kovdozerskiy model forest Simple Storage Service

1

3/29/2007

Marine Elbakidze School for Forest Engineers [email protected]

KOVDOZERSKIY MODEL FOREST - A CASE STUDY

www.balticforest.net

2

Kovdozerskiy Model Forest Report for the EU InterReg IIIB project “Baltic Forest” about the development process of the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest (Murmansk oblast in NW Russian Federation)

Parts of this report are based on interviews and data collection made during a working visit to Kovdozerskiy Model Forest October 26th, – November 3rd, 2006

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences School for Forest Engineers The report has been produced by our external expert Marine Elbakidze in close cooperation with Robert Axelsson and Per Angelstam To contact the author: Marine Elbakidze Faculty of Geography Ivan Franko National University of Lviv Doroshenko str., 41 Lviv Ukraine 79000 [email protected]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

3

List of contents KOVDOZERSKIY MODEL FOREST ______________________________1

Executive summary ___________________________________________4 Objectives of the report about Kovdozerskiy Model Forest ____________8 General data about Murmansk Oblast ____________________________8 Main stages of creating the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest (KMF) ________9 2002 ___________________________________________________________9 2003 __________________________________________________________10 2004 __________________________________________________________10 2005 __________________________________________________________11 2006 __________________________________________________________11

The main motives for creating the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest________12 Basic information about the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest ____________12 The main historical phases of forest use in the area of Kovdozerskiy Model Forest ________________________________________________________14 Some facts concerning the economic, ecological and socio-cultural situation in the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest _________________________________15 Considerations about the economic situation in the KMF ____________________ 15 Considerations about the biodiversity situation in the KMF __________________ 20 Considerations about the socio-cultural situation in the KMF _________________ 22

Key Criteria of a Model Forest: how does Kovdozerskiy Model Forest match them? ________________________________________________23 1. An inclusive and dynamic partnership ___________________________23 2. A commitment to sustainable forest management __________________24 3. Scale: a landscape large enough to represent an area’s diverse forest uses and values _____________________________________________________25 4. A governance structure that is representative, transparent, and accountable____________________________________________________26 5. Scope: a program of activities reflective of partner needs and values __27 6. A commitment to knowledge-sharing, capacity-building and networking, from the local to the international levels ____________________________27

Discussion and conclusions____________________________________28 Acknowledgements ___________________________________________29 Appendix 1 _________________________________________________30 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

4

Executive summary The overall goal of this report is to provide information about the development of the Model Forest (MF) concept in the Kovdozerskiy Leskhoz (located in the Murmansk region in the NW corner of the Russian Federation) as of late October 2006. Different methods were applied. I interviewed the main stakeholders and landscape managers who have been involved with the process of MF creation to understand the process of MF development, and to learn about their opinions about the process. In addition, I collected and analyzed forest inventory and other statistic data for the area of the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest (KMF) to get a quantitative overview about the present socio-economic and ecological situation in the area. The main goal of the KMF is to promote and support forest-based sustainable development in northwest Russia. This should be achieved through developing participatory collaboration for (1) balancing needs and interests of different stakeholders in the area, (2) improving the forest management in the leskhoz, (3) encouraging the development of ecotourism in the area, and (4) increasing public awareness with respect to sustainable forest management. The Kovdozerskiy MF is located in the southern part of Murmansk Oblast between 66º and 68º N latitude and 30º to 32º E longitude. Geographically the KMF occupies the lower part of the Kovda river catchment, which flows to the Kandalaksha Bay of the White Sea. It borders with the Karelian Republic in the south. There are 8 villages and towns in the KMF area, and the density of population is about 3.7 persons per km². The area of the MF, more than 400,000 ha, seems to be big enough to represent the diversity of forests, forest resources and use, and forest activities with a wide range of stakeholders. Forestry was the main industry in the area of KMF during the Soviet period. The harvesting activity was very intensive and annual allowable cuts were exceeded quite often. As a consequence of the forest exploitation (often referred to as “forest mining”) during that time, young and middle aged forests dominate in the area of the KMF today. The current system for forest governance in Russia is based on a division of responsibility between owner (the state doing management) and users (e.g. leasing companies doing harvesting). At present the extremely limited state financing of the leskhoz is the main reason behind the present low level of forest management in the area. The leskhoz has to reduce or stop some silvicultural activities due to lack of finance. At present there is no an economic interest to lease forests in the KMF area. There are 4 small logging companies which bought forests on the auction. To restore the wood volume in the area there is a need to redirect logging companies from final felling towards commercial thinning, for which the Scandinavian rather than traditional Russian techniques are suitable. The only activity of the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

forest enterprise (i.e. leskhoz), which is profitable, is to sell firewood to local people. One way to make forestry profitable would be to develop production and utilization of bio-energy from the forests. There are several enterprises in the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest, which are not involved with forestry. These include housing and communal services (4), fish industry (2), railroad company (1), and shops (15). In the KMF there are several protected areas, which cover a total area of 36,248 ha, or 9% of the total area of the KMF. The total area of the forests which are excluded from forest exploitation due to ecological reasons is 102,154 ha, or 25% of the total area of the KMF. Thus, in a total of 34% of the KMF area ecological consideration should be taken into account. The personal comments of all interviewed people during my visit were that biodiversity is not an urgent issue. Nevertheless, there are several arguments that cast doubt with respect the optimistic opinions about the ecological considerations in the KMF: (1) many protected areas exist dejure (on the paper) but not de-facto, (2) there is no common practice to map and protect key biotopes/habitats, (3) over-harvesting during the Soviet time led to the drastic changes in age structure of forests and to reduction of the natural amount of old-growth and over-mature forests. Forest goods and services are of significant importance for the people in the KMF area’s villages and municipalities, especially now during the deep economic crisis. Local people depend on using of forest resources (berries, mushrooms, fuel wood, and wood for house-building) in their daily life. The main social problem is the high level of unemployment, which has been between 21 to 30% during the last five years. Young people dominate among the unemployed. There is a need to develop businesses which could bring money to the local budget. Many people in the villages are well educated, even university degrees are quite common. At the same time alcoholism is a common problem. The KMF is in an early stage of MF development. There are 31 partners of the KMF. These represent mostly the main sectors of the local economy, societies and administrations in the area. The development of the KMF is supported financially by the Regional government and the Agency of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast. Potential challenges for the partnership include: (1) domination by partners from the traditional forest sector, with their potentially more narrow needs and interests in the partnership development; (2) disparity in sharing responsibilities and power between regional and local levels in the KMF management. The main goal for creation of the KMF is to change the forest management practice of the leskhoz from wood mining towards SFM. This is then expected to bring, first of all, economic and social benefits to the local economy and local people. As indicated by interviews, the program for SFM development planned to be adopted in the KMF will be mostly based on the experience, knowledge and technologies imported from Scandinavian countries. The high dependence of SFM development based on imported ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

