lifting of planting material, 1,000 pieces 431Forest protection operations, ha632Collection of cones, kg VolumeOperationVolumeOperation Forestry operations executed in 2006 Orlova L.. Problems of forest management faced by the subjects of the Russian Federation 175 25.572.631013.0Tota l 5.820.998 83.0Chuhlomsky5 4.013.67834.0Soligalichsky4 3.39.15247.0Sudislavsky3 3.812.43039.0Galichsky2 8.616.65010.0Antropovsky1 o f w hi c h c o nif e r sTo t a l A nnual all ow able ti mbe r s ale s , 1000 m3Tota l a r e a , ha Na me o f le s kho zNo P r o v ide d f o r lea se f o r ” K o str o ma ho z le s” 101.9287.7167769.0Total 6.221.68438.0Sharinsky17 1.15.317732.0Chernoluhovsky16 3.59.44752.0Sudislavsky15 11.330.611771.0Pyshugsky14 5.019.06352.0Ponazyrevsky13 5.010.37617.0Parfenevsky12 2.912.04266.0Pavinsky11 2.013.63369.0Ostrovsky10 7.912.75133.0Oktyabrsky9 11.222.49478.0Neisky8 5.525.912672.0Mezhevsky7 9.922.326953.0Manturovsky6 7.616.18089.0Makaryevsky5 5.021.28838.0Kadyisky4 4.811.718896.0Ivanovsky3 5.612.05980.0Vohomsky2 7.421.67433.0Buisky1 of w hic h c onif e r sT o ta l An n u al allowab le t i mb e r sa les, 1000 m3 Tota l a re a, haNa me o f l e skho z № пп Provided for lease in December 2006 176 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 177 Management of State Owned Forests in Poland Tomasz W ójcik Head of Department General Directorate of the State Forests, Poland Forest cover in Poland 9.0 Mio. ha, 28 . 8 %, 0 . 2 4 ha / ca p ita Afforestation program : from 20.8 % in 1945 to 30 % in 2020 W ater retention program 178 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland Tree species w iąz sosna,m odrzew 67,7 %8,3 % 6,5 % 4,9 % 6,3 % 5,2 % Other broadleaved 1,1%Alder Birch Beech Oak, ash, maple, sycamore, elm Fir, spruce, Douglas-fir Pine State Forests (78 . 2% = 7 . 2 Mio. ha ) other private 1. 1%) natural persons(16 . 6% ) National Parks (2 . 0% ) other public ( 1 . 2% ) local authorities ( 0 . 9% ) Forest ownership structure (1.2%) (16.6%) (1. %) Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 179 Forest legislation Forests Act of September 28, 1 991 a mended in 1997 • Or dinances of the Minister for Environment Marketing of forest reproductive material Act Nature conservation Act Hunting Act Act on NATURA 2 0 00 Forests Act of September 28, 1991 amended in 1997 • Defines: - goals of sustainable, multifunctional forest management - obligations of forest owners - forest management plans - State Forests National Forest Holding - public access to the forests 180 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland Forest-ranges (5580 ) Forest Districts (428) Central Ser vi ce Units (6) Di rectorate General of the SF General Di rector of the State Forests Regional Di rector of the State Forests (17) Regional Directorate of the SF (17) Regional Ser vice Units (22) M inister for Environment Supervising authority Management organization The State Forests National Forest Holding Organizational structure Territorial range of forest districts and RDSF Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 181 Promotional Forests (LKP) 182 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland State Forests Basic rules • Financial independence from the State budget • Profitability • No profit maximization • Forest tax instead of corporate tax; other taxes as private law companies • Forest Fund • Stabilization Fund • Internal audit and forest pest monitoring services • Authorization to perform al l forest operations including roundwood sales • 10 year forest management plan as a base for operational planning • Outsourcing of services • Forest law infringement prevention and control • Forest fire monitoring, prevention and earl y control • Information system based on modern IT State Forests Basic rules Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 183 0 50 0 10 00 1500 20 00 25 00 30 00 35 00 40 00 45 00 50 00 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 Income total Income from timber sales State Forests Income structure ( 4 700 Mio. PLN in 2005 ) Mio. PLN 1 Euro=3.8 PLN Softwood saw logs 30.1% Softwood pulp wood 31 .9% P it props 2.3% Softwood ply and veneer logs 0.2% S ma ll size wood 7.3% Other 1.4% Ha r dwood firewood 3.2% Ha r dwood pulpwood Ha rdwood saw logs 7.3% Ha r dwood p ly and veneer logs 1.0% Softwood firewood 2.7% State Forests Wood assortments structure 30.4 Mio. m 3 in 2005 1 2 . 6 Internet wood sales system 184 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1996 1998 2000 2002 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII % o f b as i c p r i ce Wood total Sof twood sawlogs Pine pulpwood 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 Wood prices in Poland 1995 = 100% 20 0 6: Wood total : 38 Euro/m 3 Softwood sawlogs : 50 Euro/m 3 Forest protection 7% Sil vic ulture 20 % Fire protection 3% Seed m anagement 1% Other costs of forest management 15% Wood har vesting and skid ding 54 % State Forests Basic cost structure (2 40 0 Mio. PLN in 2005) Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 185 0 2 0 00 4 0 00 6 0 00 8 0 00 10 00 0 12 00 0 14 00 0 16 00 0 18 00 0 1999 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 Y ear Forest Servi ce Adm ini stration Workers Number of emplo yee s State Forests Staff From 130 0 00 i n 1 9 90 To 26 00 0 i n 20 0 5 3287 1271 2953 330 413 55 3367 48 3800 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 No. of contr a ctors 1 2 -1 0 1 1 -2 0 2 1 -2 5 over 2 5 Contractors in 2003 and 2005 Nu m ber of emp loyees 2003 2005 186 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland State Forests Forest functions Reserves 1.5 % Da ma ged by ind ustry 10. 4 % Dominating producti ve function 51.1 % Water protective 18.0 % Around cities 9.3 %Soil p rotective 4.6 % Other 3.1 % Mi l itary 2 . 0 % State Forests Biodiversity conservation • 1 182 nature reserves (106 302 ha ) • 10 144 nature monuments • 26 681 ha of ”ecological sites” • 2 8 79 bi r d protective zones (179 2 40 ha) • Nature conservation plans for forest districts • N ATU R A 2 0 0 0 Wójcik T. Management of state owned forests in Poland 187 T h ank you for your attention t.wojcik@lasy.gov.pl www.lasy.gov.pl 188 Tõnisson K. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 189 1 Is Profitable and Efficient Management of State Forests Possible? Kristjan Tõnisson Senior Consultant Estonian State Forest Management Centre 2 • Area of state forests – 1 083 000 ha • Number of staff – 1 200 • Total felling – 2 276 000 m 3 • Turnover – 71 million EUR • Operating profit – 8,7 million EUR • Investments – 8,5 million EUR • Revenue to the state budget – 11,4 million EUR K E Y F IGUR E S – E S TONIAN S TATE FOR E S T MANAGEMENT CE NTR E in 2005 190 Tõnisson T. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 4S ITU AT ION I N E AR L Y 19 90’S Pu b lic sector Priv ate sector 3 • Situation in early 1990’s • Reasons for Change • Forest policy development (1995-1999) • Institutional development • Indicators of efficiency • Current situation - benchmarking • Conclusions OUTL INE Tõnisson K. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 191 6C H O S E N DE VE L OPMENT S CENA R I O 4 0 5 2 19 37 156 9 1271 22 6 3 10 5 141 145 2 3 2 2 5 9 2 8 5 313 3 4 4 0 5 0 0 100 0 150 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 199 5 199 6 1997 1998 199 9 2 00 0 2 001 200 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 year n umber o fs taff 0 5 0 100 150 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 n et res ult, millio n EEK Number of employees Net result Source: A. Kallas 1999 5R E ASONS FOR CHANGE 4 0 5 2 4 0 5 2 4 0 5 2 4 0 5 210 5 6 3 2 0 -2 0 -5 4 -8 9 -12 2 -154 -183 0 5 0 0 100 0 150 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 199 5 199 6 1997 1998 199 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 01 20 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 year n umbe ro fs taff -2 5 0 -2 0 0 -150 -100 -5 0 0 5 0 100 150 n e t re s ult, millio n EEK Number of employees Net result Source: A. Kallas 1999 192 Tõnisson T. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 7 • 1995 Forestry Development Program • 1997 National Forest Policy keywords: Efficiency and Sustainability; Separation of Management and Supervision • 1997 Policy Implementation Plan (- 2001) • 1999 New Forestry Act • 1999 Restructuring of Public Institutions • 2001 Development Strategy (- 2010) F O R E S T P O L IC Y DE VE L OPMENT 8IN S TIT U TIO N AL D E V E LO P M E N T I ? Publ i c a utho ri ty ? Fo rest ma na gement ? Fo rest I ndus tri es ? Publ i c a utho ri ty ? Fo rest ma na gement ? Publ i c a utho ri ty ? Fo rest ma na gement ? Fo rest o pera tio ns ? Fo rest I ndus tri es ? Fo rest o pera tio ns ? Fo rest i ndus tri es co mpeti tio n P u b l i c P r i v a t e 1991 1996 1999 Source: A. Kallas 1999 Tõnisson K. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 193 9IN S TIT U TIO N AL D E V E LO P M E N T II ? P o lic y F o r mula t io n ? P o lic y I mple me nt a t io n ? F o r e st M a na g e me nt ? F o r e st O pe r a t io ns ? F o r e st Indust r ie s ? F o r e st O pe r a t io ns P u b l i c P r i v a t e ? P o lic y I mple me nt a t io n ? F o r e st M a na g e me nt ? P o lic y F o r mula t io n Source: A. Kallas 1999 10W OR K F ORCE 1995 -20 05 4052 2152 1937 1743 1569 1412 1312 1256 1226 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Nu mber of staff 194 Tõnisson T. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 11P E R OR M A NCE IN DICATORS 1 999 -2 005 20. 7 24 29 37 42 46 50 58 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 T u rnover per cap ita; thousand EUR 12P E R OR M A NCE IN DICATORS 1 999 -2 005 3 10 8 9 10 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Profit as % of turnover Tõnisson K. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 195 13P E R OR M A NCE IN DICATORS 1 999 -2 005 0 10000000 20000000 30000000 40000000 50000000 60000000 70000000 80000000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 Turnover; EUR Operating profit; EUR Investments; EUR Felling volume, m3 14CURRENT S ITU A TIO N - B E NCHM AR KIN G  ST RENG T HS :  Profitability of state forestry  Lower than average cost of timber management in terms of EUR/ha  Low cost of logging, wood extraction and on-road transport  Low cost of seedlings  W E AK NE S S ES :  Low industrial labour productiv ity  Too high share of administrative staff in total labour  Hig h cost of administration per m 3 harvested  Low mechanization in final felling and thinning B as ed on analys is by S avcorIndufor ? 2007 196 Tõnisson T. Is profitable and efficient management of state forests possible? 15 • Efficient management of state forests is possible • It is important to create supporting policy framework and development targets for state forest management • Finding balance between commercial (marketable) and societal (non-marketable) functions is a matter of political decision • Benchmarking allows performance comparison between different organisations with similar tasks and it is a useful tool for making development decisions CONCLU SIONS Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania 197 1 Management of State Forests in Lithuania Andrius Vancevicius Head of Department Directorate General of State Forests Ministry of Environment, Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests Directorate General of StateDi e e G en e l f e Forestse 198 Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests 3 Forest land d istribution by forest groups 71,0 % 1,2 % 11,9 % 15,9 % I резерваты II леса спeциального назначения III защитные леса IV хозяйственные леса I reserves III protection forests II special designation forests IV commercial forests Di rectorate General of State Forests 4 ЛЕСА ПО ФO РМАМ СОБСT ВЕННОСТИ 01 01 2006 16, 60% 49, 60% 33, 80% леса государственного значения частные леса Forests reserved for privatization FORE ST S BY T Y PES O F O W NER SHI P 01.0 1.20 06 State forests Private forests (717, 2 thousand ha) Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania 199 Di rectorate General of State Forests 5 Лесистость Литвы, 2003 6 8,7% 31,3% Леса другая земля 34,3% 65,7% forest land other land W ith supportWi h up p r from EU fundsfr m EU fu d ~ 5 0 0 thousand ha of~ 500 h u a d ha f a g ri c u ltural l ands are to beagric u l u ral l a d a r b a fforestedaff r d After the increaseA r h i c r a To increase Current situationurr i ua i forests by 3% Forest cover in Lithuania 20 03 Forest Other land Directorate General of State Forests 6 Changes in the forest area of Lithuania in 1938 - 2005 Source: Ministry of Environment 21. 8 19 . 7 2 2 . 6 2 3 . 9 2 6 . 4 27. 9 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 31. 2 31. 3 31. 7 3 2 3 2 . 