ICFFI News - Санкт-Петербургский государственный ...

cowyardvioletΔιαχείριση

6 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

561 εμφανίσεις

1


ICFFI News


Volume
1
, Number 1
4
, May 2012

Новости МЦЛХП



Том
1
, Номер
1
4
,

Май

20
12
г.













Proceedings of the IUFRO
-
EFI
-
ICFFI Conference

"Ecosystem Desig
n for Multiple Services

-

with an
emphasis on Eurasian

Boreal Forests",

St. Petersburg Forest Technical University,

St.

Petersburg/Russia (9
-
11 November, 2011)

______________________________________________________________________________

International Centre of Forestry and Forest Industries

St. Petersburg State Forest
Technical University

Международный центр лесного хозяйства

и лесной промышленности

Санкт
-
Петербургск
ий

государственн
ый

лесотехническ
ий

университет


2


IN

THIS

VOLUME

14/2012


Balance model of organic matter product
ion process in forest ecosystem

-

Alekseev
A.S

…...
…………………………………
………………………….
.
4

Comparison of some approaches to modeling forest bioproductuvuty on
example of pine stands of urban forests of Kyiv city
-

Lakyda I.P



........
9

Development of operational planning system of forest treatments for
liquidation of storm consequences based on remote methods and GIS
+
-

Akaikin Daniil
……………………………………………
...
………………… 1
6

Forest functions, goods and services: an attempt to integrate various
approaches
-

Jerzy Lesinski
…………
……………………………
………….. 2
2

Experience of international cooperation at the forest
-
engineering
department of

Forest Observational Networks

-


Zhao X.H., Zhang C.Y.
and Gadow, K. v
.
................
.............................................................................
... 3
9

How will climate change impact site productivity for norway spruce in the
western carpathians?
-

Jarosław Socha, Andrzej Suchanek
.......................
...
5
3

Justification of forestation policy using multicriteria decision making
methods
-

Lyudmyla Zahvo
yska, Iuliia Shvediuk

…………………………
..
6
7

Model building of tree height, volume, their increments and stem profile
with stochastic differential equations

-

Petras Rupšys, Edmundas Petrauskas,
Romas Memgaudas, Edmundas Bartkevičius, Remigijus Žalkauskas

.
.....
7
7

Stand state and development of norway spruce, douglas fir, larch and scots
pine in plantations on beech site in Serbia
-

Ivan Bjelanović, Vladan
Popović, Vera Lavadinović
…………
…………
.
…………………………….. 9
1

Wildlife management strategies toward game mitigation and adaptation in
Serbia to climate change
-

Lavadinović Vukan

……………………
.
……
..
100

Балансовая модель продукционног
о процесса в лесной экосистеме
Алексеев А.С.

……………………………………………………

.
.
……
…10
6

Методологические и

методические аспекты изучения
взаимоотношений эмиссий
so
2 и лесной растительности
-

Цветков
В.Ф
…………………………………………………………………………….

11
1

Применение ландшафтного метода при проектировании экопоселений
-


Лебедев П.А
. …………………
.
.
.
………………………………………….
118












3


ICFFI

News

Issued

2
-
3
times

a

year


Publisher

International Centre of

Forestry and Forest Industries

St. Petersburg State Forest Technical
University



Editor

Maxim Chubinsky

e
-
mail:
mch
ubinsky@gmail.com


Editorial Board

Alexander Alekseev


SPb SFT
U

Andrey Sel
ikhovkin


SPb SFT
U

N
i
e
l
s

E
l
e
r
s

K
o
c
h

-

I
U
F
R
O

Risto Paivinen


E
F
I


Layout

Maxim Chubinsky



ICFFI


Printed at Printing hourse SPbFTU



4


Balance model of organic matter production process in forest
ecosystem.


Alexander
Alekseev

Saint
-
Petersburg State Forest Technical University


Abstract:

Balance model of organic matter production process in forest
ecosystem is developed taking into account it accumulation in wood, detritus
and sediments. Model based on relationships be
tween gross primary production,
net primary production and respiration as these appears in forest ecosystems.
Basic equation of the model was developed and its equilibrium states as well as
equilibrium sustainability have been analysed. Limits for sustaina
ble extraction
of forest ecosystem organic matter was determined.

Organic matter production and accumulation in the forms of wood,
needles, leafes, bark, branchers, coins and other forms is the main process in
forest ecosystems. In forest ecosystems trad
itionally in living growing stock
included a lot of trees organic matter which are not directly contribute to cells
growth but nevertheless play very important supporting role for green crown,
conductive role for water and nutritions as for example stem wo
od or protective
role as a bark. Such a favorable functions of forest biomass components elevates
trees competitiveness comparatively with over plants and determine the
dominance of woody biomass in the total of biosphere. Low ratio of really
living growi
ng biomass to wood in living trees is tipical for forest ecosystems
especially for ones close to climax state. Also in the forest ecosystems at each
time period appears organic matter in the form of dead wood, needles, leafs etc.
which later play important

role in total biomass turnover.

Balance of organic matter production in ecosystems may be presented in
following two classic forms (Woodwell, Whittaker, 1968; Lovett, et.al., 2006;
Alekse
ev, 2009):

h
a
a
R
R
NEP
GPP
R
NPP
GPP

(1)

(2)

where

GPP



gross primary production of ecosystem,

NPP



net primary
production of ecosystem,
NEP



net ecosystem production,

R
a



autotrophic
respiration,
R
h



heterotrophic respiration. All elements of balance equation are
measured in energy, mass or volume unit
s per area and time because production
is characteristic of speed of organic matter generation and use.

Second form of balance equation is more detailed and takes into account
the consumption of net primary production of organic matter by different kind of

heterotrophic populations but in forest ecosystems total biomass heterotrophic
component is relatively small that is why in further analysis we will use balance
equation in the first form (1).

5


For simplification of further analysis let‟s designate:
GPP=G,

NPP=N,
R
a
=R
, then balance equation which describes production process in forest
ecosystem may be presented as follows:

R
N
G

(3)


Net primary production of forest ecosystem should be presented as a sum
of two items: increment of living g
rowing stock and increment of dead biomass
(wood, branches, needles etc.) for the same period of time:

dt
dS
S
S
S
N
.
.
,
*

(4)


Here
S



amount of living growing stock,
μ
*
Ѕ



dead biomass increment
proportional to living growing stock,
μ



the rate of dead biomass appearance
(1/time).

It is reasonable consider the autotrophic respiration also as proportional to
living growing stock, therefore:
R=
γ
*
Ѕ
,
γ



the intensity of autotrophic
respiration (1/time).

Consider the function which relate
s the gross primary production with
living growing stock:
G=f(S)
. Function
G=f(S)

should be of convex shape as
presented on Fig. 1.


Figure 1. Gross primary production as a function of living growing stock
.

Fig.1. illustrates the fact of fast elevation of

gross primary production
together with growing stock up to some maximum value and after remains
approximately the same because growing stock elevates by mass of wood, bark
and other non photosynthesizing fraction of trees biomass

Summarizing the above exp
lanations we may derive the main equation of
the balance model of production process in forest ecosystem:

6


S
S
S
S
f
*
*
)
(
.

(5)


or

S
S
f
S
*
)
(
)
(
.

(6)


The main differential equation of balance model shows the equality of
living growing stock increment to gross primary production minus losses of
organic matter in the form of dead biomass and autotrophic respiration.

Analysis of the obtained model it is r
easonable to do from point of view
the model equilibrium states and its stability (Fig.2).

1).


2).