5

knowledge and external finances makes the whole concept of the KMF very unstable. The ecological component in the SFM program is absent. The plans of rural development activities and non-wood forest product development based on the local knowledge and experience have not yet been developed. The KMF is in the process of developing a governance structure. The assembly of partners and the Board of Model Forest Partners are the main decision-making and governing bodies. The NGO “Kovdozerskiy Model Forest”, which was established in February 2006, is the main executive body. The Council of the NGO is created for dealing with day-to-day operations. The MF is open for all partners. The procedure to become a partner of the MF is very simple. There are several aspects in the development of the governance model which could become reasons for future conflicts. These include but are not limited to: (1) the Council of the NGO represents only the Forest sector, (2) the members of the NGO and the Council of the NGO were elected without discussing it at the assembly of MF partners, (3) most of the MF management comes from Murmansk, which is locate in around 400 km and 6-7 hours by train away from KMF, (4) there is a need to involve local people as partners and into discussions about the development of the MF and to make available and accessible for them all information about the partners’ decisions. According to the program of the KMF development many investments should be done to develop/restore the traditional forest industry. It seems that inclusion of this topic in the program is a result of the domination of the forest sector representatives in the decision-making process. There is a need to make a feasibility study to orient the program for exploring development of other wood products, and non-industrial use of non-wood forest resources such as tourism based of use of nature and cultural heritage in the area. A prerequisite for successful development of the KMF is inclusive a partnership. This is a big challenge to achieve in post-socialism countries where the civil society is still at an early stage of development. Therefore, providing lessons of democracy about the development of partnerships and democratic leadership are the most important pieces of knowledge that could be brought from the democratic countries. The KMF became a member of the Russian Model Forest Network in 2006. There are five Model Forests in Russia. Judging from interviews and analyses, at least two stages of Model Forest development could be distinguished in Russia today. During the first stage the Model Forests were more like “areas for exercises of the foreign donors”. A main aim was to adopt appropriate forest management regimes, which was favorable for the foreign forest companies exporting to Western market. Some of the Model Forests were created completely under “turnkey” of the donors, which caused serious problems to accept the concept by local people. Gaining own experience by Model Forests under Russian conditions during a decade has led to a deeper understanding of their role for the ecological, economic and socio-cultural development in different regions. As a second ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

6

stage of the evolutionary development of the Model Forests, the representatives of the MFs decided to create a network of MFs in Russia. The forest sector (forestry and forest industry) in Russia is in the process of radical transformation. “Unpredictable” changes in the forest legislation could cause undesirable development of the ecological and socio-cultural situation in the regions, and to create an economy which is unprofitable on regional and local levels. Under such conditions the Model Forests in Russia would be not only be examples of the “3-pillars of sustainability” approach to forest management, but also arenas for protection of rights, needs, value and interests of local and regional partners.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

7

8

Objectives of the report about Kovdozerskiy Model Forest The overall goal of this report is to provide information about the development of the Model Forest (MF) concept in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz (located in the Murmansk region in the Russian Federation) as of late October 2006. The main sub-objectives were to understand: • the main reasons for establishing the Kovdozerskiy MF • the main steps towards implementation of the Model Forest concept, which have been taken by the MF partnership • the economic, ecological and socio-cultural situation in the Kovdozerskiy MF area • the main historical phases of forest use to improve understanding of the background of ecological and socio-cultural processes in the area My methods during the visit were to: • conduct interviews with the main stakeholders and managers who have been involved with the process of MF creation for understanding of the process, and their opinions about the process • collect and analyze forest inventory and other statistic data for the area of the Kovdozerskiy MF to get a quantitative overview about the present socio-economic and ecological situation in the area

General data about Murmansk Oblast The Murmansk region is situated north of the Arctic Circle. The region’s area is 144 900 km² and there are 6.7 people per km². Totally 966 300 people are living in the Murmansk region. Most people work in the metal mining and fishing industries. The forest industry in Murmansk has never played a significant role in the local economy and it has never been economically profitable. Nevertheless the forests in northern Europe have global importance because of their size and wide distribution, biodiversity, role in the carbon cycle, and actual and potential influence on the international trade in forest products (Barentsinfo 2004). There are 10 leskhozes in the Murmansk region (Table 1). Forests in Russia are divided into three groups. Group one is forests with protective and social functions. The second group includes forests with ecological functions and has thus certain limitations for use. Group three is forests available for commercial use. In Murmansk region the three main tree species are Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) (44%), Norway spruce (Picea abies) (29%) and birches (Betula sp.) (27%). The total amount of timber in the region forest fund is estimated at 221.8 million m³. Of this amount 117.7 million m³ representing 5979.7 thousand ha of forest (61%) belongs to the first group of forests; and 56 million m³ or 3488.8 thousand ha (37%) belongs to the third group of ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

forests. Out of the total amount of cutting during the year 2000 there were 83% final cuttings, 16% sanitary cutting, 1 % sanitary final cutting 1 and 0.1% thinning (MNR 2004, Wiik 2004). Table 1. Leskhozes in the Murmansk region and their land area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Name Pechenskiy Kolskij Murmanskij Monchegorskij Kirovskij Lovoserskij Zachejkovskij Kandalakchkij Terskij Kovdozerskiy

Area (ha) 928 921 893 289 663 361 419 492 684 684 1 788 355 681 462 922 179 2 084 874 400 626