5 0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 6 19 61 1973 19 8 3 19 9 3 19 9 8 2 0 01 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 ГодыYear Fo re st ar ea ,% 200 Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests 7 De v e lopment of a comprehensive system of forestry operations inDev e l m e n f m e en i v e y e m f f e y e i n i n statee forests with the aim to balance their economic, environmental anf e wi e im b l n e e i e n m i , e nv i n me n l n d sociald i l fu nctions; agreeme nt on location and harvestings of exploitablefu n i n ; g ee m e n n l i n nd ve i ng f e x l i b l e forests;f e ; agreeme nt on location and impleme ntation ofg eeme n n l i n n d im l e me n i n f ““ Naturau 200020 0 0 ”” projectsje Certifi cation of State forests State forest enterprises (uredija) certified in 20 01 ( 2) State forest enterprises certified in 20 0 3 (16) State forest enterprises certified in 20 0 4 ( 2 4) Di rectorate General of State Forests 8 Structureru ur ST AT E INSPECT ION O F ENV IRO NM ENT AL PRO T ECT ION M IN IS TE R O F E N V IR ON M E N T DEPUT Y MIN I ST ER F O REST DEPART MENT DI RECT ORAT E G ENERAL O F ST AT E F O REST S U N DER T HE M INIST R Y O F EN VIR O NM ENT STATE SERVICE OF FOREST GENETIC RESOURCES, SEEDS AND SEEDLINGS FOREST INVENTORY AND PLANNING SERVICE FOREST SANITARY PROTECTION SERVICE STATE ENTERPRISE “STATE FOREST INVENTORY AND PLANNING INSTITUTE” ST AT E SERVICE OF PROT ECT ED T ERRIT O RI ES UNDER T HE MI NIST RY OF ENVI RO NMENT 42 ST AT E FO REST ENT ERPRI SES NATIONAL PARKS AUKSTAITIJA, DZ UKI JA, ZEMAITIJA, KURSI U NERIJA RESERVES CEPKELIAI, KAMANOS, VIESVI LE, ZUVINTAS 8 REGIO NAL DEPARTM ENTS O F ENVI RO NM ENTAL PRO TECTIO N 28 REGIONAL PARKS 405 FO REST DI ST RICT S 1161 RANG ER DI ST RICT S PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania 201 Di rectorate General of State Forests 9 DI RECTORATE GENERAL OF STATE FORESTSDI R TO RAT G RAL O S TAT OR S TS UNDER THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTU D R TH I I S TRY O V I RO T :: 1. Enjoys the rights and duties of a founder of state forest enterprises and coordinates their activities; 2. Sets compulsory norms on forest regeneration, forest protection and forest inventory for state forest enterprises; 3. Facilitates general state fire safety measures and sanitary system of forest protection; 4. Facilitates and coordinates introduction of advanced technologies in forest regeneration, forest protection, and forest inventory. Di rectorate General of State Forests 10 Regional Environmental Protection Departmentsn l nvi m l e n De e :: 1. Control the implementation of the Forest Law and execute state control over all forests of the country monitoring the condition of forests, forest regeneration, forest use and forest protection; 2. Provide logging permits; 3. Control the quality of forest inventory and planning; 4. Consult private forest owners on the issues of forest use, forest regeneration, management and protection. 202 Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests 11 Forest use and forest inventory engineer Forest regeneration engineer Forest protection engineer YREDAS ( DIRECT OR) Deputy Director of Silv ic ulture Asst Chief Accountant Accountant Accountant – cashier Forest nursery Head Foreman Economist Personnel inspector Lawyer Financial Manager Specialist in public relations Communications specialist Department of Harvesting and Sales of Roundwood and Machinery Head Foreman Chief mechanic Power engineering specialist Dispatcher Storekeeper Lesnichestvo Forester Assistant forester Forest rangers Chief ac countant Internal a udit service Head of internal audit service Round wood harvesting engineer Labor safety and civil defense specialist Deputy Director of round wood harvesting and sales S TRUCTURE OF A STATE FOREST ENTERPRISESTRU TU R O A STAT O R S T T R RI S (UREDIJA)(UR DI J A) Di rectorate General of State Forests 12 Increasing forest land area in Lithuania by afforesting inIn e in g f e l n d e in L i u n i b y f f e i n g in m in im u m 1000 ha of land from the Fund of free state landmin im u m 1000 f l n d f m e u n d f f ee e l n d transferred to state forest enterprisesn fe ed e f e en e i e 7 0 9 6 4 1 1 6 2 1 1 3 6 1 3 3 7 1 2 7 8 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 10 0 0 12 0 0 14 0 0 2 0 0 1 г. 2 0 0 2 г. 2 0 0 3 г. 2 0 0 4 г. 2 0 0 5 г. 2 0 0 6 г. Заложение зелёных насаждений на предоставленной лесным уредиям земле из Фонда свободной государственной земли , га . Afforestation of the land provided to state forest enterprises from the Fund of free state land, ha Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania 203 Di rectorate General of State Forests 13 Fire safety in forestsi e y in f e 478 93 746 51 634 472715 894 565 1022 654 287 1596 468 885 1180 301258 1545 769 274 279 321 226 494 352 113 436 253 1199 0.39 0.53 0.49 0.54 0.78 0.65 0.43 0.68 0.40 0.36 0.48 0.54 0.17 0.47 0.39 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Forest fires in 1992-2 0 06 Nu mber of forest fires , unit Total area of one seat of a fi re, ha Average area of one fire site, ha Di rectorate General of State Forests 14 Sanitary protection of forestsni y i n f f Damages caused by bark beetles and activities implemented in 1999 - 2006 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 120 140 160 180 2 0 0 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 ты с. га очагов ActivitiesDamages 1000 ha 204 Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests 15 Organization of forest protection against illegalO g niz i n f f i n g i n ill eg l harvestingi ng Implementation  In Ju n e 2003, a joint meeting was organized for the managers of the Directorate General of State Forests and Police Department devoted to the issue of coordinating activities aimed at exposing those gui lty in forest theft;  A joint decree no. V-345/ 1B-114 of June 17, 2003 was issued by the Chief Director of the Police Force of Lithuania and the Director General of the State Forests “Suppression of Law Violations Connected with Illegal Harvesting, Ti mb er Supplies, its Processing as well as Poaching” . According to it, heads of territorial police departments and managers of state forest enterprises are to prepare joint action plans for exposing the cases of illegal harvesting, i llegal transportation and processing of round timber, as well as ascertain the cases of poaching, exchange i nformation about people advertising sales/purchase of forest, timber and game, at regular intervals to check up enterprises dealing with woodworking and carry out other proactive m easures. Di rectorate General of State Forests 16 Other important functionse im n fun i n 1016.6 3 0 0 9 .5 4178 513 5 3 413 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 100 0LT L 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 De velopment and maintenance of recreation sites Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania 205 Di rectorate General of State Forests 17 Reduction of timber processing facilitiesRedu i n f i mbe i ng il i i e Changes in the num be r of m i l ls de a l ing w ith ti m be r processing, 1998–2005 28 14 2 0 0 43 0 10 20 30 40 50 1998 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 N um ber Up per landings made redundant in 2002 . Di rectorate General of State Forests 18 Dynamics in forest area development andDyn i i n f e e devel men nd number of state forest enterprise employeesnumbe f e f en i e em l yee * Managed by state forest enterprises (without national parks) 1,1 1142 2418 2793 5211 337,7 992,3 1330,0 2 0 05 -1,11,11,11,11,1Average area of a ranger district 100111611193122012571378Number of ranger districts 22052 47629483 27635814184workers 270728652 9 502 9 943 2 053 3 04of which state officials 4912534158986 27067867488Average number of employees -368,5374,54264 8 55 4 8reserved for restitution 1050,3992,3941,2941941941of which state forests -1360,81315,7136714261489Total forest area, 1000 ha * 2 0 062 0 042 0 032 0 022 0 012 0 00Indicators 206 Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests 19 State forests of Lithuaniae f f Li u ni Ave rage sales price and production cost of 1 m 3 of roundwood in 1999-2006 8 5 .7 7 6 .67 5 .58 1 .2 7 6 .7 8 9 .9 1 0 3 .8 1 0 3 .2 2 7 .3 2 9 .93 0 .43 0 .5 2 5 .7 2 6 .4 3 0 .1 3 4 .6 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 1999 г. 2000 г. 2001 г. 2002 г. 2003 г. 2004 г. 2005 г. 2006 г. средняя цена продажи средняя себестоимость LTL/m 3 Average sales price Average production cost Directorate General of State Forests 20 State forests of Lithuania 2 8 6 6 5 5 2 3 0 2 1 5 6 1 2 9 6 8 4 4 5 3 2 6 8 3 5 6 3 3 4 1 3 15 3 16 9 2 8 2 3 2 9 8 2 7 8 3 3 3 0 2 2 7 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1999 - 3418 2000 - 3582 2001 - 3413 2002 - 3624 2003 - 3656 2004 - 3451 2005 - 3576 2006 - 3557 Standing timber and roundwood sales, thousand m3 (excluding timber used for processing) ?р????? ?ес ?ес на ?орн?Roundwood Standing timber Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania 207 Di rectorate General of State Forests 21 D ynamics of debts of timber buyers to state forest enterpr ises in 2001-2006 0.65.6 17.5 27.7 46.8 42.5 0.90.5 2.0 4.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 2001 01 01 2002 01 01 2003 01 01 2004 01 01 2005 01 01 2006 01 01 2007 01 01 M ill io n LT L Пеня 2001/01/01- 2002/01/01 outstanding debts are given w ithout default interest. 2003/01/01 outstanding debts are given w ith default interest, LP SK 6.73 Art. 31,7 19,5 6,1 State forests of Lithuaniae f f Li u ni Default interest Di rectorate General of State Forests 22 250. 3 2. 7 26. 7 27. 1 22. 3 256. 2 2 18. 2 25. 5 21. 8 284 2 1. 4 24. 5 13. 6 328. 1 2. 9 6 28. 1 10. 1 343. 4 2 9 26. 8 11. 2 0 5 0 10 0 150 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 2002 г. 320.7 млн. литов 2003 г. 315.3 млн. литов 2004 г. 325.5 млн. литов 2005 г. 375.2 млн. литов 2006 г. 392.2 млн. литов Revenue dynamics and stru cture (million LTL ) Круглый лес Лес на корню Доходы деревообработки Услуги транспорта Другие доходы State forests of Lithuaniae f f Li u ni million LTL million LTL million LTL million LTL million LTL Roundwood Standing timber Woodworking revenues Transportation services Other revenues 208 Vancevicius A. Management of state forests in Lithuania Di rectorate General of State Forests 23 1 3 .7 38. 8 104. 3 91. 5 24. 3 35. 8 1 3 .6 33. 9 100. 9 98. 4 25. 1 34. 9 1 4 .4 29. 3 96. 7 109. 6 23. 2 35. 8 1 6 .5 20. 8 111. 3 127. 1 26. 2 37. 3 1 7 .8 22. 6 128 139. 7 25. 1 34. 1 0 5 0 100 150 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 2002 г. 2003 г. 2004 г. 2005 г. 2006 г. 308. 4 306. 8 309 339. 2 366. 8 Cost structure and dy nam ics (m illion LTL) Общие и административные расходы Транспорные услуги Возобновление, охрана и уход за лесом Заготовка круглого леса Другие нужды лесного хозяйства Обязательные отчисления в централизованный фонд и госбюджет State forests of Lithuaniae f f Li u ni General and administrative costs Transportation services Forest regeneration, protection and management Roundwood harvestings Other forestry needs Compulsory payments to the central fund and state budget Di rectorate General of State Forests 24 0 .5 0 .3 4 .4 3 .9 1 1 4 .4 1 .9 0 .9 2 .6 0 .9 1 3 .6 1 .6 0 .8 4 .2 1 .1 1 4 .4 1 .6 1 .7 6 .8 1 .1 1 6 .5 0 .9 1 .6 6 .6 1 .4 1 7 .3 0 1 1 .5 0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 Million LTL 1 9 9 5 5 ,2 2 0 0 2 2 2 ,1 2 0 0 3 1 9 ,5 2 0 0 4 2 3 2 0 0 5 2 6 ,9 2 0 0 6 2 6 ,8 Compulsory payments to the state budget of state forest enterpr ises Other compulsory pa yments (insurance fund, environmental pollution) Road tax Compu lsory pa yments from the revenues gained by timber sales and sales of standing timber Interest rate on the use of state capital P rofit tax State forests of Lithuaniae f f Li u ni Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 209 The Reform Process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA Dragos Mihai Head of International Relations National Forest Administration, Romania The reform processTh r f r m pr c w ithinwi hi the National Forest Administrationh Na i al F r Ad m i r a i ROM S ILV AROM S ILV A Dan Ioan ALDEA General Manager of National Forest Administration ROMSILVA Supporting the Forest Sector Reform in Russia and in the Southeast European Countries by Assessing the Experiences of the New EU Member States 21-22 March 2007 Pushkino, Moscow oblast, Russia 210 Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOREST AREA IN ROMANIAHARA RI S I S O H O R S A R A I RO A IA  Total forest area: 6.4 million ha (26,7% of the total country area);  Geographical forest distribution: • 67 % in mountain areas; • 25 % in hilly regions; • 10 % on the plains.  Forest composition: • 31 % coniferous (spruce, fir, Scots pine , larch, Douglas-fir); • 30 % beech; • 19 % oaks; • 14 % various hard broad-leaved ( hornbeam, locust tree, ash- trees, maples, cherry tree…); • 6 % various soft broad-leaved (lime-trees, poplars, willows…). FORESTRY IN ROMANIA BEFORE 1990OR S RY I RO A I A B O R 9 9 0 M inistry of Forestry w ith the following main tasks:  Management of the entire forest fund and its resources (including the valuing of the standing timber - on a fixed price, and the non wood forest products);  Management of the hunting grounds;  Management of the mountain fishing grounds and trout farms;  Policy maker for the forestry sector;  Supervision of the activities related to forestry (including harvesting, timber transportation and sawmills) and law enforcement. M inistry of Forest Economy and Construction Materials with the following tasks :  harvesting of the standing timber;  timber processing. In 1990, it was established that all Romanian ministries should have attributes only for the elaboration and issuance of regulations and for law enforcement. Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 211 NATIONAL FOREST ADMINISTRATIONA IO AL O R S A D I I S RA I O – ROMSILVARO S I L V A AND ITS ROLE IN THE ROMANIAN FOREST MANAGEMENTA D I S RO L I H RO A I A O R S A AG  National Forest Administration – Romsilva (NFA) was founded on the 1 st of January 1991 (by Governmental Decision no.1335/21.12.1990) and it is being coordinated and subjected to the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development  Main tasks: ? to implement the national strategy in the field of silviculture ? to ensure the integrity, preservation and sustainable development of the state owned forests ? management of the state forest areas ? management, on contract basis, of the private forest areas, afforested pastures and shelterbelts, ? sound use of timber and non timber products, including management of the hunting and fishing grounds allotted by law, ? forestry specific public services; ? acting as the National Horse Breeding Authority, NFA preserves the genetic patrimony of the Romanian thoroughbred horses.  Coordinates 41 county units (forest directorates) – consisting of 349 forest districts and the Forest Research and Management Planning Institute.  