Figure

2.
Main differential equation of balance model of production
process in forest ecosystem.

On upper part of


Fig. 2 it is shown the gross primary production function
f(S)

and line representing the dead biomass and respiration losses
(
μ
+
γ
)*S
.
7


Extraction of the line from function gives relationship of
Ś



increment of living
growing stock and
S



living growing st
ock shown on bottom part of Fig.2 and
allowing to do stability analysis of equilibrium states. Arrows on bottom part of
Fig.2 indicates the direction of changes in
S
. Bottom part of Fig. 2 is phase
portrait of main differential equation of the model.

In th
e analyzed model there are two equilibrium states
S=0

и

S=S*
, as it
shown on bottom part of Fig.2 first equilibrium state will be unstable,
meanwhile second


stable. At the state
Ŝ

increment of living grooving stock
reaches of maximum but this point is un
stable.

In the stable equilibrium state
S*

should take place following relationship:

f(S*)= (μ+γ)*S*,

which

shows

equality

in

stable

equilibrium

state

of

gross

primary

production

to

losses

on

dead

biomass

and

respiration
,
increment

of

living

growing

stock

is

absent
.
This stable equilibrium state from theoretical ecology
point of view is equal to climax and in natural unmanaged forest ecosystem may
exists permanently with compensation of small derivation by mechanism of
stability support.

Let‟s consider the

case then part of growing stock
Q

may be extracted
(harvested) from ecosystem at each period of time. In such a case the main
balance model equation will have following form:

Q
S
S
f
S
*
)
(
)
(
.

(7)



Equilibrium states and its stability in such a case will depend on value of
Q

(Fig.3).

1).



2)

8



Figure 3. Stability analysis of main equation of balance model accounting
for harvest.

Maximum harvest of living growing stock as much as
Q
1

may be in state
Ŝ

but as it shown in upper part of Fig.3 this state will be unstable and living
growing stock will decrease up to zero. So, extraction of biomass of amount
Q
1

or more will destroy forest ecosystem due to overexploitation.

If from ecosystem extracted less a
mount of biomass, for example,
Q
2

in
the system will be two equilibrium states
S
1

и

S
2
, as it shown on bottom part of
Fig.3 second equilibrium state will be stable but first


no. Therefore sustainable
exploitation of forest ecosystem living growing stock
may took place only under
extraction of biomass in amounts
0 < Q < Q
1

and volumes of growing stock of
Ŝ

< S < S
*.

Reference

1.
Alekseev A.S. Rural forested areas as an only background for regional carbon
and environmental balance // Folia Forestalia Poloni
ca.
Series A
-

Forestry.
Volume 51, number 1, July 2009. P.12
-
15.

2.
Lovett G.M., Cole J.J. and Pace M.L. Is Net Ecosystem Production Equal to
Ecosystem Carbon Accumulation? // Ecosystems, 2006, № 9. P. 1

4.

3.
Woodwell GM, Whittaker RH. Primary production i
n terrestrial ecosystems //
Am Zoologist, 1968, № 8. P. 19

30.


9


Comparison of some approaches to modeling forest bioproductuvuty on
example of pine stands of urban forests of Kyiv city


Lakyda I.P.
1

Ph.D. student, National University of Life and
Environmental Sciences of
Ukraine


Modelling growth and productivity of forest plantations is a fundamental
step of forest mensurational studies, its results have scientific value and are
often successfully used in practical forestry. Models of growth and
productivity
of forest plantations are the foundation based on which one can quantify
ecological functions of forest stands, such as their bioproductivity in terms of its
components.

The object of this study is process of growth of forest stands. The subje
ct of
research is dynamics of biological productivity of pine stands of artificial origin
of urban forests of Kyiv city. The aim was to compare the two abovementioned
systems of biological productivity models for modal pine stands of artificial
origin of u
rban forests of Kyiv city. The study covers pine stands of artificial
origin, which are located in three forest
-
park economies of communal enterprise
“Kyivzelenbud”


“Darnytske”, “Koncha
-
Zaspa” and “Svyatoshynske”. Total
area of the stands specified is 15
,864.8 hectares, growing stock



5.4 million m
3
.

The main aim of the research is accomplished in two stages. The initial
dataset used in this study was derived by constructing queries to the forest
inventory database “Stand
-
wise mensurational characteristi
cs of forests of
Ukraine”, which was developed and is being operated by Ukrainian state forest
inventory production association “Ukrderzhlisproekt”. On the first stage, growth
models and yield tables for modal pine stands of artificial origin of urban fore
sts
of Kyiv city were developed using the abovementioned initial dataset (Lakyda,
2010). On the second stage, in order to develop tables of biological productivity,
we applied method of assessing biological productivity of forests (Shvidenko et
al., 2007)
and two systems of models of bioproductivity to the developed growth
models:


local system of bioproductivity models for forests of Ukraine (Lakyda, 1997);


regional system of bioproductivity models for forests of European part of
Northern Eurasia (Shvidenko

et al., 2007).

The first of these two systems of bioproductivity models is more general,
developed for geographically larger area. It should be noted that data set used by
the author of system of local models of bioproductivity is a subset of the data set

on which the regional system of models was developed; however, it does not
allow to state about similarity of these systems. It is found that the local system
gives slightly worse results than the regional, primarily because models for



1

Scientific advisor


doctor of agricultural sciences, professor Shvidenko A.Z.

10


evaluation of some
fractions of live biomass in it are based on limited amount of
data that cover a narrow age range. The difference between the results of these
two systems of bioproductivity models is rather big, however, it was decided to
use both systems and provide comp
arison of the results.

When applying both systems, amount of stand live biomass is estimated as
a sum of its fractions (stem wood over bark, branches, needles, roots,
understorey, undergrowth and live soil cover). It is worth noting that calculation
of fra
ctions of undergrowth and understorey, as well as live soil cover is carried
out using the same models

within this study, so the results of both systems of
models for these fractions are no different. The comparison of the results of the
two systems of
models is carried out graphically. Comparison of dynamics of
live biomass of stem is shown on Figure 1.




Fig. 1


Dynamics of live biomass of stem




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)


When analyzing Figure 12 it is possible to state that the local system
predicts higher amounts of
stem live biomass

than the regional. The difference
between the results of the two systems of models increases in higher site index
classes. Comparison of dynamics of live biomass of branches is shown in Figure
2.

I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

11



Fig. 2


Dynamics of live biomass of branches




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)


Figure 13 shows that the regional system of models overestimates live
biomass of branches regarding the local sys
tem, and the discrepancy between
the predicted values
of live biomass of branches is about 15%. Minimum values
are achieved in site index class IV, and maximum


in the I
a
, and I and II site
index classes for regional and local system of models respectiv
ely. Comparison
of dynamics of live biomass of needles is shown in Figure 3.


Fig. 3


Dynamics of live biomass of needles




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)



When comparing results of local and regional systems of models for
predicting dynamics of live biomass fr
action of needles, it has to be mentioned
that, as for the fraction of branches, regional system of models calculates higher
values
than the local. The difference in this case is around 50%. The minimum
value is achieved in site index class IV, and the m
aximum


in I, II, and I
a

site
I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

12


index classes for regional and local systems of models, respectively.
Comparison of dynamics of live biomass of roots is shown in Figure 4.


Fig. 4


Dynamics of live biomass of roots




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)

When analyzing Figure 15, we can conclude that the regional system of
models underestimates fraction of roots relativ
ely to the local system. The
discrepancy between the predicted values
of the two systems is 35%. The
minimum values
correspond to IV
th

site index class, and maximum


to site
index class I
a
. It should be noted that difference increases with age increase.
Comparison of dynamics of live biomass of a stand is shown in Figure 5.


Fig. 5


Dynamics of live biomass of a stand




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)


Figure 5 shows that the local system of models overestimates live biomass of a
stand relatively to the regional system of models by value of 15%. Minimum
and maximum values
are recorded for site index classes IV and I
b
, respectively.
Comparison of dynami
cs of total live biomass productivity is shown in Figure 6.