Main stages of creating the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest (KMF) 2002 The Barents Euro-Arctic Council/ Working Group on Economic Cooperation (BEAC/WGEC) 2 started the planning process for identifying a suitable MF area in North West Russia during 2002 – 2003 3 . With the guidance from the WGEC and its Barents Forest Sector Task Force (BFSTF), the mission was carried out by: ¾ the University of Joensuu and FEG Ltd from Finland, ¾ the International Centre of Forestry and Forest Industry (ICFFI) in St. Petersburg, Russia (Forest Technical Academy in St. Petersburg) ¾ the Forestry Board of Västerbotten, Sweden The following actions were taken: ¾ an open call for MF proposals was launched ¾ questionnaires were sent to the regional committees of the natural resources in Karelia, Murmansk, Novgorod, Vologda and Leningrad

According to the Russian forest legislation, sanitary cuttings should be made to predict/stop expansion of forest pests and diseases with the aim to improve forests’ health 2 See for details about BEAC/WGEC and BFSTF in Appendix 1 3 Terms of Reference for the development of Murmansk Model Forest, 2004. 1

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

9

2003

4

FSTF received three proposals from Archangelsk region and one from Murmansk. Arhangelsk‘s suggestion included three alternative areas (leskhozes) for the development of model forests: 1. Velsk leskhoz in southwest Archangelsk, which has a history of very intensive industrial forestry 2. Onega leskhoz in northwest Archangelsk, which is at the moment quite effectively utilized 3. Kargopol leskhoz in northeast Archangelsk, where forest resources has been under-utilized As a result of an evaluation process, the committee of Natural Resources of Murmansk region proposed Kovdozerskiy leskhoz as the location for developing a MF. In February 2003 MF activities were discussed in the meeting of the BFSTF in St. Petersburg. FSTF decided to organize a mission to Archangelsk and Murmansk. In June 2003 the visit took place. The visitor group consisted of members of the Barents Forest Sector Task Group from Finland, Sweden and Russia (Clas Fries, Swedish Forestry Board, Paavo Pelkonen, Joensu University and BFSTF, Jukka Erhonen, FEG Ltd, Evgeny Kuznetsov, Forest technical academy in St Petersburg as translator). The aim of the visits was to evaluate the suitability of the areas, staff resources and their capacity and potential involvement of other stakeholders from the perspective of the development of a MF. In September 2003 FSTF gave the preliminary report to WGEC in Luleå, Sweden, and informed that the forestry districts in Archangelsk and Murmansk Oblasts had expressed their interest in participating in the Model Forest work. The two main alternatives, Kovdozerskiy in Murmansk and Onega in Archangelsk, were judged to be more or less equally suited to become model forests. However, access and ability to contribute financially spoke in favor in Kovdozerskiy. The WGEC thus supported the further development of a MF in Kovdozerskiy.

2004 In January 2004 WGEC informed the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation and the Agency of Natural Resources in Murmansk Oblast that Kovdozerskiy leskhoz was chosen for the development of a MF 5 . It was underlined that the leskhoz had a good experience in the field of international cooperation concerning the improvement of forest management: ¾ The leskhoz made a landscape-ecological plan for forest management in the frame of a Finnish-Russian project called “The development of sustainable management of forest resources in Northwest Russia” (1999 – 2001) 4

Terms of Reference for the development of Murmansk Model Forest, 2004.

5

The archives of Kovdozerskiy leskhoz (official correspondences between representatives of governmental institutions in Murmansk Oblast).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

10

11

¾ Since 2002 the leskhoz has been participating in an international project named “Regeneration and nursing young forest plantations in Murmansk and Archangelsk Oblasts”. In June 2004 the Agency of Forestry and the Department of Natural Resources in Murmansk Oblast made a request to the Governor of Murmansk Oblast to give a support for creation of Kovdozerskiy MF. The support to the process was given. In July 2004 the Department of Natural Resources in Murmansk Oblast sent a request to support of Kovdozerskiy MF to the Federal Agency of Forestry (FAF) in Moscow. The FAF and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation gave a permit to the Department of natural resources in Murmansk Oblast to develop the MF in Kovdozerskiy leskhoz. In September 2004 the representatives from Kovdozerskiy MF went to the inauguration of Vilhelmina MF. They met Peter Besseau from the International Model Forest Network Secretariat (IMFNS) who got interested in the development of Kovdozerskiy MF. In November 2004 the Agency of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast asked the Duma in Murmansk Oblast to support financially the creation of the MF, and to include it into the budget of Oblast in 2005. A total of 400,000 rubles were included into the regional budget in 2005 for the creation of a MF. The investment of 2,000,000 rubles was planned from 2005 to 2009 for development of the MF.

2005 In April 2005 A. Zimin, the Head of the Agency of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast, and E. Valueva, the forest specialist from the Agency of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast, visited Gassinskij MF in Khabarovsk region with the financial support from the International Model Forest Network Secretariat. During the visit they got the first positive vision about what could be achieved through the development of Model Forests in Russia 6 . In November 2005 E. Valueva and A. Alhimchikov participated in Model Forest Global Forum in Costa-Rica with the financial support of the International Forest Model Network Secretariat. E. Valueva met with representatives from Gassinski and Komi Model Forests in Russia.

2006 In February 2006 the NGO “Kovdozerskiy Model Forest” was created. Peter Besseau contacted the Head of the Federal Agency of Forestry in the Russian Federation. He convinced the Russian governmental officials to support a creation of the Russian Model Forest Network. In May 2006 a meeting concerning the concepts and approaches for the development of a Russian Network of Model Forests was held in St. Petersburg. In August 2006 the representatives of Kovdozerskiy Model Forest received a positive answer regarding financing of their participation in the

6

Source: Personal comments of Pestov, P., Pavlov, A. and Valueva, E. (October, 2006)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

Interreg IIIB “Baltic Forest” project. The Russian part of the project is financed through a TACIS cooperation.

The main motives for creating the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest7 The main goal of the KMF is to promote and support forest-based sustainable development in northwest Russia. The initial tasks of the KMF are: • To elaborate the model of participatory collaboration for balancing needs and interests of different stakeholders in the area. • To improve the forest management in the leskhoz and to introduce new forest management technologies that are applicable in the region • To improve harvesting economy, especially in thinning. Regeneration must be developed. The amount of thinning should be increased. This requires improvement of technology (cut-to-length) and opportunities to utilize small-diameter timber. • To develop production and utilization of bioenergy. A new district heating plant should be built and suitable fuel procurement chains developed. • To introduce landscape-ecological planning as a base for spatial forest management, protection and for maintaining biodiversity. • To support development of eco-tourism in the area. • To increase public awareness with respect to sustainable forest management and improve participation.