The staff consists of 25 288 employees, out of which 13 283 forest staff (2500 diplomat engineers), 9 800 workers and 2 205 staff with different training. THE STRUCTURE OF NATIONAL FORESTS ADMINISTRATIONH S RU UR O A I O A L O R S S A D I I S RA I O 212 Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA FOREST OWNERSHIP IN ROMANIAOR S OW RS HI I RO A I A  The forest land restitution process is ongoing  Total forest area successfully returned to the former owners: approx. 2.5 million ha (end of 2006)  At the end of this process, it is estimated that the private forest area will be around 50% of the total forest area in Romania FORESTS RESTITUTIONOR S S R S I U IO  Law no. 18/1991: approx. 0.3 million ha of forests were restituted to private owners;  Law no. 1/2000: approx. 1.9 million ha of forests were restituted to private owners;  Law no 247/2005 : approx. 0.3 million ha were restituted (at the end of 2006) 6 . 4 0 6 . 1 0 . 3 5 . 9 0 . 5 5 . 5 0 . 9 4 . 7 1 . 7 4 . 5 1 . 9 4 . 2 2 . 2 3 . 9 2 . 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 m illion ha 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 State Priv ate Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 213 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATE FORESTSHARA RI S I S O H S A O R S S IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF NFAI H AD I I S RA IO O A  Total state-owned forest area: 3.9 million ha (61% of the total forest area);  State forest composition: • 28 % coniferous (spruce ,fir, Scots pine , larch, Douglas fir); • 32 % beech; • 18 % oaks; • 16 % various hard broad-leaved ( hornbeam, locust tree, maples, ash- trees, cherry tree …); • 6 % various soft broad-leaved (lime-trees, poplars, willows…).  State forests structure on main functional groups: 5 4 % 4 6 % F unctional g roup I F unctional g roup II CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATE FORESTSHARA RI S I S O H S A O R S S IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF NFAI H AD I I S RA IO O A Functional group I (protection forests) main attributes: 3 0 % 4 0 % 6 % 9 % 15 % Water protection Soil protection Pollution & climatic protection Forests with recreation function Biodiversity protection 214 Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA National and Natural P a rks in 2006Na i a l a d Na ura l P a rk i 2 0 0 6 27 national and natural parks, with a total surface of 1 652 312 ha (7% of the Romanian territory) Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve – 580 000 ha (of which 22 900 ha of forest) 13 national parks covering 315 857 ha, of which 227 908 ha forests 13 natural parks covering 756 455 ha, of which 356 113 ha forests Beside that, there are 677 protected areas with a surface of about 90 thousands ha (337 within forest covering 40 thousands ha of forest). PROTECTED AREAS MANAGED BY NFARO D A R AS A A G D B Y A  Foresters concern for this activity has started at the end of the 19 th century  On a protocol agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Water Management NFA administrates 12 national parks and 10 natural parks (from all 27 parks in Romania)  NFA has created and it is supporting 22 park administrations, with 259 employees, and it is allocating around 2 million Euros per year  Surface of the 22 parks is around 850 thousand ha, of which 570 thousand ha are forests (67%) - 160 thousand ha being strictly protected  Private owners will be compensated for their lands inside the protected areas (up to 150 Euros / year) Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 215 S UPPORTING PROTECTED AREAS ACTIVITIES BYSU O R I G RO D A R A S A IV I I S B Y INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS DEVELOPED W ITHIN NFAI R A IO A L RO J S D V L O D W I HI A The main programs for financing the NFA – ROMSILVA’s protected areas activities were:  GEF projects (3 projects summarizing 7.5 million USD)  PHARE projects (3 projects totalizing 4,7 million Euro)  L IFE projects (4 projects summarizing 1.3 million Euro) 0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5 3 19 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 01 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 International Projects Funds, implemented by National Forests Administration - Romsilva, between 199 9 - 2 0 0 6 million Euro 216 Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA THE AFFORESTATION OF DEGRADED AGRICULTURALH A O R S A IO O D G RA D D AGRI UL URA L L AND PROJECT IN ROMANIALA D RO J I RO A I A The project was developed on an Agreement basis signed by the NFA and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, on September 2003. The activity of the project, which consists of the afforestation of 6033 ha of degraded agricultural land, corresponds to the stipulations of The Article 3.3 of The Kyoto Protocol regarding the greenhouse gas emissions effects (mainly carbon dioxide). Besides the Afforestation of the Degraded Lands Project, the NFA is implementing the Special Program Grant for Public Outreach and Support for Climate Change Mitigation through Afforestation (503 thousand USD). FORESTOR S RYRY DEVELOPMENTD V LO PROJECTROJ T he National Forest Administration – Romsilva is also a partner in implementing the Forestry Development Project, coordinated by the Ministry of Agri c u lture, Forests and Rura l Development. The project amounts to 31.8 m i l l ions USD, of which 2 5 m il l ion USD represent the loan given by the World Bank to the Government of Romania for the project implementation. It was started up in 2003 and has 2009 as deadline. One of the most important components of the project is represented by the set-up of the strategy w ithin the forest sector by taking into account the last changes. This refers both to the state owned forests and to the private ones. Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 217 NFAA ’’ S MAIN ACTIVITIESS AI A I VI I S M anagement of the forest fund and its resources:  Forest management based on the concept of sustainable development  Tending operations on young stands for approximately 230 000 ha per year  T i m ber sales (auction based)  standing timber (approximately 6 million cubic meters for 2007)  logs and processed timber (approximately 4 million cubic meters for 2007)  Forest regeneration:  The annual regenerated area (total) – 18 000 ha, out of which afforestation - 10 000 ha natural regeneration - 8 000 ha  Nurseries – a total area of approximately 2 500 ha with an annual production of 85 million seedlings (30 million of coniferous seedlings and 55 million of broad-leaved seedlings.  Ecological reconstruction: Afforestation of degraded lands.  Investment activities:  Watershed management;  Forest roads.  Pest control:  Broad-leaved forests – insect control using biological and bioactive substances;  Coniferous forests – bark beetle control using pheromone traps.  W i l d l i fe management and hunting:  Hunting grounds on a total area of over 6 million ha;  Main game species: red deer, roe deer, fellow deer, chamois, wild boar, hare, pheasant, capercaillie, wild ducks and geese.  T rout farms and sport fishing in freshwater:  5 0 trout farms with an annual production of 900 tonnes of trout;  Over 400 fishing grounds, totalling over 18 000 km of freshwater and over 12 thousand ha of lakes. NFAA ’’ S MAIN ACTIVITIESS AI A I VI I S 218 Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA NFAA ’’ S MAIN ACTIVITIESS AI A I V I I S  Other forest products:  Forest fruits (bilberries, blackberries, raspberries, dog rose fruits, sea buckthorn, common hawthorn);  Forest fruits juice;  Edible forest mushrooms;  Medicinal and aromatic plants;  W ickerwork;  Ornamental products;  Ornamental trees and plants.  T i m ber and other wood products:  Semi-products, parquet elements, small boxes;  Wood construction and small furniture;  Charcoal.  Sc ientific research and planning: carried out by the Forest Research and Management Planning Institute.  M anagement of protected areas and preservation of biodiversity  Si l votourism: accommodation in 100 comfortable lodges and guided tours.  Forest certification according to the FSC scheme (1 million ha). NFAA ’’ S MAIN ACTIVITIESS AI A I VI I S  Breeding and improving of thoroughbred horses: 17 elite horse breeding units (out of which 12 are stud farms);  10 pure breeds, 2 varieties and 2 new breeds to become, in a total number of 4000 horses;  The Equestrian Sport Club under the authority of National Forest Administration – Romsilva;  Sport, tourism and recreational riding. M anagement of the private or community forests on contract basis (around 370 thousand ha) Providing forest services for the private or community forests on contract basis (around 360 thousand ha) Pri vate forests guard for individ u a ls , on demand Mihai D. The reform process within the National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 219 CONCLUSIONSO LUS I O S T he NFA operates as a financiall y a utonomous organization performing forest management and silvic u ltural operations, providing a series of non timber forest products and services, as well as a range of publi c services. New chal lenges NFA has to face:  rapid changes in forest ownership pattern during the restitution process;  new competitors in timber market;  diminishing the productive forest area administrated by NFA;  the increasing pressure of the local communities and NGO’s to diminish wood harvesting, hunting, forest road network development ;  social responsibilities within actual context. CONCLUSIONSO LUS I O S Sustainable Forest Management also means a well -ba lanced management of the ecological , social and economical functions of the forest Although timber sales still represent the main source of funding, NFA is currently:  developing some NTFP activities;  modernizing the trout farms;  developing the hunting activities (including establishment of new hunting enclosures)  developing a better sorting mechanism for the timber sold as primary sets (veneer logs, lumber logs, pulp timber etc.) to increase its value  developing new primary processing timber units (sawmills)  developing the commercial activity related to ornamental plants and shrubs  establishing new activities such as management of protected areas and silvotourism (in order to improve its image) 220 Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU... 221 Management of State Owned Forests in Slovakia – Overview of a Study Tour by a Russian Expert to a new EU Member Country Natalia Krotova Head of Department Department of Forestry of the Archangelsk Region, Russia 222 Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU ... FORESTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOV AKI A  FO RE S T ARE A - 2 . 0 MI LLI O N H A  P E RCENT AG E O F FO RE S T ARE A – 4 0 . 8%.  AN N U AL I NCREMEN T – 11 . 05 MI LLI O N M 3  TO T AL S TOCK, INCLUDING : - DECIDUOUS TRE E S – 5 3% - CONIFE RO US TRE E S – 4 7%  DE S I G N ATI O N - COMMERCIAL – 6 7 . 6 % - P RO TECTION – 1 7 % - SPECIAL PURP O S E – 15 . 3 % Forest distribution by types of ownership % 41. 8 % 9. 7 % 24. 9 % 14. 2 % 3. 4 % 0. 1 % 5. 9 State Pri v ate Munici pa l Personal Ch u rc h A gr i c u ltu ra l cooperati ves Not identified Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU... 223 F O REST RY OF SL O V AKI A  2 5 0 00 EMPLOYEES: - 13 000 PERSONS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN FORESTRY; - 12 000 IN ENTERPRISES PROVIDING SERVICES ON CONTRACTUAL BA SI S  MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION – «FORESTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVAK I A» State management structure of forests in Slovakia M i ni stry of Ag ri cul ture F orest ry S ecti on R e gi onal f or e s t de par t me nts (8) Nati ona l F or e s t C e nte r F or e s ts of T atr ins kii N ati ona l P ar k F or e s ts of the R e p ublic of Sl ova ki a L e s ni c he s tv o L oc a l f or e s t de par t me nts (48) - F or e s t R e s e ar c h I ns tit ute - F or e s t pla nni ng or g a nis ati on - I ns ti t ute of F or e s t R e s our c e s a nd I nf or matic s - I ns ti t ute of F or e s t C ons ulti ng a nd U p br i ngi ng F or e s t pla nts (26) See d pr od uc ti on pla nt F or e s t mac hi ne r y pla nt F or e s t pl ots 224 Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU ... Company “FO R E S TS OF THE RE P UBLIC OF SLOV AK I A” Directorate General has 4 departments responsible for the following activities:  Technical development (including forestry operations)  Trade  Economics and finance  Organization of production Revenues  Timber sales (90%)  Timber sawing (4%)  Hunting (3%)  Tourism (construction of summer houses and their provision for rent), biomass production, animal breeding (bisons and horses for forest work), sales of Christmas trees (3%). Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU... 225 N AT I O N AL F O REST CENTER  Forest Research Institute  Forest planning organization  Institute of Forest Resources and Informatics  Institute of Forest Consulting and Upbringing M INIS TRY OF AGRICULTURE FORE S T S ECTION  Approval of regional plans, including definition of designation of forests  Identification of borders of forestry enterprises  Organization and implementation of work on certification of forest managers  Adoption of key provisions of forestry plans  Activities in case of natural disasters  Adoption of the Charter of Slovakian hunting Union  Development of instructions and recommendations on management of forestry and game  Methodological assistance to forest departments of regional and local executive authorities as well as control over unified procedures 226 Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU ... REGI ON AL F OR ES T D EP AR TM E N TS  Adoption of statutes on territorial planning  Control over forestry operations  Approval of forestry plans  Division of forests by their designation  Planning and implementation of activities in case of natural disasters  Administration of a forest managers’ register Local forest departments  Allocation of forest lands, administration of the register of forest owners and users  I dentification of activities aimed at rational use and protection of forest lands  Appointment of professional forest managers, their certification, disqualification and administration of a relevant register  Determination of fines for violating forest and hunting legislation  Provision of permits for construction done on forest lands  Provision of permits for deviations from legally established norms of forestry (prolonging terms of forest regeneration etc.)  