Rates of Forest Cover Change in Russia Based on Satellite Imagery: (1975-1995)

A Focus on Five Diverse Region

1) Lisino

2) Outside of Moscow

3) Taceevo

4) Khabarovsk

5) Primorye

Summary

The forests of the Former Soviet Union constitute the largest forested region in the world and have not only a potentially large influence on the global supply of forest products but also major influences on the global environment. Changes in land use and major changes in the structure and function of these forests are matters of international, if not global, interest. We have studied this vast region over more than a decade with the purpose of mapping the distribution of major vegetation types and appraising trends in land use, changes in forest area, and trends in forest structure. We have used every source of information available from Russian maps, photographs, and satellite and other imagery, limited experience in travel throughout the region. Our primary emphasis has been the accumulation and use of the satellite imagery that is becoming increasingly abundant and detailed. Satellite imagery is the only objective data for the analysis of the forest cover and rate of change of this forest cover over this enormous area.

In the work reported here, we have examined changes in forest cover in five regions of European and Asian Russia between 1975 and 1995, through the period of the demise of the Soviet system. We have used satellite imagery to the maximum extent possible and have supplemented it with various other sources of data, including personal experience. Two regions were used in European Russia, one in eastern Siberia, and two areas in the Russian Far East. We have used the simple criterion of “forest” or “non-forest” and have not specifically differentiated in this study the transitions from forest to agriculture or vice versa. New clear cuts appear in satellite imagery as non-forest, although they may be in the process of recovery as forest. As the canopy closes these clear cuts have been recorded here as “forest” and have increased the area of forest recorded. So the data recorded are a net of forested area at any moment. That net includes closed-canopy secondary forests as well as the extensive primary forests of the region.

In the Moscow region where we examined an area of 16,000 ha over the decade between 1975 and 1985, before the political revolution in Russia, there was an average increase in the area of forest of about 0.3% annually. In the following decade there was loss in forest area approaching 1% per year.   In the St. Petersburg region where we examined a 252,000 ha region between 1975 and 1986 there was a loss of forest area of about 3.0%/year followed between 1986 and 1994 by recovery at about 2.3%/year. At the east Siberia site, we were hampered by a lack of satellite imagery for appropriate dates but detected an average rate of forest loss between 1965 and 1990 of 1.2%/yr. In the Russian Far East, colleagues had estimated that between 1972 and 1992 there was an average annual loss of forest area of 0.7%/yr over an area of 730,000 ha in southern Primorsky Kray. We examined a 247,000 ha subset of that region for the period between 1992 and 1997 where the loss in forest area continued at about 0.4% / yr. Our studies in northern Primorsky and Khabarovsk Kray have also been hampered by inadequate satellite imagery. Nonetheless, we estimate from existing imagery that of the 60,000 ha of coniferous forest in the region studied, more than 50% has been clear-cut in recent years and remains conspicuously non-forested on satellite images.

To date, only in the St. Petersburg region have we found any significant forest recovery. In the Moscow region, some forest recovery has been followed by significant forest loss in recent years. Forest loss rates have only slightly improved in the Russian Far East and may, in fact, have worsened considerably once the damage done by the spectacular fires of the fall of 1998 are included. Those fires burned 5.7 million hectares (Kasischke et al. 1999).

Introduction

Fig. 1 Forest cover map of the Former Soviet Union (1990).

Study sites are circled. The forests of northern Europe and Asia, although boreal and sub-boreal and therefore impoverished in species by comparison with the tropics, are remarkably complex. The complexity is indicated in the map of Figure 1, which shows the forest cover of the former Soviet Union. The region extends nearly 6,000 miles from the Scandinavian Peninsula to the Bering Sea and supports rich deciduous forests, a spectrum of boreal and sub-boreal forest types, steppe, and montane and arctic tundra. Much of the region is being influenced by the current expansion of human activities globally. Much of the region was also influenced heavily by industrial activity, including smelting and other polluting industries, during the Soviet era, some of which continue today. The current global warming appears to be contributing to an increase in the frequency of fires, especially in the Asiatic boreal forests (Kasischke et al. 1999; WCFSD 1999). These contemporary considerations of a more and more intensively competitive and demanding world make it important that there be systematic monitoring to detect major transformations in land use or vegetative cover.   The most important emergent need is less for commercial products from forests than for the stability of function of landscapes in an increasingly crowded world (WCFSD 1999). The studies reported here are a part of a larger effort on the part of the Woods Hole Research Center over a 15 year period in maintaining a Global Forest Inventory as a contribution to understanding the details of function of the biosphere as a whole as well as its individual parts.