I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

13



Fig. 6


Dynamics of total live biomass productivity




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)


Describing the projected values of total live biomass productivity, it is
worth paying attention to a fact that the regional system of models predicts
higher values
of this index than the local. The discrepancy does not exceed 10%,
while minimum values
are quite close together. The difference increases with
increase in site productivity. The maximum value for the regional model is
achieved in site index classes I
a

and I
b
, and for the local


in site index class I
b
.
Comparison of dynamics of current annu
al increment of live biomass by present
stock is shown in Figure 7.


Fig. 7


Current annual increment of live biomass by present stock




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)


When analyzing Figure 7 it should be stated that curves depicting current
annual increment o
f live biomass have similar shape, maximum is reached at
young age, after which values decrease with increasing age. This corresponds to
the nature of current annual increment. The regional model overestimates the
value of the parameter, relatively to the
local model. The minimum value
I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

14


corresponds to site index class IV, and maximum


I
b

and I
a

site index classes.
Comparison of dynamics of net primary production is presented in Figure 8.


Fig. 8


Dynamics of net primary production




after Shvidenko et al., 2007, b


after Lakyda, 1997)


Comparing the dynamics of net primary production, it should be noted that
the local system of models overestimates the rate relatively to the regional in
older age. Minimum values
are reached in site index class IV, and maximum
correspond to site index c
lasses I
a
, I
b
. In older age, the local system of models
predicts further growth of NPP for all site index classes, and regional
-

only for
III and IV site index classes. Forecast of the regional system looks like the one
corresponding to the nature of chan
ge of this index with age.

It is possible to point the following reasons for the illustrated differences:


existing data that were used by the authors to develop their systems of models.
Especially notable this factor is when considering the dynamics of liv
e biomass
fractions of needles and roots. Live biomass of roots is correctly described by
mathematical expression of local system of models only to age of 80 years.
Clearly, empirical data for older age were missing, so the results for this period
appear l
ess adequate to objective reality. Live biomass of needles throughout the
period to 140 years is low compared with actual data from sample plots in
similar forest growing conditions (Usoltsev, 2001);


geographical factors. The peculiarity of the regional s
ystem of bioproductivity
models is impact of geographical conditions of a large region for which it was
designed. Thus, the model for evaluation of live soil cover, understorey and
undergrowth work the same way for site index classes IV in dry and in damp
and wet conditions, which does not fully meet the conditions of Ukrainian
Polissya;


mathematical expressions used in modeling the dynamics of live biomass
fractions in the regional system of models describe the experimental data more
accurately compared t
o expressions used for developing the local system.

I
b

I
a

I

II

III

IV

15


The main conclusion from the above is need to improve the local system of
bioproductivity models in order to correct these deficiencies, which, despite not
being critical ones, significantly complicate c
orrect interpretation of the results.
First of all, it should be set to expand initial dataset in order to better describe
considerable age gap and draw attention to mathematical expressions used to
describe age dynamics of biological productivity of fores
t plantations. These
measures may significantly improve system of models of biological productivity
of forests of Ukraine.


References:


1. Lakyda I.P.

Growth models for

pine

stands

of

artificial

origin

of

urban

forests

of

Kyiv

city

/
I.P. Lakyda

//
Scientific Journal of National University of Life and
Environmental Sciences of Ukraine.



Kyiv: NUBiP of Ukraine,
2010.


Vol
.
152.


P
. 77
-
81.

2. Lakyda P.I. Productivity of forest stands of Ukraine by components of
aboveground phytomass
:
abstract of
dissertation of candidate of sciences
:
speciality

06.03.02
“Forest inventory and forest mensuration”

/
P.I. Lakyda
.


Kyiv: NAU
, 1997.


48
p
.

3. Shvidenko
A.
, Schepaschenko

D.
, Nilsson

S.
, Bouloui

Y
.
Semi
-
empirical
models for assessing biological
productivity of Northern Eurasian forests. //
Ecological Modelling, 204.


2007
.


P
. 163

179.

4. Usoltsev V.A. Phytomass of forests of Northern Eurasia: database and
geography
.


Ekaterinburg
:
Uro RAU
, 2001.


658
p
.



16


Development of operational planning
system of forest treatments

for liquidation of storm consequences based on remote methods and GIS


Akaikin Daniil

PhD student, Saint
-
Petersburg State Forest University


Remote methods, GIS, wind through, liquidation, forest treatments


Introduction

Operational liquidation of storm consequences is important factor for
reduction of negative impact. Rate of elimination depends mainly from agility of
development and efficiency of planned treatments. These treatments needs to be
legal and directed to redu
ce of induced negative ecological, social and
economical impacts.

Base for operational planning of treatments is authentic data about
characteristic of storm impact get in short
-
time. Windfall and windbreaks are
frequent of past storm. They

caused

heavy

damages

for

forest

ecosystems
.
Definition

of

damage

is

complex

and

time
-
consuming

process
.

Ground methods and equipment for measures of damaged area (azimuth
compass, tape and GPS receiver) are ineffective due to hard passability of
borders, low rate of fi
eld work and poor finding of damaged stands within
forestland.

Listed problems seriously affects to timely decision
-
making. Solution of
this problem could be estimation of damages of forest stands and creation of
complex of treatments for elimination of st
orm impacts based on of remote
methods and geo informational system (GIS).


Materials and methods

The aim of the study is development of operational planning system of
forest treatments for liquidation of consequences of storm, which was passed of
in the
Leningrad region in summer 2010.

According to the primary data of FGU “Roslezoshita” “CZL
Leningradskoi oblasti” the area damaged by storm is 28737 ha. [5]

The object of research is Sosnovskoe uchastkovoe lesnichestvo part of
Priozerskoe lesnichectvo in th
e Leningrad region.

Members to headquarters (HQ) are appointed after of analysis of primary
evaluation of damaged stands (flight by helicopter). HQ is responsible for
planning of treatments and coordination of contingent and equipment.

Operational planning

system of forest treatments for liquidation of storm
impact consist from two parts: collecting information about damaged forest
stands and planning of required treatments (Figure 1).

17





Figure 1. Generalize scheme of operational planning
system of forest
treatments.


First part consists from photo survey of damaged area by unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV), creation of photomap, development of priority list of damaged
forest stands, elaboration of photomap using GIS and creation of data bases.

Photo survey of damaged area by UAV, creation of photomap,
development of priority list of damaged forest stands

HQ concludes about need and rate of photo survey. Photo survey starts
from determination of damaged territory and air strip. In current study

photo
survey was done on whole territory of Sosnovskoe uchastkovoe lesnichestvo.

On the first step different parameters of photo survey pointed in special
software. Flight of UAV usually provides by two specialists. The result of photo
survey is number of

pictures with information of flight (height, geo coordinates
and etc.).

18


On the next step specialist create a photo map and analyze it in terms of
priority of reclamation before elaboration of photomap using GIS.

Elaboration of photomap using GIS and creat
ion of data bases

For elaboration of photomap GIS consisting from WinPLP (system of
elaboration of information) and WinGis (graphical editor) is used. Current GIS
is widely spread in North
-
west region of Russia, used by branch of FGUP
“Roslesinforg” “Sevza
plesproekt” and installed in all forest districts of
Leningrad region.

Photomap combined with map of Sosnovskoe uchaskovoe lesnichestvo
GIS. The result of combination is base of further determination of borders of
damaged forest stands and parameters of da
maged forest stands. These data can
be obtained using subsystem of WinPLP TILF [6].

Data base in Excel with different characteristics of damaged forest stand
form on the last step of first part. Information of the first part of system is the
base of second

part, which includes planning of sanitary, forest protection,
afforestation treatments and attendant activities.