Activities in case of natural disasters  Evaluation of the results of forestry operations  Determination of key provisions for running game management areas Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU... 227 Forest revenues  Real estate tax - 104 million SKK consists of two taxes: -Land tax (main part). Land tax concerns only commercial forest reaching the age of first thinning. For forest land there is a maximum tax in the amount of 0.25% of the basic rate of the land tax. In some cases the tax can be reduced or exempted for several years. -Tax on buildings and constructions.  Road tax - 36 million SKK. Amount of tax - 20%. Enterprises of forest industries do not pay this tax.  Profits tax - 428 million SKK. Enterprises pay 19% of profits.  VAT - 932 million SKK. Amount of tax varies from 10 to 23% depending on the type of a product. T HERE I S NO SUCH A CONCEPT AS ST UM P AGE PRICE IN SL OVAKI A Recommendations  Division of economic, management and control functions. Prohibition for concentration of different functions to one executive authority.  Provision of one or several management levels with normative and control functions at the same time. Only controlling the execution of your own decisions can be productive.  Compulsory consideration of regional special features when defining methods and norms for forestry. 228 Krotova N. Management of state owned forests in Slovakia - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to a new EU ... Recommendations  Regional (district) special features of forest planning must contain elements of economic evaluation.  It is indispensable to keep continuity of legislative norms when changing legislation. Business must be sure that its rights deriving from legitimate acts of the state are protected. TH A NK Y O U ! 229 THEME IV Financing sustainable forest management Chairman Nadezda Lovtsova All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, ARICEF Presentations Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic Ivan Kolenka, Professor of Forest Economics, Technical University, Zvolen, Slovak Republic Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic Luděk Šišák, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Czech University of Life Sciences, Czech Republic Financing of sustainable forest management - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to Poland Natalia Bulygina, Docent, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry ARICEF, Russia 230 Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic 231 Financing and Financial Management of the Forest Sector in the Slovak Republic Ivan Kolenka Professor of Forest Economics Technical University, Zvolen, Slovak Republic FI N ANCING OF FO RE S TRY I N S LOV AKI A • Stages of reform 1. Privatization and restitution of ownership 2. Reform of economic principles and economic activities – Trade Code – System of taxes and duties – State budget rules 3. Adoption and implementation of laws and rules related to EU instructions Source: Author 232 Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic Forest ownership structure of Slovakia Use % Use 1011.1 807.7 Timber stock, million m3Ownership Area, 1000 ha 438.91001001931.61931.6Total --5.9-12.6Unknown owners 12.98.79.7168.8187.8Villages and towns 0.30.20.14.12.6Agricultural cooperatives 2.92.53.447.465.2Church 26.823.824.9495.1480.2Unions of private forests 9.96.314.2121.4275.2Private 183.641.352.3800.8Non-state 255.358.341.81130. 8State Ownership % Forests Source: Information on the condition of forests in Slovakia Forest use in Slovakia 1000 ha • Commercial forests 1307 67,7 % • Protection forests 327.8 17,0 % • Other 296 15,3 % Source: Information on the condition of forests in Slovakia Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic 233 Harvestings (1000 m 3 ) 6533 of which Sanitary fellings 10190,5726862185276Total 3263,13263,329732499Deciduous 6924,44000,732452777Conifers 2005200420001990 Year Timber Source: Zelená správa 2006, Min pôdohospodárstva SR Product sales 1000 m 3 * only for timber producers + expert evaluation of the author via commercial firms – export 2004 1,8 million m 3 2005 3,6 million m 3 Source: Information on the condition of forests in Slovakia Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author 766,8 +8414,8570,6 *66 6 9170,14618,7Total 160,42853,6285,02918,2147,32131,6Deciduous 6065521,2285,63751,522,82487,1Conifers E xportDomesticmar ketExport Domestic mar ketExport Domestic mar ket 200520041990 Ti m ber 234 Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic Revenues from timber (million SKK) • Other revenues 306 million koruns (2,69 % ) Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author 11 35594682604Total 37203700-Non-state forests 763557682604State forests 200520041990 Year Average revenue from assortments (coniferous timber) SKK /m 3 2,66508 9 03 0 6Other wood (forindustry) 3,516421765452Saw logs 4,4350 0316095 8Top quality 20052 0 0 41990 Index 2005/1990 Year Timber assortment Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic 235 Index 2005/1990 4,210059 41251 Other wood (pulp wood) 3,81772184546 0Saw logs 4,4720071001620Top quality 20052 0 0 41990 Year Timber assortment Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author Average revenue from assortments (deciduous timber) SKK/m 3 Financing from the state budget, million SKK (without budget funded organisations) Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author 371982005 432252004 733552003 1175262002 1425722000 2015471995 111511151990 Actual costs (discounted by inflation) Current costsYear 236 Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic Structure of subsidies from the state budget (million SKK) 2005 520. 847050. 8Total 323.3314.26 .1Budget fundedorganisations 197.5152.84 4 .7Forestry TotalCurrentcostsInvestments Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author Financing projects assisted by the EU • Opportunities and models • Investments for income (business) – 50% – from the EU and state budget » 35 % – Е U » 15 % – state budget – 50 % – from private sources Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic 237 • Afforestation on non-forest land • 100 % – from the EU and state budget » 80 % – ЕU » 20 % – state budget • Non-profitable investments – 95 % from EU and state budgets » 75 % – ЕU » 20 % – state budget – 5 % from private sources 238 Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic Financing of projects supported by the EU in 2005 • 132 projects • total cost 630 million SKK • 321 million SKK – from EU funds • 119 million SKK – from state budget • 190 million SKK – from resources of enterprises Source: Estimates made by the author Taxation system А Direct taxes 1. Income tax 2. Property tax – from real estate » land tax » tax on constructions – inheritance tax – motor road tax В. Indirect taxes 1. VAT 2. Selective taxes – consumption taxes (fuel, gasoline, beverages etc.) Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic 239 Tax structure in forestry, included in costs (million SKK) • Profit tax – 2004 419 million SKK – 2005 259 million SKK Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author 8.8810.35* Share of taxes on costs(%) 11601090Total 3654Motor road use 128104Real estate 996932V AT 20052 0 0 4 Year Tax Investment costs (million SKK) 834820842Depreciation 932514215Costs 200520042003 Year Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author 240 Kolenka I. Financing and financial management of the forest sector in the Slovak Republic Bank loans in Slovakian forestry, million SKK 7.07.48. 3 Interest 170120217 Sum of loans 200520042003 Year Economic evaluation of forestry in Slovakia (million SKK) 4 . 2 35 . 87Revenues effectiveness % 4.466 . 3 4Cost effectiveness % 582674Used profits 136158Income tax 718832Profits (before taxation) 1306110632Costs (full) 1377411484Revenues 20052 0 0 4 Year Source: Forestry Report of the SR 2006 Author Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 241 Financing of Forestry from Public Resources in the Czech Republic Ludek Sisak, Professor Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague e-mail: sisak@fld.czu.cz Abstract Forests and the forestry sector represent important areas of public interest in the Czech Republic. The forest sector, its structure and tasks, is influenced by rapid and profound changes of conditions as the country undergoes the transition to a market economy. Nowadays the forest sector is much more structured than before. Forestry is considered as an important multifunctional activity with economic, ecological and social impacts on society, reproducing and securing both market and non-market forest services. The financing of forestry in the Czech Republic is from numerous sources including from public sources, of both domestic and EU origin. The whole financing process needs to be simplified especially regarding the range of activities and the volumes of requested subsidies. Financing can be divided into 1) compensation for financial losses occurring as a result of securing non-market commodities and services, 2) purchase of non-market goods and services, and 3) subsidies for securing sustainable forest management. Keywords: Forestry financing, public resources, analysis, Czech Republic 1. Introduction The area of the Czech Republic covers 78 863 km2 (7.886 mil. ha) with 10.3 mil. inhabitants. Forest land covers 2.647 mil. ha, 33.6% of the total land area of the Czech Republic (CR). The forest area increased gradually from 2.629 mil. ha in 1990 to 2.647 mil. ha in 2005. Nevertheless, the afforestated area of agricultural lands is negligible compared to several hundred thousand ha of agricultural lands abandoned due to significant economic problems in agriculture. There is a significant lack of finance for the afforestation of agricultural lands in the public budget. The Czech forestry sector experienced many substantial changes, which influenced the process of forestry financing in the period 1990-2005. A completely new state forest administration was formed, the private sector began to grow in forestry, a new structure of forest owners came into being, a new structure of state forest institutions administering state forest lands occurred, and quite a new system of forestry financing was gradually formed. By the end of 2005, the proportion of commercial forests (used mainly for production and market purposes) was 76.1%, forests of special purpose 21.0% (used mainly for delivering non-market goods and services) and protective forests 2.9% (especially landscape protection against soil erosion, landslides and avalanches). Financial support in different forms goes mainly to protective forests, forests of special purpose and commercial forests heavily affected by air pollution. The main tree species are Norway spruce (Picea abies L.), covering 53.1% of the total forest area, and Scots pine (Pinus silvestris L.), covering 17.2%. These figures are considered relatively high. Great effort is made to come nearer to natural composition (to enhance ecological stability) in the process of reforestation, which is politically supported and significantly subsidised. As well as the forest area, the growing stock has also increased gradually. The total growing stock volume was 546 mil. m3 under bark in 1990, increasing to 663.2 mil. m3 u.b. in 2005, which corresponds to 225 m3/ha and 259 m3/ha. Total mean increment of 17.3 mil. m3 and total current increment of 20.5 mil. m3 (2005) exceed removals of about 15 mil. m3 of timber per year. Conservative planning of planning of harvesting influences the extension of rotation age, for example, the average rotation age was 112.4 years in 1990 and 114.7 years in 2005. The average age of forests reached 60 years in 1990, while was 242 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 64 in 2005. These aspects negatively affect the economic effectiveness of forestry and cause other problems such as the increased danger of diseases and damages, and an increased susceptibility to air pollution, which is still a significant problem in forests of CR. 2. Political framework The forest is generally accepted to be a multifunctional natural resource, which is both a production and a non-production factor in the life of society, it is natural wealth for society but also wealth reproducible by labour. Its economic, ecological and social importance lies in its wide range of market and non-market functions. Forestry is a multifunctional activity and, in the strict sense, a societal sector with economic, ecological and social impacts. The share of this activity in GDP terms is considered, from an accounting viewpoint, as insignificant. Long-term monitoring shows an approximate average share of 0.6% in GDP, 0.7% in employment and 0.3% in investments. However, in the larger socio-economic sense, the importance of forestry and the forest is much more significant as they guarantee consumption of relevant production means and consumer goods provided by the suppliers, and produce raw material for the processing industry. In this sense, there is a calculation of a minimal 5% share of the GDP and employment, which is even amplified in connection with rural development and stability. Furthermore, there is also a significant positive environmental impact. The principles of sustainability, environmentally friendly management and enhancement of the biodiversity in forests have been included in the new Forest Act (No. 289/1995) passed by the Parliament of the Czech Republic in 1995. The Forest Act respects the contemporary trends in forestry and supports them in both legislative and economic ways. According to the Forest Act, forests are a national heritage that forms an irreplaceable element of the environment and the Act for the Protection of Nature and Landscape states that forests are a significant factor in landscape use. Legislative tools are applicable for all forest owners, without exception, to restrict their activities for reasons of public interest. Apart from the Forest Act, there are other Acts substantially influencing forestry – especially the Nature Conservation Act (No. 114/1992). Forestry policy is aimed at the permanent maintenance of forests for future generations. The forest provides not only sustainable timber production but also meets functions beneficial to society. The State is interested in a permanent and balanced use of this renewable resource and the utilisation of its benefits for the public interest. The policy in forestry financing is related, above all, to the securing and enhancement of providing the population with non-market forest goods and services. It partially supports the competitiveness of timber production and employment because timber is considered as a very important environmentally friendly, sustainable and renewable raw material for the life of society as opposed to the other non-renewable and non-environmentally friendly raw materials. Forestry financing is not aimed at supporting the market services including timber production. The forestry financing is derived from valid legal regulations directly influencing financial management of the forest owners. 