To gain further insight into the trends affecting the forests of Eurasia and to add to the inventory of basic information concerning this large region that appears to be both remote from human influences and rich in forest resources, we have selected five regions as examples for intensive study. The objective in selection was to provide a geographical representation of trends in forest resources for the areas.

	(Figure 2).  These 5 satellite images (each 50x50 km) are the most recent of the regions studied.  The Sikhote-Alin image (upper left) shows fire scars (light blue) and logging roads in the Primorsky Kray (RFE).  The Previdinsk image (upper right) shows intense clear-cutting of only Spruce/Fir forest (dark red) region in central Siberia.  The Vanimo image (middle-left) shows intense clearcutting of coniferous forests (light blue).  The Lesino image (above) shows encroachment by the city of St. Petersburg, clearings for agriculture, and bogs (brown). The Yevgoryevsk image (left) shows agriculture near the river and a dense grid of forest clearings typical of land-use around Moscow.

The five regions (Figure 2) include two in European Russia, one in east Siberia and two in the Russian Far East. The sites in European Russia were chosen to represent the area that had in the past supplied about 75% of the wood products for Russia. These two sites are close to vigorous western European markets so there is great potential for increased exploitation for timber and pulp. The site in east Siberia where we have much experience was chosen because it contains some of the most productive pine forests in all Russia, and is one of those regions where distance to markets should be a critical factor in harvesting decisions. The two sites in the Russian Far East (RFE) were chosen because of their proximity to the recently moribund but now reviving Asian economies, the presence of spectacular faunal resources including the Siberian tiger, and a known history of recent intensive logging.

Satellite data have many uses in this research including the detection of harvest clearings, reforestation, new roads, other cultural features, fires and fires scars and are the only way to evaluate independently the "official" estimates of the rate of forest harvesting short of prohibitively expensive field work. Often the satellite data are the only up-to-date data available. Both high and low-resolution satellite data (30 m and 1 km resolution) are available. High-resolution data from the Landsat series of satellites are the most useful but total year-by-year coverage of Russia is not available due to misguided U.S. governmental attempts at commercialization. However, the new Landsat 7, successfully launched in April 1999, is non-commercial, and will provide vastly improved and inexpensive satellite coverage of the world including all of Russia.

Site By Site Analysis

Russia's European Forests

              Russia's most intensively used forests are, not surprisingly, in European Russia close to the industrial regions of Europe. Here the rate of exploitation has been 4 to 5 times higher than that in the Russian Far East.   Before the economic collapse in 1989 as much as 70% of the lumber output, 75 % of pulp output and 90% of all paper and paperboard production took place in western Russia according to Nilsson and Shvidenko (undated). The region may well become an increasing source of timber and pulp for export (Nabuurs 1998) as Scandinavian companies with highly efficient Western extractive technology expand operations into northwestern Russia without any of the environmental or other regulatory controls of their home countries.

1. St. Petersburg Region, European Russia

Landsat satellite imagery revealed few widespread changes in forest cover within the St. Petersburg Region over the 1975 to 1994 period. There were a few areas of large clear cuts including a 2500 ha tract south of St. Petersburg.   Logging was largely selective in most regions or consisted of 100 - 300 acre cuts confined to discrete regions of the forest management units. Other noticeable changes were related to economic development, the addition of significant roads, power transmission lines, reservoirs, and expansion of small communities south and west of St. Petersburg, as well as in coastal regions of Lake Ladoga. Conversion of forests to agriculture occurred in some of those areas as well. Extensive areas of peat mining in boggy areas were also seen. For this work we have focused in a particular on the Lisino region, a part of the Leningrad Oblast which includes the St. Petersburg urban complex (see Appendix A).

Results, Lisino, St. Petersburg Region

We studied an area of about 2,500 km 2 . Using supervised and unsupervised classification techniques with Landsat imagery, we defined about 25 classes of land cover for each date of imagery. These 25 classes were further simplified for this report into four: Forest, Non-Forest, Clouds-Smoke -Haze, Water, and Unclassified. Only in the 1986 image were there problems with clouds but cloud cover was still less than 3.6% of the image.