Sanitary

treatments

HQ form commissions of inventory of sanitary conditions of damaged
territory. Based on data bases and chosen priority
commission fill documents for
sanitary treatments. Further commission inspects damaged forest stands for
adjusting of damaged area and required treatments.

Documents for sanitary used for preparation of changes of Project of
Forest Utilization and forest d
eclaration. Monitoring of sanitary conditions of
damaged forest stands is important treatment for obtaining of strict control of
situation.

Forest utilization


Lessee of damaged forest stands need to start liquidation of storm impacy
in short
-
time. They sh
ould stop using their current forest declaration and add to
their Project of Forest Utilization and forest declaration new forest areas
according to sanitary documents.

Regulatory body responsible for forest relations needs to negotiate a state
contact for

liquidation of storm impact in non
-
rented territory.

Fire

protection

treatments

HQ coordinates of representatives of lessee, Priozerskoe lesnichestvo and
police to patrol the damaged territory for fire protection and controlling
purposes. Members

of

HQ

de
velop

patrol

teams

and

routes
.

If needed acceptance of people to forest land with damaged stands could
be restricted. HQ should increase fire protection agitation and meetings with
people in nearby settlements.

Fire lines should be established on the
borders of damaged forest stands
and settlements, public roads and new plantings after sanitary clear felling.

Afforestation treatments

Preliminary method and value of afforestation treatments calculated based
on information of sanitary documents. HQ count

primary calculations of costs.
19


After end of sanitary treatments method and value of afforestation treatments
need to be adjusted.

Attendant activities


During realization of basic activities of liquidation of storm impact HQ
provide attendant activities.
They consist from help to locals with clearance of
top
-
priority objects (power line and public roads), consolidation of contingent
and equipment for basic activity for liquidation of storm impact, contact with
media to provide official information about li
quidation of storm and organizing
of meetings with local administration and population.


Results

The result of first part is different information about damaged forest
stands. Graphical data base shows location of damaged stands on the territory of
Sosnov
skoe uchastkovoe lesnichestvo.


Figure 2. Location of damaged forest stands on territory of Sosnovskoe
uchastkovoe lesnichestvo


According to Figure 2 storm damaged north and east parts of it. HQ gets a
picture of borders of damaged stands in each forest
compartment.

Text data base include various statistic information about characteristic of
damaged stands (Figure 3). Analysis of it shows reliable results for using in
preparation of sanitary documents.

20



Figure 3. Comparison of area of Sosnovskoe uchastkovoe lesnichestvo and
damaged territory


Area of damaged forest stands cover 17% of Sosnovskoe uchastkovoe
lesnichestvo. The highest rate of damage has stands with main specie


pine
11%, stands with main
specie spruce and birch cover 5% and 1%
correspondently.

HQ could make effective decisions about required forces, equipment,
patrol routs and treatments based on developed graphical and text data base.

Rate of elimination depends from qualification of spec
ialists, weather,
time of getting first materials of graphical and text data bases, agreement of
documents for sanitary treatments and changes of Project of Forest utilization
and forest declaration.


Conclusions

Discussed methods of getting information se
ems quite reliable. Using of
remote methods (UAV) and GIS offer the possibility for fast information for
further planning. Realization of all planning treatments allow to reduce of
induced negative ecological, social and economical impacts.


Possible error
s could appear due to bad weather conditions for utilizing
UAV, discrepancy of GIS information and actual data, inceasing damaged
territory by repeated storm or after winter period.

Offered system was developed using remote methods and GIS could by an
effe
ctive tool for operative planning of forest treatments for liquidation of storm
according current legislation.


Reference

1.

Saint
-
Petersburg State Forest Technical Academy
[electronnyi resurs]
//
http://ftacademy.ru/

2.

Fridh,

Magnus et al. After Gudrun. Lessons learnt following the storm in
2005 and recommendations to the future.
-
Jonkoping: Report of Swedish Forest
Agency, 2006.
-
16p

21


3.

Nikiforov A.A. Primenenie bespilotnyh letatel‟nyh apparatov dlya
inventarizacii, kartografirova
niya i upravleniya ob‟ectami sadovo
-
parkovogo
hozyaistva.//Lese Rossii v XXI veke. Materialy pervoy mezhdunarodnoi
nauchno
-
practicheskoi internet
-
konferencii.


SPb.: SPbGLTA, 2009. № 1, s.
248
-
251

4.

Sukhih V.I. Aerokosmicheskie metody v lesnom hosyaistve I
landshaftnom stroitel‟stve: Uchebnik.


Yoshkar
-
Ola: MarGTU, 2005.


392 s.

5.

FGU «Roslesozashita» «CZL Leningradskoi oblasti» [electronnyi resurs]
//
http://www.czlspb.ru/

6.

FGUP «Sevzaplesproekt». Lesoustroitel‟noe
proektirovanie I vedenie
lesnogo hozyaistva. Obshee opisanie sistemy s ispol‟zovaniem kart.


SPb.:
2004. s. 163

7.

Federal‟noe Agentsvo Lesnogo Hozyaistva Rossii
[electronnyi resurs]
//
http://www.rosleshoz.gov.ru/

8.

Filial FGUP «Roslesinforg» «Sevzaplesproekt»
[electronnyi resurs]
//
http://sevzaplesproekt.roslesinforg.ru/



22


Forest functions, goods and services:

an attempt to integrate various approaches


Jerzy
Lesinski

Institute of Forest Biodiversity, Faculty of Forestry

University of Agriculture, Krakow, Poland

jerzy.lesinski@ur.krakow.pl



Abstract


Both, the sustainability and the multi
-
functionality use to be quite
common terms when related to the contemporary forestry, however not
necessarily their meaning is unequivocal, rather most often it is diffused.
Nevertheless, when it comes to the first te
rm, one may easily distinguish
between: sustainable ecosystem, sustainable yield, and sustainable forest
management, while understanding of the latter term seem to be much more
complex.


The forest functions‟ concept, as invented in the XIX Century and
de
veloped mostly in Russia, worldwide interfaces, to some extent opposite, the
concept of multi
-
purpose forestry. Thus, the lack of harmonized approach in an
international scale results in incomparability of individual national forest
policies with respect t
o the multi
-
functionality issue. In turn, differentiated
national inventory standards concerning forest functions‟ categories make the
assessment of the global forest resources very complicated and not really
reliable.

It has to be also mentioned that the strongly exposed at present the socio
-
economic perspective of forestry contributes with new, previously unknown
terms, such as forest ecosystems goods and services being recently introduced
by the Millenium Ecosystem As
sessment. Unfortunately, there are no clear
references between categories of forest goods and services and individual forest
functions. Thus, it could be easily found out that the terminology concerning
forest functions, goods and services is extremely dif
fused making forest
scientists and practitioners as well as environmental economists involved with
these issues confused and having substantial troubles to communicate with each
other.

Since the lack of common understanding may affect both planning and
im
plementation of such forest management systems that suit forests being
designated for one or another function and, at the same time, that may safeguard
expected goods and/or services, any attempt to integrate the above various
approaches seem to be of impo
rtance. This presentation is one of such attempts.


1. Introduction

The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2011 as the
International Year of Forests. The goal of the celebration is to raise awareness of
23


conservation and sustainable development of

all types of forests worldwide.
Since
forests and sustainable forest management (SFM) seem to be poorly
understood by everyone outside the forest sector, thus this declaration was
supposed to lead to other policy sectors‟ (energy, climate, environment,
etc.
)
engagement in a participatory dialogue on forest
-
related issues.

The International Year of Forests was officially launched on 2 February
2011 at the UN headquarters in New York, USA, during the UN Forum on
Forests. Events are to be held globally thro
ughout 2011 showcasing actions
towards managing the world's forests sustainably.