3. Institutional framework The institutional framework is created mainly by the state forest administration, private forest owners, communal forest owners, state forestland managers, private forest companies, and by their associations. The State forest administration consists of three levels. The Forestry Division of the Ministry of Agriculture (first, top level) methodically supervises the regional and district authorities (second + third levels). These authorities exercise the state administrative duties on the land they are responsible for as set out by the State forest administration bodies in accordance with the Forest Act. The regional offices are especially responsible for implementing the financial contribution programmes. Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 243 Significant changes have occurred in the area of forest under private ownership and the number of private forest owners. In 1990, almost no private forest owners existed in the CR but by the end of 2005, there were about 150 000 private forest owners in the CR with 23.2% of forestland. The group of private forest owners is not homogenous. At present, the vast majority of private forest owners have holdings smaller than 2 ha, which are frequently further divided. Private owners with small holdings generally have little professional knowledge of forestry. They also usually have a weak claim to the ownership of the land, a lack of financial means, and often live very far from their forestland and work in other industries. Therefore, the forest policy, and the State administration and authorities try to support the enhancement of their knowledge, elaboration and use of forest management guidelines, consultancy by professional foresters and creation of forest co-operatives by using mainly economic tools. Municipal forest ownership has a long tradition in the CR. At present, communities (cities, towns and villages) possess 15.5% of the total forest area. The majority own small areas of forestland (56.4% own less than 10 ha). Systems of forestland management are quite different, from those that administer their forests and all forest operations on a contractual basis to those performing almost all forest operations by themselves. As for economic tools of forest policy, municipal (communal) forests are treated the same way as private forests. State forestland (59.8%) is administered by several different institutions. The largest of them is the State Enterprise “Forests of the Czech Republic”, headquartered in Hradec Kralove, administering 1.359 mil. ha which is 51% of the total forest area. Other managers are State Enterprise “Military Forests and Farms” (5% of the total forest area) and 4 national parks (4% of forests) belonging to the Ministry of Environment. Additionally certain forests are managed by two Agricultural Universities (faculties of forestry) and by the Office of the President of the CR (see Table 1). Table 1. Forest ownership changes in % between 1990 and 2005 in the CR. Included within the forestry sector are the private forestry companies. They perform different works and operations in forests on a contractual basis. Usually, they do not own any forestland. They originated in the process of transformation of the former Forest Directorates of State Forests. All property of the State forest enterprises, under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture (excluding forest land and forest stands), was divided by the privatisation projects into 1) privatised section (50.6%), 2) section assigned to covering restitution claims of people, whose property could not be returned de facto, and 3) section under administration of the State forests (2 + 3 totals 49.4%). In the very beginning of the privatisation process of the State forest Enterprises, 94 joint stock companies were founded. Subsequently, they were privatised by three auctions, four public tenders and 17 direct sales. Apart from stock holding companies there gradually originated many other firms including limited companies. All firms offer and perform forest services for forest owners, mostly for the State Enterprise “Forests of the Czech Republic”. They can obtain only limited types of subsidies, particularly subsidies supporting innovation investments from the Promoting and Guarantee Farmers’ and Forestry Fund. and y Fund Owner 1990 2005 State 95.8 59.8 Municipalities 0 15.5 Regional governments 0 0.2 Co-operatives 4.1 1.0 Public universities 0 0.3 Private 0.1 23.2 244 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 4. Differentiation of financial funds from public resources The forest, with all its societal production and non-production functions, represents an objective of both private and public interest. Public interest is enforced in all forms of forest ownership. Sustainable management of the forest and sustainable use of all its societal functions is in the public interest. Requirements for intensification of selected non-market functions of the forest according to needs of society (or its parts) may limit the management options for the owner, tenant or a forest manager as far as market and socio-economic relations are concerned. These requirements often mean deterioration in economic efficiency, loss of income, additional costs. In such a case it is necessary to calculate and cover the emerging economic losses within the frame of the market economy. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic traditionally comes from numerous sources and subsidy titles. The system of forestry financing is rather complicated (Sisak & Pulkrab 2002, Sisak et al. 2002, Sisak & Chytry 2004, Jarsky 2005). Previous analyses imply the need to create a networked and simpler system of subsidies. However, the opposite is apparent. In connection with financing forestry from public resources, interdepartmental coordination of resources and calculation of its efficiency at a nationwide or regional level according to a unified system should occur. The financial means should be treated, monitored and analysed differentially according to their different socio-economic nature. It is important to separate the compensations for economic detriments emerging from reducing forest management and deteriorating economic efficiency of timber production owing to the requirements of society to perform the non-market functions of forest from subsidies and express them separately. Likewise, the funds from public resources that involve the purchase of relevant functions and services of forest and forestry should not be included among subsidies the way it is still happening in the CR (Sisak 2004). The differentiation of the above economic instruments, which ensure meeting the requirements of public interest on forests and their market and non-market functions, is very useful. It would significantly contribute to an increase in the level of decision making on resource allocation and to make forestry financing transparent not only within the Czech Republic but also outwardly for the EU. Financial means from public resources should be divided into: - actual contributions, subsidies, from public resources that are, in a way, a contribution, support, thus a donation from society or its parts to the subjects in forestry (especially owners, tenants and forest managers) intended for such forest management that meets desired societal requirements, they are funds with a motivational effect, - compensations for economic detriments (losses) for owners, tenants and forest managers caused by restricting forest management, increasing expenses and reducing incomes, i.e. deteriorating the economic efficiency of timber production owing to non-market requirements of the society (so these are not donations or support), - purchase of work and services by the society, the public, its parts, community organs and organisations for the needs of intensification of the non-market societal functions of forest and forestry (even these are not donations or support). 5. State and analysis of forestry financing from public resources The official and statistics documents in the CR (e.g. annual Report on the State of Forest and Forestry in the CR, 2003, 2004) but also other texts define State budget funds for the forestry sector as ‘subsidies’ in forestry. As noted above, it is highly questionable to indicate the mentioned funds as support, thus subsidies from both political and economic points of view in the Czech and international environment (especially EU). The person who receives such information gets an entirely unreal and biased conception of reality, and they can, as a result, react and make decisions in an inadequate way. The situation and trend in funds flowing into forestry over the last five years (where data is available) can be seen in the following structure, presented in Tables 2-4. Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 245 The governmental financial obligations (Table 2) do not represent the financial support in terms of subsidies for owners, tenants, or forest managers. In fact, they are not donations from public resources given to subjects in forestry by the society. They are not even compensations, i.e. payments for economical loss to those subjects that implement the particular works either by order or compulsion to satisfy public interest or for general welfare. On the other hand, the concern is completely different; they are regular payments for services required by government because of public (governmental) interest. It is a purchase of services required by the State. Otherwise, these services would not and could not be normally implemented in the market economy. This cannot be ignored. We have to acknowledge the need for payments and allocate the given volumes of funds and services into relevant categories. Table 2. Governmental financial obligations subject to the Forest Act (mil. CZK)*. * 1 CZK = 0.03 EUR The services, presented in the Table 3, need to be divided into two groups. The first item, the aerial liming and fertilising, is carried out to regulate site quality or site and production conditions damaged in forests of differing ownership as a result of society’s actions, i.e. damages caused by domestic or international industrial pollution. The State has not been able to cover economic losses and damages caused to owners by negative externalities of industry, not even per curiam. The State compensates at least for a part of the detriments and the damages this way; however, quite insufficiently. Therefore, it is not right if the government administration claims that the forest owners are subsidized, financially supported, even presented with charitable gifts for regulation of site and production conditions. The forests were damaged by industrial production and pollutants within the frame of society and government, and thus the damages must be righteously compensated. Table 3. Services provided by the government for forestry (mil. CZK). The other three titles (items 2-5) can be considered as subsidies, financial contributions donated by the government to help subjects in forestry. They are not only subsidies focused on the reinforcement of the production function of forest; they also follow the societal desire to improve the quality of forests and all their non-market functions in the public interest. Activities Years Average 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Soil reclamation and torrent control 125 125 124 91 57 104.4 Licence forest managers 105 110 120 91 127 110.6 Forest management guidelines 33 29 29 29 19 27.8 Soil improving and stabilising tree species 12 11 11 10 10 10.8 Total financial obligation of the state 275 275 284 221 213 253.6 Activities Years Average 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1. Aerial liming and fertilising – polluted areas 75 70 68 15 58 57.2 2. Airborne fire control service 26 15 15 14 14 16.8 3. Large-scale measures for forest protection 1 1 2 2 3 1.8 4. Consultancy 12 15 18 6 8 11.8 5. Other services 5 6 9 2 4 5.2 Total services 119 107 112 39 87 92.8 246 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic Of the items listed in Table 4, item No.1 (Regeneration of forests damaged