Over the last decade of the Soviet era from 1975-1986 there was a decline in forest cover at an average annual rate of 3% (Table 1).   Over the next 8 years until our appraisal in 1994 there was an increase in forested area that averaged 2.3% per year. Although the imagery we had available did not allow the comparison, we assume that the decline in economic activity over the years following the 1989 economic collapse resulted in a sharp decline in harvesting of timber and that this lower rate of deforestation continued through 1994. The modest increase in forested area recorded after 1986 probably reflects the slow recovery of earlier clear-cuts, not major changes in land use, although we did not attempt to define shifts in land use between forests and agriculture in this study.

Table 1. Land cover and recent rates of forest cover change in the Lisino region of St. Petersburg.

Alexander Lioubimov, a former WHRC Russian Visiting Scholar and forest scientist in Russia, suggests that economic data confirm that rates of harvesting of forest products in the St. Petersburg region have fallen since the 1960s. Using his data and assuming a harvest of 150 m3 of wood/ha would suggest a cut equivalent to an annual clear-cut in the St. Petersburg region of 37,000 ha/yr. as late as 1988 and 20,000 ha/yr. in 1996 and 1997 (Table 2). The total forested area in the territory is estimated to be 4,947,000 ha (49,470 km2 ) in 1990 (Alexeyev and Birdsey, 1998).

Table 2. Estimates of wood harvested in the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) region from 1968 to 1997 (Lioubimov, 1999).

The adjacent Arkhangelsk region had a similar decline in official forest harvesting (Lioubimov pers. comm. 1999). In the 1955 to 1975 period they harvested about 20 million m 3 /yr. representing an area of more than 130,000 ha while in the 1996-1997 period the harvest dropped to about 8 million m 3 /yr. or about 45,000 to 50,000 ha/yr. (Lioubimov, 1999).

Russian colleagues indicate to us that Russian Federal statistics suggest that between the years of 1983 and 1995 the volume of timber harvested declined from 4.3 million m 3 /yr. to 2.7 million m 3 /yr., a decline of nearly 40%. This decline appears in the imagery of the region from 1975, 1986 and 1994. (Samples of this imagery were provided to the W. A. Jones Foundation in our Year One Report of May 1998.) However, we need to be very cautious about using official numbers for the analysis of logging and wood harvesting in Russia. For example, recent reports (American Consulate, St. Petersburg 1997) indicate that 30 to 50 % of the logging in Karelia is illegal and threatens one of the three virgin forests left in Europe. Actual logging is estimated to be 140% of registered (official) logging and costs the local government millions of dollars in lost revenues.

Our data and experience make it clear to us that the best way to strengthen our knowledge of harvest rates and clearing activities is through the use of the satellite imagery, the only objective and current data available on a regional basis.

2. Yevgoryevsky Region,

The Yevgoryevskiy Region is about 90-km southeast of Moscow in a conifer forest sub zone of the Moscow Oblast. The local forestry enterprise, the Yevgoryevsk Leshoz, manages 107,000 ha spread over 12 forestry management areas (Janetos et al. 1998). Forest lands occupy 54.2% of the Yegoryevskiy region and are mixed in with agricultural lands in this area of the Central Russian Plain. Most forests in this area are middle-aged forest stands (55%), while young forest stands (26%), almost mature stands (13%), and mature (6%) stands occupy the rest of the forested land (Janetos et al. 1998). Most tree stands are between 40 to 60 years old. Russian sources (S. Bartalev, pers. comm. 1997) indicate that the oldest tree crops were planted in 1900, 1919, and 1921 and that the largest planting (of pine and spruce) was done in the 1960s. T. Stone visited this site in August 1997 with American and Russian colleagues involved in the Forestry Subgroup Environmental Working Group (EWG) of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.

We chose first to study intensively an area of about 45,000 ha (450 km 2 ) and recognized four classes: Forest, Non-Forest, Clouds-Smoke -Haze, Water, and Unclassified. There were no clouds. For this larger region we found that the area of forest increased about 17 % over the decade from 1975 to 1985, or about 1.7% /year (Table 3).

Table 3. Forest cover and forest cover change in Yevgoryevsk over the 1975 to 1985 period.