The International Year of Forests 2011 logo conveys the theme of
“Forests for People”. The logo also reflects the central role of people in
management, conservation, and the
sustainable development of our world‟s
forests. The elements in the design show some of the many values of forests. At
the same time, the logo reminds us that forests are vital to the survival and
wellbeing of people everywhere.
The programme for the Inter
national Year of
Forests 2011 includes,
inter alia
, the following aspects:



Social and economic development, including: food security, alleviating poverty,
products and livelihoods, work and cooperation, health



Democracy and human rights,
i.e.
: human right
s, people‟s participation, public
service, conflict and peace,



Cultural and spiritual life,
e.g.
: spirituality, culture, traditions, education and
literacy



Environmental services, such as: water, biodiversity, and climate

Very bread celebration programme
and its strong focus on
interdependencies between forests and people make
discussion on forest
functions, goods and services fully justified.


2. Forest functions vs. forest multi
-
functionality


2.1. Development of the concept and its implementation

A
development of the forest functions‟ concept has a long history.
Designated for spiritual reasons holy forests appeared over all continents already
during the tribal period of the mankind. Then, t
he development of policies and
rules more strictly aiming at

conservation of various forest resource were related
to supply and demand. Originally forests were viewed as an inexhaustible source
of resources. Russia is a country which may serve as an excellent example to
follow the forest functions‟ concept developm
ent (Teplyakov
et al.

1998).

In 1497 the first legal code (sudebnik), issued by the tsar Ivan III, did not
deal at all with violations of forest use. However, by the 17
th

century Russian
forests had become a subject of specific regulation for several reasons. The first
forest resources were to be conserved as natural pastures, areas producing honey
and economically important game species. Protected forest as defence lines
were
important along Russia‟s borders, and are still under military authority. Later
valuable tree species (such as oak and larch), for the important shipbuilding
24


industry became the focus of regulation (Redko and Babich 1993). Subsequently
(1766) forest s
urveys were started to map state forests. New principles for
making forest resources available to society emerged when private ownership
appeared in 1769, and in 1782 when private forest ownership meant harvest
based on stumpage fees. Thus state forests we
re conserved, while private forests
were mined for timber.

Resolution about forest protection on state lands was published in 1869
and on forests in general in 1888. The latter recognised the role of forests in
protecting nature in the interests of the st
ate and the public. According to the
above Resolution all forests in Russia became for the first time divided into two
groups: protective and commercial ones. The first group consisted in this time of
the see coast woodlands, forests along waterways, and w
oody vegetation
protecting cities, villages, roads and agricultural crops from wind driven dust
from open space. In 1894, a new directive (the sixth) was adopted for the
management of state forests (Teplyakov
at al.

1998). One of its consequences
was that
in 1896 work begun to create field shelterbelts protecting from wind
-
erosion in the southern provinces of Russia.

In 1928 the role of forests as green zones surrounding cities was clearly
determined and some years later such zones became established around

Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and other larger cities of the USSR (Anonymous,
1997).

In 1936 the water conservation zone forests were created in watersheds of
the major rivers of the European part of the USSR,
i.e.

Volga, Don, Dnepr, Ural
and Western Dvina riv
ers (
Nikolaenko, Plotnikov & Voronina, 1973;
Lesiński,
1976; Anonymous, 1997). The water
-
protective forest zones breadth varied from
4 to 20 km

with respect to the breadth of a waterway or area of a lake. In these
zones, any logging was forbidden, while tending and sanitary measures were
allowed (Anonymous 1997). Starting with water
-
protective forests among the
number of other protective forests
categories was hardly unexpected, since this
natural resource and infrastructure is strongly dependent on the presence of
protective forest in the watershed (Rakhmanov 1962; Rubtsov 1970, 1972;
Nikolaenko 1972; Kittredge 1973; Idzon & Pimenova 1975). An im
portant
driving force for establishing protection forests was since long to limit
sedimentation on the Russian plain with sand and silt, thus avoiding difficulties
to maintain rivers as a key transport infrastructure for bulk products.

The next legal act o
f importance for the development a forest zoning
strategies in Russia was adopted in 1943. Then forest estate became divided into
three groups to satisfy economic, ecological and social values, while at the same
time a multiple
-
use of each group was declar
ed (Teplyakov
et al.

1998). The
purpose of forests of the first group was mainly to satisfy various protective
functions with limited use in economic terms. Forests of the third group were
designated for timber harvesting. The second group represented a co
mbination
of both groups of forests. Besides water
-
protective forests, subsequently new
categories of protective forests were distinguished, such as nature reserves, soil
25


protective forests of any kind (including spontaneous patches of woody
vegetation as
well as man
-
made green shelterbelts) in the forest
-
steppe and
steppe zones, zone of the pre
-
tundra forests, forest belts along roads and rail
-
roads, spa and recreation (urban and suburban) forests. Again the motives were
mostly ecologically and economicall
y oriented, however social forest functions,
e.g.

recreation were also taken into consideration.

The forest legislation in 70
-
tieth led to increase of a number of protective
forest categories by means of distinguishing forest parks within green zones as a
separate category, establishing new categories such as
e.g.

timberline forests and
marketable
-
nut forests, and by including forest reserves (zapovedniks), national
parks and nature parks to the first group forests (Anonymous 1997).

A contemporary d
ivision of the forests in Russian Federation will be
presented in another subchapter.
Using zoning
approach
as a means of multiple
values, such as water, soil, favourable microclimate
etc
. was also broadly
adopted in other countries of the former Soviet Bl
ock (Lesiński, 1974, 1982;
Lesiński & Pikulski, 1974; Lesiński
et al.,
1981; Papánek, 1973
, 1977,
Keresztesi, 1977
,

Mracek, 1977,
Ńińák, 2008
).
The demand on protective
functions of forests varies depending on local and regional conditions, and is
often hi
gh in mountainous and hilly European landscapes (Morris, 1970;
Lesiński & Pikulski, 1974; Lesiński, 1982),
e.g.

in Switzerland, Austria and
Norway (Aulitzky, 1970; Baumgartner, 1971; Pregernig & Weiss, 1998; Motta
& Haudemand, 1999; Brang, 2001)
. Steep slo
pes being sensitive in terms of soil
erosion and avalanches, networks of streams and rivers, scenic beauty and
recreation values, all make mountain forests particularly predisposed to fulfilling
a number of protective functions. In the European Alps, prote
ctive forests are
divided into two categories (Pregernig & Weiss 1998): Schutz
-

and Bannwald.
The first category includes the forests occurring on sites that are prone to
erosion, while forests of the latter category directly protect settlements or
infrast
ructure corridors against natural hazards. Apart from Europe, protective
forests have been established elsewhere,
e.g.

in New Zealand, Australia, Canada,
and China (Cunningham, 1968; Morris, 1970; Thompson, Kirkland & Miers,
1972, Nitschke, C.R. & Innes, J
.L. 2005
).

In response to public pressures, at present many countries attempt to
resolve conflicts over resource allocation and land use through various
innovative planning techniques. Forest zoning is considered as one of them
(Nitschke & Innes, 2005). T
he division of forested land to accommodate
multiple values is being applied around the world at different scales. Whereas
forest zoning in all cases is adopted as a tool to attain sustainable forest
management, there are many differences in the ways that
forests are zoned, even
though they all hold the same objectives of balancing social, economic, and
environmental values (Nitschke & Innes, 2005).

Two
main approaches have to be considered when it comes to
distinguishing forest functions


the above presented zoning approach and the
integration approach.. When implementing zoning approach, forest areas are
26


separated from each other according to their sin
gle management objective (
e.g.

either timber production or biodiversity conservation or water protection,
etc.
)
,
w
hereas integration approach results in multi
-
functionality that is achieved by
combining various objectives at a larger scale. The zoning app
roach is
implemented mainly in scarcely populated countries/regions, large forest areas,
and a substantial proportion of such forest owners as the state or big forest
companies‟, while the integrated approach suits much better in densely
populated countrie
s/regions.