Basic information about the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest The Kovdozerskiy MF is located in southern part of Murmansk Oblast. It borders with Karelia Republic in the south (picture 1). The Model Forest is located between 66º and 68º N Latitude and 30º to 32º E Longitude. Geographically the Kovdozerskiy MF occupies the lower part of the Kovda river catchment, which flows to the Kandalaksha Bay of the White Sea.

7

Source: Terms of references for the development of the Murmansk Model Forest, 2002; interviews with local stakeholders (the list of interviewed people is in the Appendix 1)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

12

13

Norway

Russian Federation

Sweden Finland

Kovdozerskiy MF

Picture 1. Location the Kovdozerskiy MF (a red circle)

The Model Forest occupies the area of Kovdozerskiy leskhoz as well as urban areas and agricultural land. The total area of the Model Forest is 400,626 ha. The proportions between different types of land cover are presented in Table 2. Table 2 8 . Land distribution in the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest Type of land 1 2 3 4 5

Area (ha)

Forest Water Bogs Agricultural Urban areas

253,631 95,761 48,051 2,200 983

Total area

400,626

% of the total area 64 23.8 11.7 0.3 0.2 100

There area 8 settlements in the area of the Model Forest: Zelenoborskij, Lesozavodskoj, Zarechensk, Kovdozero, Kovda, St.Kovda, Poyakonda, Zhemchuzhnaya. The total number of people leaving the area of the Model Forest is around 15,000, and the population density is 3.7 people per km².

8

Source: the archives of Kovdozerskiy leskhoz

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

14

The main historical phases of forest use in the area of Kovdozerskiy Model Forest 9 1.

Traditional use of the forest landscapes (15th – 19th century). The area began to develop since the 15th century when the Russians (mostly Pomor people 10 ) started to settle the northern area around the White Sea. The main activities in the area were shipbuilding, fishing, fish pickling, reindeer farming and fish barrel production.

Picture 2. The traditional building of the Pomor people in Zelenoborsk (the Kovdozerskiy MF)

2. Beginning of the industrial use of forest resources (the end of 19th century – 1920s). In 1890 the first saw-mill was built near the mouth of Kovda river by Rusanov, a Russian timber merchant. This was the beginning of intensive wood harvesting. High quality lumber for the export was produced. Two more saw-mills were built in 1899 and 1901 by G. Oslund from Sweden and K. Stuart from Great Britain. The amount of harvested wood increased in 1915 when a saw mill was built near the Kovda Lake for supplying timber for the construction of the railway from Petrozavodsk to Murmansk. 3. The development of the socialistic era forest industry in the area (1920 – 1950). After the civil war in the Soviet Union intensive harvesting of the forests was made possible by the construction of the railway. At that time the amount of harvested wood was more then 80,000 m³ per year. 9

Sources: Beresnev N., 1987. Knyazaya guba, Murmansk (in Russian); interviews with local people

conducted in October-November, 2006. 10

Pomor people is the ethnic group of Russians. The main activities of the Pomor people are fishing and

shipbuilding. According to the last census in 2002, there are 6571 Pomor people who live mostly in Murmansk and Arhangelsk Oblasts. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

In the 1920s two additional saw-mills were constructed, both of which began producing lumber for export. 4. The socialistic era industrial development of the area (1950 – 1995). In 1950s construction of the Kovdozerskiy hydroelectric power station began. Many new settlements for workers appeared in the area. It led to an intensification of forest harvesting for house-building. In the 1950s two state timber industry enterprises – Notozerskij and Zarechenskij lespromkhozes – were created in the area. During the next five years around 1,500,000 m³ was harvested. In 1970s two forest logging bases were created, under the management of the lespromkhoz. This enabled a needed expansion of the harvesting area due to previous exploitation of forest resources in the vicinity of the lespromkhoz. In 1955 the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz was created. The main activities of the leskhoz were to make thinning (the amount of thinning wood was 3,000 m³ annually); to assign the felling areas; to control harvesting; and to safeguard forest regeneration. In 1960s one additional saw-mill was built. During the 1980s the decline of the forest industry began due to exhaustion of forest resources in the area. 5. The dying forest industry (1995 – present time). The fundamental reformation of the forest sector in Russia, moving toward the market economy and unprofitable of the forest industry in the area were reasons for the decline of the forest industry in the area.

Some facts concerning the economic, ecological and socio-cultural situation in the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest Considerations about the economic situation in the KMF Forests covers 64% of the MF or 253,631 ha and is dominating by Scots pine (80.1 % of the total forested area, or 203,168 ha and 50.7% of the total leskhoz’s area). The total growing stock is about 14 million m³. The area of forest available for exploitation (according to the Russian forest law, the forests which do not play any protection role and do not have special historical/ecological values belong to the forests available for the exploitation) covers 143,189 ha, or 56.5% of the total forested area or 35.8% of the total leskhoz’s area (figure 1). The growing stock of the forests available for exploitation is about 5.6 million m³, or only 40% of the total growing stock in the area. The total annual wood increment is about 200,000 m³, and the total wood increment of the forest available for the exploitation is about 80,000 m³ per year, or up to 0.56 m³ per hectare 11 . As a comparison the corresponding figure as an average for the total forestland base of Sweden is about 3 m³.

11

Source: The forest inventory data of the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz, 2000.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

15

16 100 90

% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Forest land fund

Area of forests

Forests available for exploitation

Figure 1. The area of forested land and the area of forests available for exploitation in comparison with the total area of the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz.

Forestry was the main industry in the area during the Soviet period. The harvesting activity was very intensive during this period and annual allowable cuts were exceeded quite often. This was a result of the competitions among leskhozes to fulfill the five-year plans of the socialism economic development earlier, and often with higher results than planned. The amount of forest harvested and the total area of forest cuts were 596,600 m³ and 8,400 ha, respectively, in 1955.Logging then declined drastically in the 1980ies up to 70,000 m³ and 1,000 ha (figure 2) 12 . Since 1991 the amount of forest harvesting and the total area of forest cuts have not exceeded 10,000 m³ or 150 ha. The lowest values were observed in 2002 (700 m³ or 10 ha).

