1. Update on Russian Forest Sector: WWF View Elena Kulikova, WWF Russia January, 26, 2007 Chatham House, London

2. Content Attitude of political authorities New Forest Code Expecting changes ENA FLEG Business as a partner

3. Forest complex is in the focus of Russian political authorities Forest sector problems are discussed with personal involvement of the President

4. Vladimir Putin High Level Meeting of Forest Sector, April, 6, 2006, Syktyvkar Forests – one of the economic advantages of Russia Russian forest as an environmental protection of not only the country but the planet Our leadership in round wood export volume is direct loss of natural resources (necessity of wood processing) Serious attention needs to be paid to the quality characteristics of Russian forests Illegal logging and direct losses of 5 billion rubles

5. Vladimir Putin: 3 Particular Requests How to intensify forest use and improve forest infrastructure? Forest regeneration, reforestation and quality of forests Illegal logging – Plan of Actions

6. New Forest Code Development Civilized practice of forest relations reforms: analysis of current situation – dialogue with the public and stakeholders – National forest policy – new Forest Code These principles were not followed Lack of openness and transparency while the process of the Code development and discussion Chaotic character of discussion and approval at the state level NGOs – mutually agreed set of amendments in the format of the State Duma

7. © WWF России / Владимир Филонов Post card to the Russian President

8. New Forest Code Character Not forestry oriented Pro-industry oriented “Frame” character A lot of work to finalize forest legislation. 42 sub- ordinate normative acts need to be developed at the federal level, all together 78 with regional norms

9. Major Changes Maximum decentralization of forest management and use system in Russia Delivery of responsibilities on forest management, use and protection to the regional level (subjects of the Russian Federation)

10. NGOs (WWF Russia, Greenpeace Russia, TRN) Comments on the Code (1) State ownership but some conditions for privatisation New classification of forest use types, several categories of protected forest type no longer exist Designation of protected areas will become more complicated Many existing protected areas have either been abolished or placed to a lower level of protection by the re-classification of forest types The list of forest resource use types expanded Ecological expertise (EIA) is disappeared

11. NGOs (WWF Russia, Greenpeace Russia, TRN) Comments on the Code (2) Mechanism for public participation in decision-making is absent Rights of indigenous people and local communities to conduct traditional livelihoods on forested lands are not guaranteed Vague in regulations on public access to forests Leasing of forests is allowed for periods of 10-49 years, absence of any obligations related to SFM, biodiversity conservation or solving social issues. Reorganisation of forest management structures could result in large numbers of job losses in rural areas, and increase in social problems and in illegal logging

12. What can we do? Need to actively follow the process and adapt ourselves and partners To be involved into development of norms Concentrate work at the regional level Forest business as a partner (environmentally responsible)

13. ENA FLEG: National Action Plan and Russian Federal Forestry Agency (FFA) Delivered to the Government (autumn, 2006) as a part of developed Programme Re-arranged into Programme of Measures No coordinating agency, responsibilities of ministries for particular measures Measures are presented in the Programme as normative documents, reports, meetings

14. 14 Main Intermediate Export Internal consumption Cutting volumes 132 53 114 90 Calculated consumption volume +19 185 204 млн. м 3 Recognized Volumes

15. Social and economic LegislationLegislation Sectoral and cross-sectoral cross-sectoral Recognized Root Causes and Cross-Sectoral Nature

16. Practical Work Remote Sensing Monitoring 2006 RegionsArea,th.ha 1Республика Карелия4,0 2Республика Коми10,9 3Архангельская обл.5,7 4Вологодская область3,0 5Ленинградская обл.1,5 6Костромская область1,0 7Кировская область3,0 8Пермская область3,9 9Свердловская обл.4,0 10Красноярский край14,5 11Иркутская область16,1 12Томская область7,0 13Читинская область4,1 14Приморский край5,7 15Хабаровский край10,5 16Амурская область1,3 17Республика Бурятия4,0 18Тверская область1,0 101,2 mln ha Area of Remote Sensing Monitoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17. Building public awareness Analysing scope of the problem in Russia (“balance” approach, regional reports) Analysis of turnover of illegal wood in the timber trade (Russia and Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Germany is done, Caucasus and Chinese study – this year) WWF Russia Programme to Eliminate Illegal Logging

18. Legislation and policy reforms recommended to decision makers, in Russia Strong work-plan and active participation by WWF and forest industry in the Russia FLEG process A system for on-line integrated monitoring of illegal logging issues in Russia and a rapid response mechanism for regional government and non- governmental institutions Anti-illegal logging brigades Wood tracing systems (business as a partner)

19. Forest Business as a Partner Russian companies oriented to European markets – voluntary certification as only tool- own systems of wood tracing Foreign companies (Finnish) - own systems of wood tracing Trade – Denmark, to ensure buyers

20. WWF Russia Current Projects on Tracing Systems Denmark: ”Verifying the legal origin of Russian timber” – on demand of buyer’s companies Finnish company:”Legality of Wood Supply” WWF&IKEA Partnership: “Keep It Legal”

21. What can we do? Ideal Case Legislation – new Forest Code and normative documents Analyse and identify weak points for tracing systems......And improve tracing systems accordingly

22. Governance and Law Enforcement Identify weak areas in law enforcement e.g. EIA, sanitary cuttings, overlogging Develop tracing systems Produce set of recommendations to be included into new normative documents Technical Content

23. Companies tracing systems versus EU FLEGT EU FLEGT, licensing schemes (Greenpeace position) Continue to develop separate systems? OR Harmonize them? Build a model how they are fit together? Overcome Current Problems Technical Content:

24. 1,3-2,3 0,8-1,3 0,3-0,8 Lower than 0,3 Intensity of wood harvesting and main export flows of round wood from Russia in 2004 China 15,3 Mm 3 Japan 5,8 Mm 3 Finland 11,2 Mm 3 Others 5,3 Mm 3 Turkey 0,9 Mm 3 Total export 40,1 Mm 3 Source: FFA and FCS data

25. Russia-China China: no clear intention to actively participate in ENA FLEG New trends in the region Japan markets US markets – Civil G “8” – Bush-Putin

26. Systems to identify legally-sourced woodin supply chains involving Russia and China 200 forest sector field staff (producers and inspectors) trained on how to identify illegally-sourced timber and on forestry legislation reforms Two or three demonstration pilots for “verified legal” wood in cross-border (Russian forest to China factory) Case study on costs and benefits of a ”verified legal” supply chain Recommendations to stakeholders on improved methods for legal verification of wood supply Video highlighting the impacts of illegal logging, the risk to companies that take no action and the approach recommended in the “keep it legal” manual

27. ekulikova@wwf.ru