The concept of multi
-
purpose forestry was born Germany, but its further
development took place mainly in the USA. Major efforts aiming at developing
theoretical grounds for this concept were undertaken in the late 50
-
ties of the
XX Century and
m
ultiple
-
use of forest resources

became a leading issue for the
XII IUFRO Congress held in 1960 in Seattle. However, there is not any
evidence that the concept has been successfully proven. Marion Clawson (1975)
who was one of the key researchers involved w
ith the concept, at last had to
express her final opinion about her former field of interest: „
In practice, multiple
use has all too often meant a little of everything everywhere including timber on
economic sites‟.


2.2. The use of both terms in contempo
rary forest policies

The main document adopted by the European Union that provides a
framework for the implementation of forest
-
related actions is the
EU Forest
Action Plan
, which is based on the principles of the EU Forestry Strategy of
1998. The Plan cov
ers both community and national forest
-
related actions and
will be carried out over a period of 5 years starting from 2007. The development
of the Action Plan began with the
resolution of the European Council in 1998

which emphasized the importance of the
multifunctional role of forests

and
sustainable forest management (Antonoaie & Natu, 2010). Thus, f
orest multi
-
functionality is a commonly used, of a high level of political correctness, legally
grounded, while badly defined term, since it is not clear if:


All functions of any „multifunctional‟ forest are
equally important

or if it is
possible to rank in some way each function‟s importance when compared with
other ones?


Every hectare of each „multifunctional‟ forests is supposed to fulfill
all
functions

irr
espectively of forest size (area), situation (latitude, elevation,
adjacent human settlements), growing conditions, origin (virgin, semi
-
natural,
plantations of fast
-
growing species), species composition (native, alien), age
structure (even
-
aged, uneven
-
a
ged), stocking (dense, open), and so on?


Management of forest resources aiming at
achieving optimum yields

of goods
and services from a given area without impairing the production capacity of the
site is possible?

Probably, enhanced multi
-
level governance mechanisms may be needed to
avoid chaotic multi
-
functionality.

27


The term „forest functions‟ is commonly accepted, legally grounded, and
perceived more or less in a right way. It is b
uild upon a principle of most
ob
vious reason of designation (
e.g.

water
-
protective forest belts lengthwise
water
-
courses or out
-
door recreation in urban forests). Any forest area may be
designated primarily for just one or for more than one function. In the latter case

such a forest is c
onsidered multifunctional

(FAO, 2010)

Forest functions reflect a forest ecosystem potential/capacity:


to preserve its biological diversity


to protect the fragile components of entire and/or adjacent non
-
living
environment (notably soil and water)


to
withstand periodical disturbances associated with harvesting of wood and
non
-
wood goods


to express the ecosystem resilience,
i.e.

to resist pressures exerted by both
natural disturbances and socio
-
economic driving forces and return, over time, to
its pre
-
d
isturbance state


Any undisturbed forest has a capacity of effectively sustain the
maintenance of biological diversity and protection of soil and water since these
capacities/ functions are
integrated
with natural processes

ongoing in forest
ecosystems. The disturbed forests‟ capacities with these respects are limited.
While the aforementioned functions do not necessarily need any specific
designation, other functions should be seen as a
bargain

put on forest

areas
after the
ir designation for various purposes accordingly to people‟s demands on
goods and/or services to be provided by forest ecosystems.

The world‟s forests are designated for
various functions, some local and
some global,

including
e.g.

protection of soils from
wind and water erosion,
coastal protection, avalanche control, carbon sinks, air pollution filtering,
providing working place, safeguarding livelihoods or performing as a play
-
ground for recreation. The
capacity of a forest ecosystem to
sustain a specific
function

depends on the characteristics of its individual structure and dynamics.
Thus, sustainable forest management concepts should therefore observe the
compatibility between individual forest function and forest ecosystem features.


2.3. FRA 2010 stati
stics



FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FRA) main report
represents a major effort of FAO‟s Forestry Department, FAO member
countries, donors, partners and individual experts. More than 900 people have
been directly involved in t
his mammoth task. National correspondents and their
teams provided detailed country reports containing the basic data for the
assessment. More than 70 FAO staff members at headquarters and at our
regional and sub
-
regional offices, as well as consultants an
d volunteers,
contributed to the review of reports, preparation of desk studies for countries
and areas that did not have a national correspondent, and analysis and
presentation of the results.

28



FAO‟s Global Forest Resources Assessment, carried out at
five
-
year
intervals, provides the data and information needed to support policies, decisions
and negotiations in all matters where forests and forestry play a part. In the
report, results are presented according to the seven thematic elements of
sustainabl
e forest management, among other issues regarding productive,
protective, and socio
-
economic functions of forests. When presenting the results
with this respect, such categories and definitions have been adopted:


Protected areas:

Areas especially dedicated

to the protection and maintenance
of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means


P
rimary designated function:

The primary function or management objective
assigned to a managem
ent unit either by legal prescription, documented decision
of the landowner/ manager, or evidence provided by documented studies of
forest management practices, and customary use


Production:

Forest area designated primarily for production of wood, fibre, b
io
-
energy and/or non
-
wood forest products



Conservation of biodiversity:

Forest area designated primarily for conservation
of biological diversity.
Includes but is not limited to

areas designated for
biodiversity conservation within the protected areas



Pro
tection of soil and water:

Forest area designated primarily for protection of
soil and water



Social services:
Forest area designated primarily for social services



Multiple use:
Forest area
designated primarily for more than one purpose

and where none of these alone is considered as the predominant designated
function

The basic data

originate from the respective national forest inventories.
Once received, the draft country reports underwent detailed reviews to ensure
completeness and co
rrect application of definitions and methodologies


including the reclassification of national data into the FRA 2010 classification
system. The individual country reports concerning forest functions clearly
evidence extremely large differentiation of rel
ated terms when comparing one
country with another. Some examples of this variation are presented below.




Russian Federation (809 090 000 ha)



Production (51% ): Operational forests having mainly wood production of
importance



Protection of soil
and water (9%): Protective forests carrying out soil and water
protective of function



Conservation of biodiversity (3%): Protective forests of strict reservations
(zapovedniks), national and nature parks, nature monuments



Social services (1%): Protective
forests of green zones of settlements and
preservation of health (spa) resorts



Multiple purpose (10%): Other forest lands of the Protective forests category

29




Other
(26%): Reserve forests
-

the remote,
non
-
accessible forests which will not
be exploited 20 a
nd/or more years


Finland (22 157 000 ha)



Production

(87% ): Areas not belonging to any category below



Protection of soil and water (0%):



Conservation of biodiversity (9%): Some 25 sub
-
categories,
e.g
.: National parks;
Strict nature reserves; Mire

conservation areas; Protected herb
-
rich forest areas;
Protected old
-
growth forest areas; Wilderness reserves, strictly protected zones;
Areas under various conservation programmes; Shoreline areas conservation
programme; Natura 2000
-
regions, wilderness re
serves, poorly productive land
(scrub land)



Social services (n.s.): Routes for recreation; National hiking areas;
Archaeological remains; Research forests and forests of seed stands; Forests of
Metsähallitus which have been reserved for research, recreatio
n area, wilderness
areas, hiking, recreation forest, building (taajama), tourism (loma
-

ja
matkailualue)



Multiple purpose (4%): Wilderness reserves, nature
-
imitating management
zones "Luonnonhoitometsä", nature conservation forest, zones of restricted
mana
gement; Park forests; Municipal near
-
recreation areas; Other areas of
special activities; Areas under the glacio
-
fluvial Esker formations conservation
programme


Czech Republic (2 881 000 ha)