9000

ha

1000 m3

8000

700

600

7000 500 6000 5000

400

4000

300

3000 200 2000 100

1000

0

0 1955

1956

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1988

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Years ha

1000m³

Figure 2. The amount of harvested wood and the total area of the forest cut in different years in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz

12

Source: the archives of Kovdozerskiy leskhoz

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

As a consequence of the forest exploitation (often referred to as “forest mining”) during that time, young and middle aged forests dominate in the area of the Model Forest (figure 3 and 4) 13 . It is important to note that in this region, and in general in NW Russia, only stands older than about 120 years are harvested.

4000 3500 3000 2500 1000 m3 2000 1500 1000 500 0 20

40

41 - 80

81- 100

121- 140

161- 180

Age classes Pinus

Picea

Betula

Populus tremula

Figure 3. The area of main tree species in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz

60000

50000

40000

ha

30000

20000

10000

0 20

40

41 - 80

81- 100

121- 140

161- 180

Age classes

Pinus

Picea

Betula

Populus tremula

Figure 4. The wood stock of main tree species in different age classes in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz

At present time the forest industry is dying. The annual allowable cut is 55,400 m³, and only 10% of this was harvested in 2004 and 2005. Until 13

Source: The forest inventory data of the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz, 2000.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

17

1997 the leskhoz got 100% of finance from the state budget to regenerate forests after harvest, to make commercial thinning and other forest management activities. At present time it gets from the state around 40% of total needed finance. The state investment into the forest management now is 100 rubles (~3 Euro) per hectare. The extremely inadequate state financing of the leskhoz is the main reason of the poor forest management in the area. The leskhoz had to reduce or stop some silvicultural activities due to lack of finance (table 2). However, the leskhoz gets money from the state for fire extinguishing. In 2006 the leskhoz received 3800 rubles/ha for fire extinguishing and 4700 rubles/ha for restoration (for example, to plant forests) after forest fires. It means th at the total amount of money for all activity that year was around 5,100,000 rubles (or 170,000 euro). The 4,743 m³ of forest was burnt during 2006 (figure 5) caused 277,000 rubles worth of direct economic losses. As the system works it is more “profitable” for the leskhoz with forest fires than to perform forest management. 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

19 73 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 06

0

Figure 5. The area (in ha) of fires in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz in different years

The main forest incomes of the leskhoz come from selling saw-wood and pulpwood which comes from commercial thinning operations (source: interviews, 2006). The price of the whole tree-length logs by the road is 600 – 700 roubles per m³ (around 20 – 23 euro per m³) and for high quality assortments of saw-wood is 1000 – 1200 roubles per 1 m³ (33 – 40 euro per m³). The leskhoz harvests around 5,000 m³ of saw-wood per year. The highest sale price is for sticks from small wood (up to 1500 rubles per 1 m³, or 50 euro per 1 m³) which goes to the Kandalaksha aluminum plant. Expenses for logging and transport of timber to the road represent about 90% of the roadside price. It means that the profit of the leskhoz from harvesting is only 2-4 euro per m³.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

18

19

Picture 3. The entrance to the administrative building of the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz (2006)

There are four small forest enterprises which harvest up to 10,000 m³ per year; two of them produce battens, plinth, and deal boards for customers on the regional level. There is a high deficit of forests that are ready to harvest, and forest stands available for logging are often not accessible (the road density is only 2 km per 1000 ha) (source: interviews, 2006). Forest road density in the area corresponds to about one tenth of the road density in managed Swedish and Finnish forests. No roads have been built during at least 15 years and only 7 km of road has been repaired. Forest logging is thus quite expensive due to (1) the small amount of wood which is available for harvesting per hectare (up to 50 m³ per hectare), and (2) the high transportation costs. To restore the wood volume in the area here is a need to redirect logging companies from final felling towards commercial thinning, for which the Scandinavian techniques are suitable. The only activity of the forest enterprises which is profitable is to sell firewood for local people (comm. 2006). Several interviewees stated that one way to make forestry profitable is to develop production and utilization of bioenergy from the forests. The forest companies hope that a district heating plant will be built, and suitable fuel procurement chains developed. There are several enterprises in the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest which are not involved with forestry, such as: housing and communal services (4), fish industry (2), railroad company (1), shops (15). During the Soviet time there were 2 lespromkhozes (logging companies) and one wood processing industry 14 .

14

Source: the archive of the Zelenoborskij Municipal Administration

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

20

Table 2. Summarizing the silvicultural system development in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz (Murmansk Oblast, the Russia Federation) Kovdozerskiy leskhoz (Murmansk Oblast’, the Russian Federation) Final harvest: log pulpwood

Mainly by assortments and seldom by tree-length logs 30% of pulpwood after the final fallings

branches stumps

Left in the forest after the final fallings Left in the clear cuts after the final fallings

Intermediate harvest Sanitary cuttings Commercial thinning

Regeneration Seed trees/scarify Plantation

The total area of sanitarian cuts is up to 50-60 ha per year. At present time the sanitary cuttings are made mainly after windfall The first time in the young forests (age is up to 40 years). Only 5% of the area which should be done is actually treated. The second time at a stand age of 40-60 years. This is made in only 1% of the area where it should be done. After the second commercial thinning there are 30% of saw-wood and 70% of pulpwood The last time it was done was in 1998 on big clear cuts (more than 200 ha) Forest plantation was made in the area of 60 ha in 2005

Leave undergrowth

Leave undergrowth after the final fallings if the size of clear cuts more then 100 ha

Means of intensification Draining Nitrogen fertilization Other fertilization

No Not at present time. It was stopped 15 years ago

Genetic/selection

Selection work to improve the quality of tree species

Exotic species

Cembra pine and Larix were introduced

No

Considerations about the biodiversity situation in the KMF The personal comments of all interviewed people during my visit (the list of interviewed people in the Appendix 1) were that biodiversity is not an urgent issue. In the KMF there are several protected areas, which cover a total area of 36,248 ha, or 9% of the total area of the KMF (table 3). Table 3. The list of protected areas in the area of the KMF