by air pollution) can be regarded as compensation, i.e. recovery for the detriment and damage caused to the forest owners by air pollution. It is a similar case as in Table 2, item No. 1, while items 2, 9, 10 and 11 (Table 4) can be considered as real subsidies, i.e. financial assistance to provide relevant activities, even though these activities are also connected with the needs of society as a whole, not just with the needs of the given subjects. Item No. 11 basically does not come under actual forestry, i.e. timber production; its importance is insignificant in this connection. Table 4. State subsidies (aids) to forestry by purpose (mil. CZK). *Is merging into Operational Programme for Rural Development and Multifunctional Agriculture, covered by EU funds. Items 3-8 can be described as the purchase of particular services required by society and the state administration. Comparing the available funds on one hand and the real expenses on the other hand, we can say that in a number of items, the reimbursement of costs is quite insufficient. This way, the government is trying to shift a substantial part of the expenses, which it imposed, for the activities implemented on its own behalf onto the shoulders of forest owners. It should be reiterated, these are essentially not subsidies, donations, contributions to someone for their own activities. Item No. 3 (grouping of the small-sized forest owners) is the current focus of the public administration; it simplifies bureaucracy and organization of the public forest administration and its financial demands and at the same time improves the quality of multifunctional forest management, which is a societal concern. Item No. 4 can be interpreted as the purchasing of services by the government because the public interest is the forest owner, manager or tenant using more lower-impact technologies, which are, however, less economically efficient than the conventional ones. Items No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 represent typical purchases of services; of them No. 5 and 6 are merging into Structural Funds of the EU to a large extent. The government administration traditionally tend to claim that the forest management plan is an instrument of the forest owner, manager or tenant, who need it to manage their forest property (it truly might have been that way long ago). Nevertheless, if it really currently works this way, then the government would not state that the owners are obliged to manage forest according to the forest management plan (Forest Act No. 289/1995). Furthermore, the government would not order that the relevant subjects are obliged to have the forest management plan elaborated by authorised companies to a predetermined level of quality and thus for a given price, that they need to have it approved by the state forest administration authorities and then adhere to it when managing their forest property. Activities Years Average 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Regeneration of forests damaged by air pollution 26 28 22 24 27 25.4 Reforestation, establishment, tending of stands 207 241 221 225 248 228.4 Grouping of the small - sized forest owners 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 Ecological and nature friendly technologies 18 23 21 26 31 23.8 Non-market forest services 179 45 32 8 * 52.8 Torrent control 43 1 8.8 Support of endangered species of wild animals 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 Elaboration of forest management plans 82 2 79 65 70 59.6 Other subsidies 3 6 5 5 3 4.4 Programmes co-financed from EU funds 2 5 1.4 Hunting dogs and birds of prey raising and training 1 0.2 Total financial subsidies 567 359 388 360 388 412.4 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 247 In the Czech Republic’s current socio-economic, cultural and legal environment the forest management plan is actually not only an owner’s instrument but also that it is above all an instrument of society, government, and the state administration. Not only is it the administration’s tool for ensuring that tool or ensuring that forest management is in accordance with the current views of the politicians and relevant experts but also providing information required by the public administration (including information on the condition of the forests and the development of management with respect to society’s needs).society s needs) Therefore, the financial resources that an owner, tenant or forest manager has to spend on the elaboration of the forest management plan are not a subsidy in this case, it means they are not either a government donation or compensation for a detriment, i.e. higher or extraordinary expenses accrued by the owner, tenant or forest manager in the market environment. As a matter of fact, these are purchases of services by the government, especially the acquisition of the forest management plan as an instrument ensuring that the desired standard of forest management is carried out by the owners (according to institutionalized opinion of public authorities), and they are also a purchase of information for the authorities. The funds listed in Table 4 show that of an annual average of 412.4 million CZK only 234.4 million CZK, i.e. 57% are real subsidies or contributions. The remaining part is either compensation for detriments or a purchase of societal services. There is a significant difference between the routing of financial means according to the kind of ownership. From the above mentioned average annual value of 412.4 million CZK, an annual average of 69.0 million CZK were used for financing state forests, i.e. 42 CZK/ha, 148.2 million CZK for financing municipal (communal) forests, i.e. 378 CZK/ha, 195.2 million CZK for financing the rest of forests (predominantly private ones). This implies that the state forests have to use their economic resources generated by timber sales to cover the major part of detriments or the expenses resulting from the decreased economic efficiency of timber production caused by forest management restrictions required by the State and providing services for society. This will be apparent in their trading income, economic efficiency and consequently have a negative impact on principles of market economy and unequal conditions for the market participants. Between the 2000 and 2004, there was support provided from a Supporting and Guarantee Agricultural and Forestry Fund. The Fund subsidised interest rates on loans to business subjects (the amounts varied considerably, from 13 to 37 million CZK per year), and paid for the credit guarantees (from 1 to 10 million CZK per year). There were also contributions to the management of military forests in the period 2000–2004 at annual levels of 57 million CZK – 66 million CZK. The support from the State Environment Fund varied to a great extent from 126 million CZK in 2002 to 7 million CZK in 2004; in other words having a significantly downward trend. In 2004 there was a preparation of transition to subsidies from EU Structural Funds – financial support from the Operational Programme for Rural Development and Multifunctional Agriculture, which also includes forestry within the frame of the Operational Program 1.3. There were also funds provided for structural transformation of agricultural production by afforestation, for afforestation of farmland, for planting and protection of young-growth stands. In the first place these are actually purchases of services on behalf of society within the scope of agriculture (not forestry), and not subsidies. They were funds fluctuating from 153 to 120 million CZK per year in 2000-2003. In 2004 the financing was changed to be included in EU structural funds. Overall it can be stated that only a small part of the financial resources going to forestry are real subsidies. Out of the annual average of the values from the years 2000 - 2004 amounting to 967 million CZK of financial resources going to actual forestry through the mediation of the Department of Agriculture indicated as subsidies, only 271 million CZK are real subsidies flowing into forestry itself, which is only 28% of the indicated funds – significantly less than the stated amount. And even these considerably constrained funds are not provided only to help the forest owners, tenants and forest managers assert themselves in the market but also to motivate them to maintain the forests in desired condition, thus, in other words, serve the public interest. 248 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic Subsidies are important especially for private and municipal forest owners who obtain the vast majority of such contributions. While enterprises managing state forest land are supported annually, on average, by about 100-150 CZK/ha (3-5 EUR/ha) of forest land, private and municipal forest owners get more than 500-600 CZK/ha (15-20 EUR/ha) (Table 5). Table 5. Profit of forest owners without/with contribution for forest management 2002-2004. Until 2005 the financial contributions going to forest management were provided from the State budget in accordance with binding regulations, which have been a yearly amendment to the State Budget Act. In 2005 the Department of Agriculture still issued the Obligatory Rules for Financial Contributions for Forest Management in the Year 2005 and Audit Method, which was published on the website of the Department of Agriculture, however the individual regions were not obliged to and did not adhere to it. Since 2005 the major part of contributions was transferred under the competence of regions by the new Act on the Budgetary Allocation of Taxation Revenue. Unfortunately, the Act was inadequate and vague. The Regions were given the financial means, covering also government obligations (so- called ‘mandatory state budget expenditures’, see Table 2), but with no strict biding to use them for the respective purposes. Therefore, the regional authorities could freely dispose of the money, and were not forced to allocate a necessary amount for forestry. As a result, forest owners in some regions were deprived of some of the money the state was obliged to pay them; de jure the Act on the Budgetary Allocation of Taxation Revenue was contradictory to the Act of Forestry. This negatively influenced the market principles and created market disparities between the owners (market subjects in general) in terms of unified market economy of the Czech Republic. It should also be mentioned that the State administration had to face other challenging financial obligations in 2005, the coverage of which became a difficult and unreasonable problem that exceeded the capabilities of the Department of Agriculture and had to be carried out at the Government level. 6. Conclusions The analysis proves that the situation in forestry financing from public sources is rather confusing and difficult. A relatively large amount of titles and resources raises a presumption of a significant provision of financial means for multifunctional forestry. However, these sums are very small in volume and their financial management is complicated and demanding in terms of organization, administration and finance. The complexity of the financing process is similar for both small and large volumes of work, for owners, tenants and managers of both small and large forests. The whole process, starting with project elaboration, continuing with filing an application and its approval and finishing with financing and supervision, needs to be simplified especially regarding the range of activities and the volumes of requested financial means. Owner 2002 2003 2004 State 247 / 406 47 / 205 243 / 356 Municipalities 169 / 764 81 / 749 -40 / 674 Private 433 / 953 722 / 1,254 144 / 678 Average 277 / 586 213 / 534 177 / 479 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 249 Financing (or financial contributions) should be divided into the following categories: - compensation for economic losses in forestry emerged while securing market commodities and services that are required as non-production functions of forest, - purchase of particular services – productive activities by governmental or societal authorities, - production function subsidies in substandard production and economic conditions for securing sustainable forest management. Furthermore, it is necessary to assess the output provided or reached with the particular financial means not only in physical, technical units, but also in monetary expression, in connection with both production (market) and non-production (non-market) functions. However, these functions also have to be evaluated reasonably from the society’s socio-economic point of view. References Jarsky V. 2005. Verejne finance v lesnim hospodarstvi (Public finances in forestry). Czech University of Agriculture in Prague, Praha, p. 140. Sisak, L. 2004. Promotion of forest environmental services. In: FAO/Czech Republic Forestry Policy Workshop. Trends in forest use and conservation – policy options for action. Hruba Skala. ftp:// ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/008/AD744E/AD744E20.pdf Sisak, L. – Chytry, M. 2004. Analysis financing of forestry in the Czech Republic in the period of transition to market economy. Journal of Forest Science, 50, No. 2, p. 78-85. Sisak, L. – Pulkrab, K. Chytry, M. – Bludovsky, Z. – Zeman, M. – Broukal, T. – Bukacek, J. 2002. Evaluating Financing of Forestry in Europe – country-level report. Czech Republic. Research Report. Praha: Faculty of Forestry, Czech University of Agriculture Prague, p. 58. Sisak, L. – Pulkrab, K.: Nature and structure of financial means supporting the forestry sector in the Czech Republic - Instruments of the Czech State Forest Policy. In: Financial instruments of forest policy. Rovaniemi: European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 42, 2002, p. 151-157. Sisak, L. – Sach, F. – Kupcak, V. – Svihla, V. – Pulkrab, K. – Cernohous, V. – Styblo, J. 2004. Vyjadreni spolecenske efektivnosti existence a vyuzivani funkci lesa v penezni forme v Ceske republice (Expression of socio-economic effectiveness of existence and use of forest services in a pecuniary form in the Czech Republic). Project NAZV No. QF 3233. Periodic report. Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Czech University of Agriculture in Prague, Praha, p. 127. Zprava o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky. 2004. Stav k 31.12.2003 (Report on the state of forests and forestry of the Czech Republic, state to 31.12.2003), Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech republic, Institute of Forest management Brandys nad Labem, p. 114. Zprava o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky. 2005. Stav k 31.12.2004 (Report on the state of forests and forestry of the Czech Republic, state to 31.12.2004), Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech republic, Institute of Forest Management Brandys nad Labem, p. 108. Acknowledgments The paper was prepared in the frame of a research project supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GACR) No. 402/06/1100 Accounting systems and sustainability reporting and their application at microeconomic level (systemy ucetnictvi a reportingu udrzitelneho rozvoje a jejich aplikace na mikroekonomicke urovni). 250 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 251 Financing of Forestry from Public Resources in the Czech Republic Lud ěk Šišák Vice-Dean, Professor Faculty of Forestry and Environment Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague Financing of Forestry from Publi c Resources in the Czech Republ i c L u dek Sisak Facu lty of Forestry and Environment Czech University of Life Sciences Prague  Introduction  Political f ramework  Institutional framework  State and analysis of financing  Conclusions 252 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic Czech Republic : 7 8 8 6 3 k m 2 (7. 8 8 6 mi l . ha ) 1 0. 3 mi l . inhabitants Forests in 1990 – 2 005 : Area: 2.6 2 9 – 2 . 6 47 mi l. ha, 33 . 6 % (several thousand ha of abandoned agric ultural l ands) Growing stock: 54 6 mi l. m 3 u. b – 6 63 mil . m 3 u. b. 2 25 m 3 / ha – 2 59 m 3 / ha Average rotation age: 11 2. 4 – 1 14 . 7 years Total mean increment: 17 mi l. m 3 / year Total current increment: 20 mil . m 3 / year Removals: 15 mi l . m 3 / year Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 253 Sh are of forestry in:  G DP: 0.6 %  Total number of employees: 0.6 % – 0. 7 % (share of generated working places: 5% )  Investments: 0.3%. Changes in Forestry :  A completely new state forest administration formed  A new forest policy decla red and Forest Act passed  Priv ate sector originated  New structure of forest owners came into being  New structure of state forest establishments administering state forest lands occu rred  Q u ite a new system of forestry financing g rad u all y formed Forest ownership ch anges in the territory of the CR (% of forest area) 23.20.1Private 1.04.1Co-operatives 15.5-Municipalities 59.895.8State 20051990Forest ownership State forestland administered b y: - State Enterprise “Forests of the Czech Republi c” ( 51%) - M ilitary Forests and Far ms (5%) - N ational par ks (4 %) 150 thousand priv ate forest owners (3 ha on average). M unicip al forest owners (56.4 % own less than 10 h a) . 254 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic M u ltifunctional and structured forests Subsidies (contributions) Governmental financial obligations subject to the Forest Act (mi l. CZK) 213 10 19 127 57 2 0 0 4 275 12 33 105 125 2 0 0 0 275 11 29 110 125 2 0 0 1 2 5 42 21284Total 1110114) Soil improving and stabilising species 28292 93 ) Forest management guidelines 111911202) Licensed forest managers 104911241) Soil reclamation and torrent control Aver.20 0 32 0 0 2Activities Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 255 Services provided b y the government for forestry (mil. CZK) ( Su bsidies influencing positively environmental aspects) 119 5 12 1 26 75 2 0 0 0 107 6 15 1 15 70 2 0 0 1 112 9 18 2 15 68 2 0 0 2 9 38739Total 5425 ) Other services 12864) Consultancy 2323) Large-scale measure for forest protection 1714142) Airborne fire control service 5758151) Aerial liming and fertilising (polluted areas) Aver.20 0 42 0 0 3Activities State Subsidies to forestry b y p u rpose (mil. CZK) (Securing public interests and supporting the environment) 388 3 70 4 31 4 248 27 2004 567 2 3 82 4 43 179 18 3 207 26 2000 359 5 6 2 4 1 45 23 4 241 28 2001 412360388Total 110) Programmes co-financed by EU 4559) Other subsidies 6065798) Forest management plans 4347) Endangered species - wild animals 96) Torrent control 538325) Non-market forest services 2426214) Ecological technologies 4443) Grouping of small forest owners 2282252212) Reforestation and tending of stands 2524221) Regeneration of air polluted forests Aver20032002Activities 256 Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic Other Subsidies in 2000-2 0 0 4: ( Securing public interests and positively in f lu encin g the environment)  Su p porting and Guar antee Agri cu ltural and Forestry Fund: - interest rate subsid y: 13 – 3 7 m il. CZK - credit guarantee: 1 – 10 m il. CZK  M ilitary forests: 57 – 66 m il. CZK  State Environmental Fund: 7 – 126 m il. CZK  Af forestation of abandoned farmland: 120 – 15 3 m i l. CZK  EU stru ctural f unds: - Sectoral O perational Program , M u ltifunctional Ag r icu lture and Rural Development (20 04- 200 6) - Horizontal Rural Development Plan (20 04- 20 06) 222 / 5 33 433 / 9 62 70 / 729 179 / 3 22 Average Profit 177 / 479 144 / 678 - 40 / 674 243 / 3 56 2004 10.4213 / 5 34277 / 586Average 17.6722 / 1254433 / 9 53Private 22.081 / 749169 / 764Municipal 4.847 / 20 5247 / 406State Contrib. EU R 20032002Owner Profit of forest owners without / w ith contribution for forest management (CZK/h a) 1 CZ K =0. 03 EUR Šišák L. Financing of forestry from public resources in the Czech Republic 257 Conclusions  Forestry financing needs substantial simplif ication and harmonisation (rather confusing and complex).  F inancing should be div ided into 3 categories:  compensation of economic losses (from forest management restriction),  p u rch ase of particular services by governmental or societal authorities,  p roduction (market) function subsidies for securing sustainable forest management and innovations.  Forestry financing outputs should be monitored not only in physical, technical units, but also in monetary v a lues. 258 Bulygina N. Financing of sustainable forest management - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to Poland 259 Financing of Sustainable Forest Management – Overview of a Study Tour by a Russian Expert to Poland Natalia Bulygina Docent, All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry, Pushkino, Russia FOREIGN EXPERI EN CE AN D REFORMS IN THE FOREST SECTOR IN RUSSIA: Wha t ele me nts o f fo res t ma na g e ment a nd fo res try o f E U co untries ca n a lre a dy be us ed in Rus s ia to da y? 260 Bulygina N. Financing of sustainable forest management - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to Poland 1. Estab l i sh men t of comp e ti ti ve en vi ron men t i n f orestry (vi a con trac tu al organ i zati on of w ork s) 2. Divi si on of ad mi n i strati ve an d econ omi c f u n cti on s an d estab l i sh men t of n ew stru ctu res i n f orestry : 1) Lesnic he st v o f o r e xe c ut ing st a t e f unc t io ns; 2) Sta t e c o mme r c ia l e nt e r pr ise s f o r e c o no mic a c t iv it ie s What doe s i t mea n to i mp l e me n t mar ket pri n ci pl e s i n for estry o per ati o ns? 380haM anage m e nt of pla nte d s e e dli ng s ta nds F or e s t r e ge ne r at i on w or ks 200haF or e s t pla nti ng 80ha 5251000Gr owi ng of s e e dli ngs 147kmM ainte na nc e of f ir e s af e ty bar r ie r s 71kmBuildi ng f ir e s af e ty bar r ie r s F ir e s af e ty ac tivitie s 3400m 3 94haSele c tive s a ni tar y f e lli ng 4700m 3 138haThi nni ng 2500m 3 Pre -c om me r c ial t hi nni ng 276haTe ndi ng of young s ta nds F or e s tr y ope r ati ons V ol umeU nitN ame of w or k LESKHO Z 2007 2008 Who is the realizer of work ? Bulygina N. Financing of sustainable forest management - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to Poland 261 Forest Code of the RF, Art. 19 In case activities on conservation, protection and regeneration of forests located on lands owned by the state or municipality are not entrusted on persons that use forests, then state authorities pl ace o rders fo r w or ks o n fo res t co ns erva tio n, pro tectio n a nd reg enera tio n by tenders i n a ccorda nce w i th the procedures es ta bli s hed in Federal Law of June 21, 2005 No 94 FZ WH O IS THE REALI ZER OF WO RK ? LESKHO Z 2007 2008 CONTRACTOR 380haM anage m e nt of pla nte d s e e dli ng s ta nds F or e s t r e ge ne r at i on w or ks 200haF or e s t pla nti ng 80ha 5251000Gr owi ng of s e e dli ngs 147kmM ainte na nc e of f ir e s af e ty bar r ie r s 71kmBuildi ng up f ir e s af e ty bar r ie r s F ir e s af e ty ac tivitie s 3400m 3 94haSele c tive s a ni tar y f e lli ng 4700m 3 138haThi nni ng 2500m 3 Pre -c om me r c ial t hi nni ng 276haTe ndi ng of young s ta nds F or e s tr y ope r ati ons V ol umeU nitN ame of w or k 262 Bulygina N. Financing of sustainable forest management - Overview of a study tour by a Russian expert to Poland CO NTRACT I NG F O RESTRY O P ERATIO NS Cl i ent p re par es a n d an no u nce s a te nd er As a res ul t of a n o pe n ten der, a w i nni ng bi d de r (co ntra cto r) i s i de nti fi ed ha vi ng su b mi tt ed t he best bi d ( pri ce, ex peri enc e, q ual i ty ) an d the p ri ce of the c o ntra ct i s fix ed Cont ra ct i s ma de w i th the w i nni ng bi d der F e de r al law on pla c i ng or de r s f or s upplie s , w or ks a nd s e r vic e s f or s tate a nd m unic ipa l p ur p os e s N o 94-FZ P o ssible w a y s of e xe c ut ing f o r e st r y o pe r a t io ns w he n f unc t io ns a r e div ide d Contractor Department (Committee) of Forestry 1. 1. Work contract 2. Control over execution Lesnichestvo 3. Acceptance of the work 4. Payment for the work 2. Subcontractor Options for payment for work 1. Down payment 20-30% and then final settlement 2. 100% down payment 3. 100% after work is done 263 ANNEX 1 List of participants Belarus HOMETS, Vladimir Head of Department Department of Forestry Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus Ul. Chkalova 6, Minsk, Belarus Tel. +375 (8-017) 224 5906 Fax +375 (8-017) 229 3534 NAVOYCHYK, Leanid Director Republican Training Centre of Forestry Ul. Parkovaya 26, Zhdanovichi, Minsk Region, Belarus Tel. +375 (8-017) 50 98 216 Fax +375 (8-017) 50 98 330 Tel. +375 675 06 57 Bulgaria PALIGOROV, Ivan Dean, Professor Faculty of Business Management University of Forestry E-mail: ivpalig@abv.bg Tel. +359 2 868 0804 Czech Republic ŠIŠÁK, Luděk Professor Faculty of Forestry and Environment Czech University of Life Sciences E-mail: sisak@fle.czu.cz Tel. +420 224 383 705 Estonia TÕNISSON, Kristjan Senior Consultant State Forest Management Centre E-mail: kristian.tonisson@rmk.ee Tel. +372 676 7728 Finland ILAVSKÝ, Ján Senior Researcher Finnish Forest Research Institute Joensuu Research Unit P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jan.ilavsky@metla.fi Tel. +358 10 211 3296 Fax +358 10 211 3251 KARJALAINEN, Timo Professor Finnish Forest Research Institute Joensuu Research Unit P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101Joensuu, Finland E-mail: timo.karjalainen@metla.fi Tel. +358 10 211 3080 Fax +358 10 211 3251 KURKI, Mari Project Assistant Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland P.O. Box 23. FIN-00023 Government E-mail: mari.kurki@mmm.fi Tel. +358 91 605 23 61 Mob. +358 40 074 29 40 PARVIAINEN, Jari Director Finnish Forest Research Institute Joensuu Research Unit P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jari.parviainen@metla.fi Tel. +358 10 211 3010 Fax +358 10 211 3113 264 RAUTIO, Ari Head Auditor Metsähallitus - Finnish Forest and Park Service E-mail: ari.rautio@metsa.fi Tel. +358 400 386 796 TORNIAINEN, Tatu Researcher University of Joensuu Address: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Unioninkatu 40 A, 00170 Helsinki E-mail: tatu.torniainen@metla.fi Tel. +358 10 211 2249 VÄLKKY, Elina Researcher Finnish Forest Research Institute Joensuu Research Unit P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: elina.valkky@metla.fi Tel. +358 10 211 3261 Fax +358 10 211 3251 France SALVIGNOL, Christian Chairman UNECE/FAO/ILO Joint Experts Network to Implement Sustainable Forest Management E-mail: salvignol@centre-forestier.org Tel. +33 490 77 88 00 www.eduforest.eu Latvia BIRGELIS, J ānis Director Department of Forest Policy Ministry of Agriculture E-mail: janis.birgelis@zm.gov.lv Tel. +371 70 27 477 Lithuania VANCEVIČIUS, Andrius Head of Division Directorate General of State Forests Ministry of Environment E-mail: teise@gmu.lt Tel. +37 068 694 301 www.gmu.lt Poland BORKOWSKI, Piotr Head of the Liaison Unit Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe E-mail: p.borkowski@lu-warsaw.pl Tel. +48 22331 7031 WÓJCIK, Tomasz Head of Department General Directorate of the State Forests E-mail: t.wojcik@lasy.gov.pl Romania ALDEA, Dan General Manager National Forest Administration - ROMSILVA E-mail: dan.aldea@rosilva.ro Tel. +40 723 247 088 www.rosilva.ro MIHAI, Dragos Head of International Relations National Forest Administration - ROMSILVA E-mail: dragosm@rosilva.ro Tel. +40 21 310 1290 265 Russian Federation ARKHIPENKO, Ljubov Ivanovna Deputy Head of Department Forest Committee of the Komi Republic Ul. Pervomaiskaya 78, 167982 Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi, Russian Federation E-mail: okomles@parma.ru Tel. +7 (8212) 241 133 Fax +7 (8212) 243 018 ARTEMYEV, Aleksandr Petrovich Head of Unit Sevzaplesproekt - “Northwest Forest Inventory Enterprise” Ul. Koli Tomchaka, 16, 196084 