Production

(75
%

): Production forest



Protection of soi
l and water (9%): 21 unfavourable sites; 31 water sources; 32
mineral water; 45 soil and water protection



Conservation of biodiversity (13%): 22 high mountains; 33 dwarf pine zones; 33
national parks and nature reserves; 41 1st zones protected landscape re
gions and
reserves; preserves; and protected landscape; 46 biodiversity protection; 47
game reserves



Social services (3%): 42 spas; 43 recreation; 44 research and education; 48
public interests



Multiple purpose

(0
%
):



Other (0%):


Poland

(
9 337
000

ha)



Production (40% ): Forest area designated primarily for production of wood



Protection of soil and water

(
20
%): Soil protecting (anti
-
erosion) forests;
Water protecting forests



Conservation of biodiversity (5%): National parks and nature reserves



Social services

(11%): Forests in vicinity of the health
-
resorts (spas)and urban
forests



Multiple purpose (1%): State owned forests managed by other ministries than
Ministry of Environment and by Agricultural Ownership Agency



Other (
5
%):

Forests under
long
-
term influence of air pollution

30




Unknown

function (18%):
Private and community forests



United Kingdom (2 881 000 ha)



Production (32% ): Large conifer plantations (mainly Sitka spruce)



Protection of soil and water (n.s.): Some plantations on

sandy soils, particularly
in coastal areas; Some areas next to important public water supplies



Conservation of biodiversity (5%): Forest within protected areas



Social services (4%): Estimate based on number of recreation sites; Community
forests,
etc.




Mu
ltiple purpose

(55%): Multiple purpose management is now the most
widespread practice in UK forestry. Estimate the area with multiple purpose by
subtracting all the above estimates from the total area



Other (4%): Area recorded with management practice
“unmanaged”.


Depending on adopted approach regarding forest functions, forest
ownership structures, and role of the forest sector in respective national
economies, the percentage of forest area primarily designated for individual
FRA 2010 forest function
categories varies as follows (Table 1):


Table 1.
Primarily designated functions of forest in the EU
-

and other European
countries (including the Asian part of the Russian Federation) in 2010



Country



Total
forest

area

(1

000
ha)


Primary designated

function (percent)

Production




Protection
of soil and
water




Conser
-
vation
of bio
-
diversity



Social

services



Multiple
use



Other




None or
unknown



Greece

3 903

92

0

4

0

0

0

4

Macedonia

998

81

0

0

0

0

0

19

Bosnia and
Herzegovina

2 185

56

0

1

0

0

0

43

Croatia

1 920

82

4

3

2

9

0

0

Serbia

2 713

89

7

5

n.s.

n.s.

0

0

Finland

22 157

87

0

9

n.s.

4

0

0

Latvia

3 354

79

4

15

2

0

0

0

Czech
Republic

2 657

75

9

13

3

0

0

0

France

15 954

75

2

1

n.s.

22

0

0

Denmark

544

55

0

7

0

27

0

11

Portugal

3
456

59

7

5

0

30

0

0

Sweden

28 203

74

n.s.

10

0

15

0

0

31


Estonia

2 217

66

12

9

0

13

0

0

Norway

10 065

60

27

2

0

11

0

0

Austria

3 887

60

36

3

1

0

0

0

Albania

776

79

17

4

0

0

0

0

Bulgaria

3 927

73

12

1

6

8

0

0

Lithuania

2 160

71

10

9

3

8

0

0

Montenegro

543

64

10

5

0

0

0

21

Hungary

2 029

64

14

21

1

0

0

0

Italy

9 149

45

20

36

n.s.

0

0

0

Liechtenstein

7

32

40

20

8

0

0

0

Poland

9 337

40

20

5

11

1

5

18

Belarus

8 630

50

19

14

18

0

0

0

Romania

6 573

48

39

5

6

0

3

0

Ukraine

9 705

46

31

4

19

0

0

0

Spain

18 173

20

20

12

2

46

0

0

Belgium

678

0

15

31

0

55

0

0

Moldova

386

0

10

17

26

47

0

0

Iceland

30

20

13

n.s.

19

44

4

0

Slovakia

1 933

7

18

4

12

59

0

0

Luxembourg

87

32

0

0

0

68

0

0

Cyprus

173

24

0

2

8

28

0

38

United
Kingdom

2 881

32

n.s.

5

4

55

0

4

The
Netherlands

365

1

0

25

0

74

0

0

Germany

11 076

0

0

26

0

74

0

0

Slovenia

1 253

31

6

46

6

11

0

0

Malta

n.s.

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

Ireland

739

43

0

11

n.s.

0

0

46

Switzerland

1 240

40

1

7

5

0

40

7

Russian

Federation

809 090

51

9

2

2

10

26

0

Average for
Europe

1 174
001

52

9

4

2

11

21

n.s.


The European Union has a very clear understanding of what must be
undertaken to ensure the preservation and efficient use of Europe‟s forests. The
EU Action Plan, together with the Natura 2000 Programme are two very
good
instruments to achieve these goals at the Union level, but further planning and
action is needed from the Member States (
Antonoaie & Natu, 2010)
.

Europe contains the largest area of forests compared with other regions,
totaling more than 1 billion hec
tares, of which some 80 percent is constituted by
the Russian Federation forests. Over the last 20 years, forest area designated for
32


conservation purposes doubled in the region. There were also positive trends in
the areas designated for the protection of
soil and water, mostly as a result of
actions taken by the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, the largest proportion of
forest area is designated for production in Europe, which is more than in the rest
of the World. The area in matter declined in the 1990s
, although this trend
reversed in the last decade. Wood removals in Europe also showed variable
trends over the last 20 years and have declined as a result of the 2008

2009
recession in Europe, which lowered demand for wood. Finally, employment in
the prim
ary production of forest goods declined, and this trend is expected to
continue in the near future.


A successful, sustainable forestry has to be ecologicall
y sound,
economically viable, socially responsible, and politically acceptable. It has to be
observed that there are strong interdependencies between the dynamics of forest
ecosystems, their biological diversity, forest functions and management.
Understand
ing of these interdependencies would help forestry to successfully
cope with the obstacles arising from both changing environments (
e.g.

climate
change consequences) and socio
-
economic drivers. The six pan
-
European
criteria for sustainable forest management (SFM) are as follows:



Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their
contribution to global carbon cycles;



Main
tenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality;



Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests (wood and
non
-
wood);



Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity
in forest ecosystems;



Maintenance and appro
priate enhancement of protective functions in forest
management (notably soil and water); and



Maintenance of other socio
-
economic functions and conditions


A variety of the socio
-
economic functions of forests reflects highly
differentiated needs of the soc
iety. Apart from the strictly defined socio
-
economic forest functions, when provided as ecosystem goods and services,
human welfare benefits from the diverse environmental effects of forests. Thus,
the statement „maintenance of other socio
-
economic functio
ns and conditions is
one of six the pan
-
European criteria for sustainable forest management” means
that even such functions and conditions as forest biodiversity, its productivity,
regeneration capacity, vitality, and so on should also be considered import
ant
when it comes to the socio
-
economic needs.


3. Forest ecosystem goods and services


Forest biodiversity sustains human well
-
being through multitude of
ecosystem goods and services.
Healthy ecosystems carry out a diverse array of
processes that provid
e both goods and services,
i.e.

the benefits humankind
33


derives from the workings of the natural world.
Here, goods refer to items given
monetary value in the marketplace, whereas the services from ecosystems are
valued, but are rarely bought or sold.