1 2 3 4

Name of protected area Natural Reserve of Pinus State Natural Zakaznik "Kutsa" Natural Monument "Venerin Bashmachok" Natural Monument "Granaoidy of Mikkov island"

Area (ha) 231 10,946 2 3

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

21

6 7 8 9

Natural Monument "Cedrus in Kovda forest district" Natural Monument "Epitozity Verhniy Navolok" Buffer zone of Natural Zakaznik "Kutsa" Buffer zone of Natural Strict Protected Area (Kandlaksha Zapovednik) Total area

1 1 24,787 277 36,248

According to the Russian forest legislation, there are restrictions in forest use in the first group of forests (protective and social functions) and some limitations in the third group of forests (commercial) which have ecological value. The total area of the forests which are excluded from the forest exploitation due to ecological reasons is 102,154 ha, or 25% of the total area of the KMF. In total there is 34% of the KMF area where the ecological consideration should be taken into account. The ecological and protective functions of the forest landscapes in the KMF are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Considerations to ecological and protective functions. The aim with ecological functions can be both secure habitats for species and to deliver ecosystem processes. Scale and terms Trees and groups

Variable retention High stumps Buffer zones along water

Stand

Prescribed fire Woodland key biotopes Nature reserves Group 1 forest: • spawning area • special value

Kovdozerskiy leskhoz No Yes, after the logging on the clear-cuts Yes, for the first and, partly, and partly for the third groups of forests No No 36.248 ha, or 9% of the total area 33.165 ha, or 8.9% of the total area 560 ha, or 0.14% of the total area

Group 3 forest: around rivers, lakes

68. 249 ha, or 17.1% of the total area

Landscape

National Park Strict protected reserve

No No

Regional

Intact landscape

No

Nevertheless, there are several arguments that cast doubt with respect the optimistic opinions about the ecological considerations in the KMF: 9 many protected areas exist de-jure (on the paper) but not de-facto (source: interviews, 2006) 9 there is no common practice to map and protect key biotopes/habitats 9 over-harvesting during the Soviet time led to the drastic changes in age structure of forests and to reduction of the old growth and overmature forests

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

22

Considerations about the socio-cultural situation in the KMF The forest is of significant importance for the people in the municipality, especially now during the deep economic crisis. Local people depend on using of forest resources (berries, mushrooms, fuel wood, and wood for house-building) in their daily life. The people who collect berries and mushrooms use it for different purposes. They sell it or use the products in their own households. The people who sell berries and mushrooms collect on average 252 kg of berries and 42 kg of mushrooms per year. The prices for berries are 1 to 2 Euro per kg, and for mushrooms – up to 3 Euro per kg (Wiik 2004). The maximum amounts of berries collected by one person in one year were 2000 kg, mean 133 kg and minimum 5 kg. Maximum amount of mushrooms was 300 kg, mean 29 and min 2 kg 15 (Wiik 2004). The main social problem is the high level of unemployment, which has been between 21 to 30% during the last five years. Young people dominate among the unemployed (N. Egolaeva, pers.comm. 2006). There is a need to develop businesses which could bring money to the local budget (N. Egolaeva, pers.comm. 2006). Some demographic statistic data is presented in table 5. Table 5. The statistic data for the municipality of Zelenoborskij in the area of KMF

1 2 3 4

Zelenoborskij’s municipality

2005

2003

2001

Number of people in employment Unemployed Pensioners Under 18 Total

4176 1458 3025 1485 8686

3943 1400 3242 1337 8222

2237 707 2632 1990 9541

Many people in the villages are well educated even university degrees are quite common. For the forestry sector it is good to know that competent people are available. Many workers have practical experience from the forest sector. At the same time a common problem is alcoholism. The most of local people suffer from alcoholism, according to interviews of local representatives.

15

Wiik, 2004. Thesis.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

23

Picture 4. Wooded houses in the area of the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest (2006)

The idea of developing the forest sector in different ways was positively received among people. Many people saw a great need of increasing standards of techniques and forest roads. They also want to see more local people educated in areas that could support the forest sector in the future (Wiik 2004). Many people are willing to work in the forest sector. Unemployed people see it as a step in to the working market. Many people also have experience from the forest sector and like this kind of work.

Picture 5. Buildings of the socialistic style in Zelenoborsk, the main town of the KMF

Key Criteria of a Model Forest: how does Kovdozerskiy Model Forest match them? 1. An inclusive and dynamic partnership Positive aspects of the present partnership development The KMF is in an early stage of MF development. There are 31 partners of the KMF. These represent the main sectors of the local economy (forest industry, fishing industry, tourism companies etc.), local societies (a hunting society) and local administrations in the area; and also the Museum of local lore, history and economy in Murmansk, the Kandаlakshskij leskhoz bordering the Kovdozerskiy MF, and the society of hunters and fishermen in Kandalaksha. There were 3 meetings with all partners since December 2005. Two meetings were held in Murmansk and one was held in the area of the KMF. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

The KMF is quite unique among the MFs in Russia in terms of the initial funding. The development of the KMF was supported financially by the Regional government – the Duma of Murmansk Oblast – from the beginning of the MF creation process in 2005, thus even before the funding from a foreign donor (EU Tacis). The Agency of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast also promised to support the regional program of forestry which should be development for making forest management sustainable. Since 2006 the KMF is a member of the Russian Model Forest Network. Potential challenges for the partnership are: • Domination by partners from the forest sector, their needs and interests in the partnership development. The idea of MF creation came to the local level from the “top” – from the Department of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast’. The final decision about development of the KMF on the state forest land was made by Federal Agency of Forestry and Ministry of Natural Resources in Russia. All members of the NGO named “The Model forest of Kovdozerij” are representatives of the forest sector. The inequality among partners from the beginning could be a challenge for developing real partnerships when needs and interests of all partners should be taken into account in MF development. • Disparity in sharing responsibilities and power between regional and local levels in the KMF management. The key positions in the NGO “MF of Kovdozerskiy” are occupied by representatives of the Department of Forestry in Murmansk Oblast. Two of the three meetings with of all partners were held in Murmansk, which was inconvenient for all local partners. Detachment of the coordinating group from the local level could be a reason to destroy a partnership – a main attribute of the MF – from the very beginning.

