Forest Legislation Efficiency in Belarus, the Russian federation and Ukraine in Respect of Biological and Landscape Diversity Conservation

6. Forest legislation efficiency in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine in respect of biological and landscape diversity conservation

As the three riparian countries are the former Soviet Union republics, their legal frameworks regulating forestry management and use are alike. Moreover, many of the relevant legislative provisions have remained effective since the times when the three countries belonged to one state.

The forest division into groups and protection categories, forestry standards and rules, industry regulations of the three countries have much in common, whereas the regulatory differences are connected with different environmental and climatic conditions, forms of forest land ownership, advance in reforming forest industry and management systems.

There is a substantial body of legislation regulating, directly and indirectly, the protection and use of forest fauna and flora. In the course of the project, 39 legislation instruments of the Russian Federation, 46 Ukrainian and 52 Belorussian were analyzed.

Legislative provisions concerning the conservation of biological and landscape diversity are fragmented and sometimes controversial. For the most part, they are not applied directly. Since they do not form a comprehensive consistent system, such norms do not secure proper legal guarantees for an effective protection, maintenance and sustainable use of forest biodiversity, perhaps, with the only exception of regulations of hunting fauna species.

The effective regulations on managing forests of various protection categories do not apply to the activities aimed at biodiversity conservation. However, they differentiate between economic activities in the forests of different use, which has a positive, if indirect, impact on fauna, flora and landscape diversity. The efficiency of a developed system of protective forests and plantations, specially protected areas and other categories of forest land of predominantly environmental value is rather high.

As for the system of forestry management activities and forest use, it is not sufficiently regulated with regard to conserving individual components significant for biodiversity sustaining, namely: dead timber, dry, hollow, old-age and rare trees, bushes and shrubs, rare and even endangered species of undergrowth and grass layers, nests of birds and small mammals, minor water bodies and streams, transit zones, etc.

Felling has a direct and most pronounced influence on biodiversity. Therefore, the effective felling rules and instruction as well as sanitary standards should be urgently revised and amended. The implementation of new felling regulations will facilitate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

The three countries’ legal regulations regarding lands disturbed by extraction of mineral resources and transferred (returned) into the forest reserve are inflexible. They rigidly determine the use of lands for a designed purpose, most commonly for afforestation, thus restricting the possibilities for the forest industry enterprises to use them in a more appropriate way, and entailing environmental threats and risks (for example, of peat fires).

Forest certification is a powerful tool allowing to make forestry management and use more environmentally friendly and effective. It is under way in each of the three riparian countries. Forest certification is critical, regardless of its implementation method: through the introduction of national patterns with the successive integration within the existing international forest certification systems or through direct accession to such systems as FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) or PEFC (Pan-European Forest Certification).

Next: Major Threats to Biological and Landscape Diversity Posed by Forestry Management and Use

Previous: Forest Categories and Territories Most Significant for Conserving Forest Biological and Landscape Diversity