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (812) 388 2775 Fax +7 (812) 388 0384 www.lesproekt.sp.ru BELOUSOV, Nikolai Danilovich Director Department of Forestry of Vladimir Region Sudogodskoe shosse 11-b, 600023 Vladimir-23, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (4922) 324 571 +7 (4922) 32 571 Fax +7 (4922) 329 694 (4922) 32 BELOVA, Zoya Nikolaevna Chief Forester Department on Ecology and Natural Resources of the Tula Region, GU TO ”Tulskiy opytnyi leskhoz” Ul. Scheglovskaya zaseka 36, 300004 Tula, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (4872) 411 707 Tel./fax +7 (4872) 418 910 Mob. +7 910 581 5652 +7 910 581 565 BOLSHAKOV, Boris Deputy Head Federal Forestry Agency of the Russian Federation BOREL, Vladimir Fedorovich Chief Forester Department of Forest Sector of the Arkhangelsk Region, OGU “Onezhskiy leskhoz” Pr. Kirova 93, 164840 Onega, Arkhangelsk Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (81839) 71 867 +7 (8183981839) BORISOV, Valery Vasiljevich Head of Unit Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation Department of State Policy in Forest and Water Resource Management BOTANOV, Dmitry Nikolaevich Chief Forester Ministry of Forestry of the Mari El Republic, GU RME “Orshanskiy leskhoz” BUKOLOVA, Irina Aleksandrovna Head of Department All-Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry (ARICEF) Department of Ecology, Silviculture and Technology in Forestry Ul. Institutskaya 17, 141200 Pushkino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation E-mail: exp.05@list.ru Tel. +7 (916) 553 8565 BULYGINA, Natalya Nikolaevna Docent All Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry (ARICEF) Ul. Institutskaya 17, 141200 Pushkino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation E-mail: natarh@rambler.ru Tel. +7 (496) 532 04 89 BUSHKOV, Sergey Anatolyevich Director OOO “Taksator”, Kostroma Region CHERNYSHOV, Aleksey Yanisovich Director Dep. of Natural Resources and Env. Protection of the Tver Region, GU TO “Maksatikhinskiy leskhoz” Ul. Sovetskaya 79, p. Maksatikha, Tver Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (482 53) 21 134 Mob. +7 910 535 6559 266 CHUPROV, Vladimir Alekseevich Deputy Head of Unit Forest Department of the Komi Republic E-mail: okomles@parma.ru Tel. +7 (212) 200 326, 200 326 DOROFEEV, Maksim Evgenyevich Deputy Director OAO “Rosgiproles” Volzhskiy bulvar, kvartal 95, korpus 2, 109125 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: rosgiproles@mail.ru Tel. +7 (495) 177 9496 Fax +7 (495) 177 5835 DMITRIEV, Vladimir Viktorovich World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Ul. Nikoloyamskaya 19 stroenie 3, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: vdmitriev@wwf.ru Tel. +7 (495) 727 0939 DRUZHININ, Fedor Nikolaevich Chief Forester Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Mari El, GU RME “Kozikovskiy leskhoz” Ul. N. Stroika 48, p. Yurkino, 425384 Yurinskiy Region, Republic of Mari El, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (836244) 32 191 +7 (836244) EFA, Dmitry Eduardovich Director Forestry Department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region-Yugry, BU “Yuganskiy leskhoz” FILJUSHKINA, Galina Nikolaevna Programme Coordinator Swedish-Russian Cooperation Programme in Forestry E-mail: filyushkina@yandex.ru Tel. +7 916 226 6908, Mob. +7 911 772 9031 GAVRILYEVA, Valentina Sergeevna Senior Adviser Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Legal Department E-mail: vs@mnr.gov.ru Tel. +7 (495) 254 8192 GERASIMOVA, Zhanna Evgenevna Leading Specialist All Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry (ARICEF) Ul. Institutskaya 17, 141200 Pushkino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation E-mail: Janna@forest-education.ru Tel. +7 (496) 532 0489 + (496(496496 532 048 GOLUBTSOV, Sergey Aleksandrovich Deputy Head of the Forest Committee Administration of the Vologda Region, Department of Forestry Ul. Gorkogo 86 a, Vologda, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (8172) 545 635 Ul. Gerusta 2, Vologda, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (8172) 720 303 +7 (81728172172) 72 IVANOVSKIY, Vladimir Pavlovich Director Forestry Department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region-Yugry, BU “Pionerskiy leskhoz” Ul. Kirova-19, p. Pionerskiy, Sovetsk Region, 628007 Tyumenskaya oblast, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (34675) 40 451 Mob. +7 904 885 3132 90 88 KALASHNIKOV, Vladimir Vitalyevich Deputy Head Forest Committee of Ivanovsky Region KISELEV, Aleksey Vasilyevich Forester Department of Forest Sector of the Nizhegorodskiy Region, FGU “Sharangskiy leskhoz” KOKHANOVA, Svetlana Head of Department Department of Forest Sector of the Vologda Region KOREPOLOV, Andrey Leonidovich Chief Forester Forestry Department of the Vladimir Region, GU “Sobinskiy leskhoz” Ul. Molodezhnaya 1, Sobinka, Vladimir Region, Russian Federation Tel./Fax +7 (49242) 21 094 Mob. +7 905 619 0652 267 KORNIENKO, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Chairman State Committee of the Republic of Karelia on Forestry Ul. Dzerzhinskogo 9, 185035 Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (8142) 784 774 Fax +7 (8142) 767 590 KOZLOVA, Elena Viktorovna Forester Forestry Department of the Vladimir Region, GU “Zarechniy leskhoz” Pokrovskiy proezd 17a, Petushki, Vladimir Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (49243) 24 389, 62 181 Mob. +7 903 504 1356 +7 90 50 KROTOVA, Natalya Lvovna Head of Unit Department of Forest Sector of the Arkhangelsk Region Pr. Troitskiy 14, 163000 Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation E-mail: krotova@arhalh.atnet.ruva@arhalh.atnet.ru Tel. +7 (8182) 211 360 +7 (8182) 21 Fax +7 (8182) 205 949 +7 (8182) 20 KULIKOVA, Elena Director WWF Russia, Forest Programme LEBEDEV, Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Chief Forester Forest Department of the Novgorod Region Ul. Sezdovskaya 21, Holm, Novgorod Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (81654) 52 203 Mob. +7 921 194 3909 LOVTSOVA, Nadezhda Vladimirovna First Vice Rector All Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry (ARICEF) Ul. Institutskaya 17, 141200 Pushkino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation E-mail: hope@forest-education.ru Tel. +7 (496) 993 3880 LYZLOV, Igor Yurievich Head of Unit Forest Department of the Komi Republic E-mail: okomles@parma.ru Tel. +7 (8212) 200 326, 245 752 MEZENTSEV, Pavel Evgenyevich Director Forestry Department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region-Yugry, BU “Khanty-Mansiyskiy leskhoz” Tel. +7 (346 63) 37 507, 37 077 MIKHAILOVA, Olga Evgenevna Chief Forester Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Republic of Chuvashya, GU “Yantikovskiy leskhoz” Pr. Lenina-6, Yantikovo, Yantikovo Region, Republic of Chuvashkaya Tel. +7 (8248) 21 502 +7 (8248248 NIKONOV, Sergey Leonidovich Chief Forester Department of Industry and Forestry of the Tyumen Region, GU TO “Uporovskiy leskhoz” 625000 Tyumen, Russian Federation Russian Tel. +7 (345 41) 31 537, 32 162 (34 41) 537 OBUKHOV, Vasily Dmitrievich Director Forest Department of the Republic of Komi Ul. Pervomaiskaya 78, 167982 Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi E-mail: okomles@parma.ru Tel. +7 (8212) 242 128 Fax +7 (8212) 244 327 OBUKHOVA, Tatyana Vasilyevna Specialist Forest Department of the Republic of Komi Ul. Pervomaiskaya 78, 167982 Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi E-mail: okomles@parma.ru Tel./Fax +7 (8212) 242 669 ORLOVA, Larisa Viktorovna Deputy Director Forestry Department of the Kostroma Region PAVLOV, Aleksey Nikolaevich Director Forestry Department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region-Yugry, BU “Khanty-Mansiyskiy leskhoz” Tel. +7 (346 71) 26 568 268 PETROV, Anatoly Pavlovich Rector All Russian Institute for Continuous Education in Forestry (ARICEF) Ul. Institutskaya 17, 141200 Pushkino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation E-mail: petrov@forest-education.ru Tel. +7 (495) 993 3644 POCHINKOV, Sergey Vasilyevich Head of Department OAO “Rosgiproles” Volzhskiy bulvar, kvartal 95, korpus 2, 109125 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: rosgiproles@mail.ru@mail.rmail.r.r POLYAKOV, Mikhail Vasilyevich Director Forestry Department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region-Yugry, BU “Nizhnevartovskiy leskhoz” Tel. +7 (3466) 214 770 PONOMAREV, Anatoly Vladimirovich Chief Forester Department of Industry and Forestry of the Tyumen Region, GU TO “Yarkovskiy leskhoz” Tel. +7 (34531) 25 289 Tel./Fax +7 (34531) 25 249 PRODAN, Mikhail Mikhailovich Director Forestry Department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region-Yugry, BU “Surgutskiy leskhoz” Tel. +7 (3462) 239 661, 239 666 PUZHALOV, Vladimir Mikhailovich Chief Engineer Department of Forest Sector of the Nizhegorodskiy Region, FGU “Kulebakskiy leskhoz” Tel. +7 (276) 50 510, 54 757 +7 (276) 510 RUMYANTSEVA, Tatyana Aleksandrovna Leading Specialist OAO “Rosgiproles” Volzhskiy bulvar, kvartal 95, korpus 2, 109125 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: rosgiproles@mail.ru SHALAEV, Valentin Sergeevich Vice-Rector of International Relations Moscow State University of Forestry Ul. Institutskaya 1, 141005 Mytishi-5, Moscow Region, Russian Federation SHARAEV, Sergey Head of Centre Federal Forestry Agency of the Russian Federation, Centre of International Relations SHUBIN, Leonid Ivanovich Chief Forester Forest Administration of the Penza Region, GU PO “Akhunskiy leskhoz” Ul. K. Studenyj 10, poselok Akuny 440014 Penza, Penza Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (8412) 682 447, 682 327 SHULGACH, Tatyana Head of Department Dep. of Regulation of Natural Res. and Development of Oil-Gas Sector of the Yamalo-Nenetsk Reg. STEPCHENKO, Alexandr Anatolyevich Director Forestry Agency of St.Petersburg and Leningrad Region, Severo-Zapadnyj Leskhoz SURZHIKOV, Vladimir Director Department of Natural Resources of Smolensk Region SVESHNIKOV, Andrey Yuryevich Director Department of Forest Sector of the Arkhangelsk Region, OGU “Nyandomskiy leskhoz” Ul. Sovetskaya 22, Nyandoma, Arkhangelsk Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (818 38) 62 663 TARASOV, Alexandr Nikolaevich Director Department of Forest Sector of the Arkhangelsk Region, OGU “Ustyanskiy leskhoz” TEPLYAKOV, Viktor Konstantinovich Head of Programme IUCN Temporal and Boreal Forest Programme Stolyarnyj pereulok 3-3, 123022 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: victor.teplyakov@iucn.org, victor.teplyakov@ mail.ru Tel./Fax +7 (495) 609 3411, +7(903) 618 5968 269 TITOVA, Larisa Pavlovna Head of Division Federal Forest Agency - Rosleshoz Pyatnitskaya 59/19, Moscow Tel. +7 (495) 231 8795 TOROPOVA, Irina Nikolaevna Chief Forester Department of Forest Sector of the Arkhangelsk Region, OGU “Krasnoborskiy leskhoz” Ul. Gagarina 130, Krasnoborsk, Arkhangelsk Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (818 40) 21 682 (81 40) TSYKINA, Olga Ivanovna Director Department of Natural Resources and Env. Protection of the Tver Region, GU TO “Bezhetskiy leskhoz” Ul. Vvedenskaya 33, Bezhetsk, Tver Region, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (482 31) 21 953 VASILYEV, Grigory Stepanovich Chief Forester Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Republic of Chuvashia, GU “Opytnyj leskhoz” Ul. Dubravnaya 1, Cheboksary, Republic of Chuvashiya, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (8352) 351 521 VOYTSEKHOVSKIY, Mikhail Bogdanovich Director General OAO “Rosgiproles” Volzhskiy bulvar, kvartal 95, korpus 2, 109125 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: rosgiproles@mail.ru Tel. +7 (495) 177 9496 Fax +7 (495) 177 5835 http://www.rosgiproles.ru VUKOLOVA, Irina Head of Department All Russian Institute of Continuous Education in Forestry (ARICEF) YAKUBOV, Ivan Journalist Lesnaya Gazeta ZARUBINA, Natalia Head of Division Federal Forestry Agency of the Russian Federation, Division of Perspective Development and Law ZOLOTAREV, Viktor Borisovich Chief Forester Forest Department of the Vladimir Region, GU “Kovrovskiy leskhoz” Ul. Leskhoznaya 4, 601901 Kovrov, Vladimir Region, Russian Federation E-mail: les@kovrov.ru Tel. +7 (492) 322 2120 Mob. +7 (905) 142 1415 +7 (905905 14 ZUBRIN, Andrey Anatolyevich Specialist-expert Forest Department of the Novgorod Region Pr. Karla Marksa 19, Velikyj Novgorod, Russian Federation Tel. +7 (8162) 77 0247 +7 (81628162 270 Serbia JOVIC, Dusan Senior Advicer Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Directorate of Forests E-mail: djjovic@net.yu Tel. +381 11 313 01 34 Slovakia KOLENKA, Ivan Professor of Forest Economy Technical University Zvolen E-mail: ikolenka@usld.tuzvo.sk Tel. +421 45 520 6314 Slovenia VESELIČ, Živan Assistant Director Slovenia Forest Service E-mail: zivan.veselic@zgs.gov.si Tel. +386 470 00 53 Ukraine TKACH, Victor Director Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration E-mail: tkach@uriffm.org.ua Tel. +380 57 704 102 International Organisations Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Warsaw Borkowski, Piotr Head of the Liaison Unit E-mail: p.borkowski@lu-warsaw.pl Tel. +48 22 331 7031 The World Conservation Union - IUCN Teplyakov, Viktor Konstantinovich Head of Programme IUCN Temporal and Boreal Forest Programme Stolyarnyj pereulok 3-3, 123022 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: victor.teplyakov@iucn.org, victor.teplyakov@ mail.ru Tel./Fax +7 (495) 609 3411, +7(903) 618 5968 UNECE/FAO/ILO Joint Experts Network to Implement Sustainable Forest Management Salvignol, Christian Chairman E-mail: salvignol@centre-forestier.org Tel. +33 490 77 88 00 www.eduforest.eu World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Dmitriev, Vladimir Viktorovich Ul. Nikoloyamskaya 19 stroenie 3, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: vdmitriev@wwf.ru Tel. +7 (495) 727 0939