2. A commitment to sustainable forest management Promising aspects of the commitment to SFM of the MF partners According to the official documents and interviews taken, the main goal for creation of the KMF, first of all, is to change the forest management practice of the leskhoz toward SFM. This is then expected to bring, first of all, economic and social benefits to the local economy and local people. The main steps for the implementation of SFM are (source: interviews, 2006): (1) to introduce landscape-ecological planning into the forest management (on the base of the Finish experience) (2) to create and introduce regional rules of forest management (on the base of the forest management rules in Finland), especially, concerning final and intermediate felling for improving the quality of the forests and forest resources, which were severely reduced due to over-harvesting during the Soviet time. The expected results are (a) to reduce rotation time, (b) to increase the profitability of intermediate felling, and (c) to increase the amount of harvested wood from final and intermediate felling in the future. The indicators ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

24

of sustainable forestry which are adopted in Russia will be used to control the development of forest management in the area of the KMF. (3) to develop wood processing enterprises for low-diameter trees. (4) to build a biofuel-based heating plant which will use the wood from intermediate felling and the wood-waste of wood processing enterprises. (5) to develop the ecological tourism in the area of the KMF. Potential challenges for the SFM implementation (1) The program for SFM development planned to be adopted in the KMF will be mostly based on the experience, knowledge and technologies imported from Scandinavian countries (figure 6). There is some kind of implementation “chain”, in which every “unit” depends on other “units”. In principle the high dependence of SFM development based on imported knowledge and finances makes the whole concept of the KMF very unstable. (2) The ecological component in the SFM program is absent. Even more there is an opinion among main stakeholders that the level of biodiversity in the Scandinavian countries is much higher than in Russian forests. Hence, they believe that the introduction of the Finnish approach to forest management will help to protect biodiversity. In reality, there is overwhelming evidence that the truth is the opposite (source: interviews) (3) The plans of rural development activities and non-wood forest product development based on the local knowledge and experience have not yet been developed.

3. Scale: a landscape large enough to represent an area’s diverse forest uses and values The Model Forest is located between 66º and 68º N Latitude and 30º to 32º E Longitude. Geographically the Kovdozerskiy MF occupies the lower part of the Kovda river catchment, which flows to the Kandalaksha Bay of the White Sea. KMF represents an area with diverse forest use by local people, tourists and the forest industry. The forests have also high ecological and cultural values. There are 8 villages and towns and the density of population is about 3.7 persons per km². There are also several traditional villages such as Kovda and Zarechensk where local people have kept the traditional Pomor land use practices. The area of the Model forest, more than 400,000 ha, seems to be big enough to represent the diversity of forests, forest resources and use, and forest activities with a wide range of stakeholders.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

25

26

Nature protection

Imported from Scandinavian countries

Sustainable forest landscapes in the KMF Local bio-fuel station Tourism Institutions for

SFM in

d

l

t

building capacity

the KMF

Scandinavian techniques

New forest practice according to new rules

Landscape ecological planning

Training courses

New specialists with new knowledge

Figure 6.The main components in the development of the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest

4. A governance structure that is representative, transparent, and accountable The KMF is in the process of developing a governance structure. The assembly of partners and the Board of Model Forest Partners are the main decision-making and governing bodies. The NGO “Kovdozerskiy Model Forest”, which was established in February 2006, is the main executive body. The Council of the NGO is created for dealing with day-to-day operations (figure 7). Promising aspects of the development of the KMF governance structure: (1) The MF is open for all partners. The procedure to become a partner of the MF is very simple. (2) The governance model might be inclusive because a wide range of stakeholders are represented in it. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

27

“Kovdozerskiy Model Forest” NGO

Board of the Model Forest’s Partners All 31 partners of the KMF are

Council of the NGO With 5 members

Figure 7. The governance structure of the KMF

There are several aspects in the development of the governance model which could be reasons for the conflicts in the future: (1) The Council of the NGO represents only the Forest sector and 3 people out of 5 are from Murmansk which is located around 400 km from Kovdozerskiy MF. (2) The members of the NGO and the Council of the NGO were elected without discussing it at the assembly of MF partners. It means there is no transparency in the decision-making process. (3) Most of the MF management comes from Murmansk. (4) There is a need to involve local people as partners and into discussions about the development of the MF and to make available and accessible for them all information about the partners’ decisions (source: interviews, 2006).

5. Scope: a program of activities reflective of partner needs and values The first program of activities for the KMF is in the process of being developed. There were three meetings of all partners for discussing the program. The discussed program is focusing on forestry and nature-tourism development aiming to alleviate poverty in the region. At this early stage of program development it is unclear if the interests and needs of all partners of the MF are reflected in the program.

6. A commitment to knowledge-sharing, capacity-building and networking, from the local to the international levels The development of the Model Forest is in an early stage. The positive trend is development cooperation with existing Model Forests in Russian and participation in the creation of the Russian Model Forest Network.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

28

Discussion and conclusions Concerning the Kovdozerskiy Mode Forest development 1. The development of the KMF depends mostly on imported knowledge, experience and technology, which, unless it is adapted to local conditions, could make the MF establishment process unsustainable. 2. During the Soviet time forestry and forest industry were economically unprofitable in the area where the KMF is located. According to the program of the KMF development many investments should be done to develop/restore forest industry. It seems that inclusion of this topic in the program is a result of the domination of the forest sector representatives in the decisionmaking process. This program issue should be discussed among partners again because there is apparently no resources (natural and human) or economic realism for such development. There is a need to make a feasibility study to orient the program for exploring development of non-industrial use of forest resources such as tourism based of use of nature and cultural heritage in the area. 3. The ground for successful development of the KMF is equal partnership. This is a big challenge to achieve in post-socialism countries where the civil society is still at an early stage of development. Therefore, providing lessons of democracy about the development of partnerships and democratic leadership are the most important pieces of knowledge that could be brought from the democratic countries. Some considerations concerning the Model Forest development in Russia 1. The concept of Model Forest is an example of a “soft law” in Russia. There are several reasons for the need to implement this concept in Russia: (1) there are many rules and regulations in the frame of the existing forest legislation which are not adopted to the regional biophysical, socio-cultural and ecological conditions, thus making forestry inefficient under the new requirements of market economy, (2) there is a very bureaucratic top-down governance system in the forest sector with a huge gap in the decision-making process between needs and interests of forest stakeholders on the local level, and policy-makers of the top level. 2. The forest sector (forestry and forest industry) in Russia is in the process of radical transformation. “Unpredictable” changes in the forest legislation could cause undesirable development of the ecological and socio-cultural situation in the regions, and to create an economy which is unprofitable on regional and local levels. Under such conditions the Model Forests in Russia would be not only be examples of the “3-pillars” (economic, ecological, sociocultural; i.e. SFM) approach to forest management, but also arenas for protection rights, needs, value and interests of local and regional partners. 3. The Federal Agency of Forestry is supporting the idea to develop the Model Forest in Russia. In the frame of the new forest ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