There are four groups of ecosystems‟ goods and services (
Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. 2005)
, such as:



Supporting,
i.e.
providing the basic infrastructure for life on Earth, are forest
ecosystem services that are necessary for the production of all othe
r ecosystem
services, including primary biomass production through photosynthesis,
production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation and retention, nutrient
cycling, water cycling, and provisioning of habitat. Biodiversity is the basis and
“engine” for all
these ecosystem services.
They are characterised by long
timescales and changes may be slow to take effect;



Regulating,
i.e.

maintaining an environment in a fit condition for human
habitation, are the services provided for humans thanks to forest ecosystem
processes, including
e.g.

the prevention of soil erosion and flooding,
purification of water and air, regulation of climat
e, and crop pollination;



Provisioning, are the goods on which life depends when provided for the
humans by forest ecosystems in form of timber, fuel, fibre, fresh water, food,
pharmaceuticals, bio
-
chemicals, and genetic resources,
etc.

(forests are the bas
is
of over 5,000 commercial products) that human society uses for fashioning its
own products,
e.g.
building, clothing, medicines,
etc
;



Cultural, are the non
-
material benefits provided for the humans by forest
ecosystems by means of spiritual enrichment, c
ognitive development, reflection,
recreation, scientific discovery, aesthetic enjoyment, and a “sense of place” that
people,
communities and societies place value (including economic value) for
their own sake because of religious or spiritual meanings they

contain or simply
because people find them attractive.

The ecosystem approach (
UNEP/GRID)

presumes subordination of these
four types of goods and services to the following principles:


Management within natural limits


M
anagement for the long term


M
anagement at multiple scale


Accounting for true value


Making trade
-
offs clear, and


Involvement of stakeholders in the decisions
-
making

There is no doubt that diverse landscapes provide multiple services, while
simple ones are able to provide only a few s
ervices. Ecosystem services should
be considered as a package, with no single service dominating, while the
benefits to people from ecosystem services should be assessed and provided at
the landscape scale. The maintenance of
mature ecosystems as critical
landscapes for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in a time of
rapid change

seems to be a wise policy (McNeely, 2011).


34


4. Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Goods & Services

Provision of FESS increases human welfare which implies that the
y have
a measurable value and should be evaluated. In fact, there is one indicator of the
economic benefits of forestry
-

the value of wood and non
-
wood forest products‟
removals. This indicator tends to fluctuate over time. When it comes to social
service
s, there are two simple indicators
-

employment in forestry and the area
of forests designated for social services. The first indicator is easily measurable,
while the second may be applied as one of several indirect measures of the
social benefits (
i.e
. f
orest ecosystem goods and services). Of the aforementioned
two indicators the area of forests designated for social services tends to rapidly
increase, while the employment in forestry decreases step by step. It will always
be difficult to quantify social
functions, but it cannot be neglected that they
represent some of the main outputs from forests. Environmental (or ecological)
economics provides new tools for monetizing these goods and services.




Forests have through time been a central host of socia
l, cultural and
spiritual activities and beliefs. Forest and people have co
-
developed and few
forests in Europe have been left untouched by people and in turn forests exert a
powerful influence over human cultures. Forests provide recreational services
for

tourisms and local populations such as ecotourism, outdoor recreation and
sports (
e.g.
fishing and hunting). Globally, nature
-
based tourism has increased
more rapidly than the general tourism market, evolving from a niche market to a
35


mainstream element of

global tourism with annual growth rates of 10
-
30
percent.

Most ecosystem goods and services have traditionally been regarded as
„free goods‟. This has led to ecosystems becoming degraded or destroyed due to
a lack of incentives to protect them. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES),
including public and voluntary

payment schemes and cap and trade schemes,
attempt to rectify this, often through market mechanisms. The use of these
schemes has become more widespread particularly in the USA and in some
developing countries (Valatin & Coull, 2008).




Measuring
ecosys
tem services associated with habitat conservation and biodiversity is
complex. While definitions vary, the concept of biodiversity captures the
variability among living organisms, including variability within and between
species and ecosystems. Covering su
ch a variety of aspects makes it complex to
manage, especially as the associated ecosystem services can be local, national or
international in scale and difficult to measure. Typically, arrangements for the
protection of associated species and services are

not made directly, but relate to
the area of land providing suitable habitat (Valatin & Coull, 2008).



Often the people who benefit from ecosystem goods and services are not
the people who help maintain the ecosystem.
The PES approach provides a way
to
transfer resources from beneficiaries of ecosystem goods and services to the
maintenance of ecosystems structures and processes. In other words, the PES is
a familiar financial instrument now being used to, for example, protect
biodiversity. It is a volunt
ary conditional agreement between a seller and the
buyer for a well
-
defined environmental service. If designed and implemented
well PES offer great potential for protecting ecosystems. Some 300 various PES
programmes now exist around the World.







When quantifying
ecosystem services in a comprehensive way, one may
distinguish between use values and non
-
use values. The first group of values
includes: direct use values (or direct consumption, such as food, timber,
recreation, health), indirect use val
ues (or functional benefits, as
e.g.

soil &
water protection or flood control) and option values (
i.e.

future direct and
indirect values, such as biodiversity). In turn, the group of non
-
use values
includes bequest values = Value of leaving use
-

and non
-
us
e values for future,
and existence values = Value of knowledge of continued existence.

Still, a number of issues remain largely unresolved. Further research and
policy analysis is needed in considering potential introduction of PES
mechanisms in practice
,
e.g.

when it comes to
developing methods of paying
resource owners for the ecosystem services they provide to the society at large
or when governing the trade
-
offs inherent in decision making about the
distribution of costs and benefits of ecosystem serv
ices
(McNeely, 2011)
.



5. Concluding remarks


36


It seems to be not so easy to integrate two different approaches discussed
here,
i.e.

forest functions and forest ecosystem‟s goods and services



While the forest functions are associated with forest ecosystems‟
capacity of
sustaining expected people’s needs
, the forest ecosystem goods and services
(FESS) reflect indirect (supporting services, only) or more or less direct
provision of requested bene
fits
according to anthropogenic (
e.g
. socio
-
economic) drivers



Since the ecosystem services should be considered as a package, with no single
service dominating, they might be rather
associated with the forest multi
-
functionality

than with zoning of forest
area as primarily designated for just one
dominating function.



On the other hand, it is not clear which specifically and how many individual
services (especially provisioning and cultural ones) such a „package‟ should
consist of, which may badly confuse pr
actitioners in charge of sustainably
manage such multifunctional forests.



References:


1.
Anonymous. 1997. Lesa I gruppy


ekskurs v istoriyu (Forests of the 1
st

group


short
history). Lesnoi byulleten´, 4
http://www.forest.ru/rus/problems/1_group/history.html

2.
Antonoaie, V. & Natu, A
-
L. 2010.
The European Union and National Forest
Policies.

Biennial Int. Symposium on Forest and Sustainable

Development,
Transilvania University Press, 744
-
8
, ISSN 1843
-
505X

3.
Aulitzky, H.1970.
Schutzfunktionen des Waldes im Gebirge, Allg. Forstztg.,
81, 5:128
-
129

4.
Baumgartner, A.1971.
Wald als Austauschfaktor in der Grenzschicht Erde
Atmosphäre, Forstwiss.
Zbl., 90,3:174
-
182

5.
Brang, P. 2001.
Resistance and elasticity: promising con
cepts for the
management of
protection forests in the European Alps. Forest Ecology and
Management, 145, 1:107
-
119

6.
Clawson, M. 1975. Conflicts and strategies in forest land
management, J. Soil
Water Cons., 2:63
-
67

7.
Cunningham, A.1968.

Notes of protection forestry in Europe. N.Z. J. For.,
13,1:11
-
122

8.
FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Main report. Forestry
Paper 163, Rome, Italy, ISBN 978
-
92
-
5
-
106654
-
6 (F
RA, 2010)

9.
Idzon, P.F., Pimenova, G.S. 1975.
Vliyanie lesa na stok rek (Effect of forest