legislation, the forests should be divided into the forest eco-regions (around 25-30) in Russia. It is planned to create at least one Model Forest in each forest eco-region (source: interviews, 2006). The aim of the Model Forests would be to develop a forest management which is adapted to the regional and local conditions, from one hand, and which is ecologically friendly and aimed to improve sociocultural situation in the regions on the other. The weak spots of this idea are: (1) “one-person” based decision/support; there is not yet an official program to develop the network of the MFs; (2) needs of the forest enterprises, such as pulp-mills, could dominate in the decision-making process to define goals of the MF creation. A common opinion is that, first of all, the MFs are needed to secure forest resources for the forest enterprises which are the main taxpayers (source: interviews, 2006). However, the economic reason of the MF creation could lead to devaluation of the ecological and socio-cultural pillars of the concept. 4. There are five Model Forests in the Russia Federation: Gasinskiy MF, Komi MF, Pskov MF, Kologrivy MF, and Kovdozerskiy MF. Judging from interviews and analyses, at least two stages of the Model Forest development could be distinguished in Russia. During the first stage the Model Forests were more like “areas for exercises of the foreign donors”. All Model Forests were created using money and support from foreign countries. A main aim was to adopt appropriate forest management, which was favorable for the foreign forest companies exporting to Western market. Some of the Model Forests were created completely under “turnkey” of the donors, which caused serious problems to accept the concept by local people. Gaining own experience by Model Forests under Russian conditions during a decade has led to deeper understanding of their role in the ecological, economic and socio-cultural development in regions. As a the second stage of the evolutionary development of the Model Forests, the representatives of the MFs decided to create a network of MFs in Russia. The aim and goals of the network are declared in the resolution which was accepted in 2006. 5. The criteria for development and indicators for the evaluation of progress of Model Forests are needed urgently.

Acknowledgements This report is developed in the frame of the EU InterReg “Baltic Forest” project. I am grateful to all people in the Kovdozerskiy leskhoz; local people in Zelenoborks; Elvira Valueva and Pavel Pestov from Agency of forestry in Murmansk Oblast for sharing their knowledge and views about life in the Kovdozerskiy Model Forest. My deep special thanks are for Per Angelstam and Robert Axelsson for constructive discussions during writing the report, and for their comments to the manuscript. In addition comments from P Besseau, C Fries, J Svensson, and J Saraniemi are gratefully acknowledged. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

29

30

Appendix 1

Information document Doc.BEAC.CSO.2004.32 16 21 October 2004 Barents Euro-Arctic Council

and the Second Northern Dimension Action Plan The Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) was established in 1993 in order ”to provide impetus to existing cooperation and consider new initiatives and proposals” concerning the Barents Euro-Arctic Region.

The Barents Region now comprises 13 counties or similar administrative entities in the North of Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. There are abundant natural resources, such as forests, fish, minerals, oil and gas. On the other hand, long distances, sparse population and harsh climatic conditions pose considerable challenges to people, business and authorities alike. BEAC members are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the European Commission. BEAC observer states are Canada, 16

Submitted by the BEAC chairmanship to the Northern Dimension Senior Officials Meeting, Brussels, 21 October 2004.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The BEAC chair rotates between Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden for two-year periods. Norway holds the chairmanship autumn 2003 – autumn 2005. The 13 Barents counties form the Barents Regional Council together with a representative of the three indigenous peoples who live in the Region: the Sami, the Nenets and the Vepsians. Västerbotten County chairs the Barents Regional Council 2003-2005. Since 1993 the Barents cooperation has successfully developed within a broad range of issues, both inside and outside of the cooperative system of the two councils. In addition comes an active cooperation of the indigenous peoples and a multitude of grassroot, NGO, business and people-to-people cooperation. The overall aim is to promote sustainable development in the Region, in all aspects: economic, environmental and social. BEAC ministerial decisions and recommendations are followed-up by a structure of working groups and task forces in various fields. A large number of individual projects are carried out bilaterally or jointly. The Committee of Senior Officials organises work between BEAC sessions and oversees activities, including coordination with the Barents Regional Council. The Barents cooperation has many contact points also with the activities of the Arctic Council, Council of Baltic Sea States and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Usually, and within the broad spectre of Barents priorities, the chairmanship country identifies special priority areas for its chairmanship period. Financing of BEAC-related activities is mainly by national sources, in bilaterally and multilaterally implemented projects. EU funding, such as Interreg, is also very important for the Barents cooperation. A key issue of interest to the Region is how the new EU financial instruments, particularly after 2007, can support and enhance already existing bilateral or other lines of financing, and whether the entire Region may be covered by one, relevant EU financial instrument.

The Barents Council is a partner in the Northern Dimension initiative. On the other hand, the Northern Dimension is also a partner in BEAC’s effort to promote sustainable development objectives, both in the sphere of policy and concrete action in the Region. The Barents Council at its 9th Session in Umeå in October 2003 welcomed the work undertaken to develop the Second Northern Dimension Action Plan, to which BEAC had given its input, and also expressed the hope that increased EU support for cross border and regional/ transnational cooperation through harmonised Interreg and Tacis programmes in the Barents Region would be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

31

Information sheets on key BEAC initiatives have been placed on the Northern Dimension Information System website.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.balticforest.net

32