Because the 1995 image was not available for the larger area used in the 1975 or 1985 analysis, we chose a subset of the 1975 and 1985 data within the 1995 data. This subset covered about 16,000 ha or 160 km 2 . The analysis of these images confirmed the expansion of the forested area as measured for the whole region in the first decade, but showed a surprisingly sharp (10%) drop in forested area in following decade (Table 4). There is no reason to think that the area for which imagery was available for this work was different from the larger region studied. The high rate of decline in forested area probably applies to the entire region.  

Table 4. Forest cover and forest cover change in Yevgoryevsk over the 1975, 1985 and 1995 period.

3. Krasnoyarsk Region, East Siberia

This region, essentially equidistant from the Pacific coast and from European Russia, has until recently been a supplier of timber for European Russian via rail and via barge down the Yenisey River and through the Arctic Sea to the ice-free port of Murmansk. Much of the harvesting in this region has, in the past, been done by prison labor. The collapse of the Russian economy and the cessation of central planning have reduced the demand for timber in the region. Transportation costs are now too high for much exporting to continue. Timber buyers we met were disappointed in timber quality. T. Stone and P. Schlesinger both visited this region in July and August 1993.

For this work we chose the Taceevo /Predvinsk region in central Krasnoyarsk Kray about 100 km north of the city of Krasnoyarsk with easy access to the river. We examined a region of 250,000 ha which consists of spruce, fir, Scots pine and birch and aspen. Our satellite data were limited by the availability of images to a single date, August 6 th 1990.

Logging operations have concentrated on the spruce and the fir forests. The largest spruce forest close to the Yenisey River is south and east of the village of Predvinsk. The original area of this spruce and fir forest was about 42,000 ha. By August 6, 1990 about 13,000 ha or 31% had been clear-cut.   Recovery is slow in this latitude and the clear cuts are conspicuous for many years. From the examination of 1:25,000 scale Russian forest management maps of the area supplied to us by visiting scholars from Krasnoyarsk, the first clearing in this region took place in 1965.  

Clear cutting has been the preferred style of logging in this area and clear cuts are evident in almost all areas where dense stands of spruce and Scots pine are present. Logging has been intensive in the region of the city of Krasnoyarsk, along the Yenisey and Angara Rivers. Although active logging in the area has declined, exceptionally large areas of insect infestations have occurred along the Angara River to the north and east. The mortality from such severely damaged areas increases vulnerability to extensive fires that substantially destroy the forest. Russian estimates are that 783,000 hectares of forest was damaged in the region between 1994 and 1996 (Korovin et al. 1998) by insects. To the south, there are extensive areas of decline in fir forests apparently due to fungal outbreaks. The topic is being addressed intensively by one of our Russian collaborators, Dr. Vladislav Alexeyev, who's presentation in Woods Hole in April 1999 was a report on the topic.

Russian data indicate that the forest harvest rates in the East Siberia region appear to have peaked around 1988 and have declined since then (Table 5).

Table 5. Forest Harvest rates in East Siberia (Korovin et al. 1998)

Russian federal statistics (Goskomles SSSR 1989) indicate that for the areas under state management in Krasnoyarsk, about 22 million m 3 were harvested annually from since 1966 to 1988. As Krasnoyarsk Kray is the largest territory in East Siberia, we expect a decline in recent harvesting activity in Krasnoyarsk (about - 70%) like that seen in Table 5.

Table 6. Forest Harvest rates in Krasnoyarsk (Goskomles SSSR, 1989).

The Russian Far East, Background

4. Vanino Region, Primorsky and Khabarovsk Kray

              The Russian Far East has a land area of 6,600,000 km 2   (660 million ha) and includes Yakutia (Sahka), Sakhalin Island, Primorsky, Khabarovsk, Amur, Chita, Kamchatka, Magadan and Chukotka. It alone is 71 % the size of the USA including Alaska.   Forests cover but a fraction of that enormous area. We have chosen to focus on the two southernmost territories, Primorsky Kray and Khabarovsk Kray, because they contain the Far East's best forests and are home to the most spectacular faunal and floral diversity. In addition, they are closest to Asian markets including China with its population of 1.2 billion.

               We have examined an area of 220,000 ha which includes the region to the south and west of port of the Vanino. Simple visual interpretation of the limited satellite imagery available reveals much obvious recent logging as evidenced by large clear cuts One area of about 42,000 ha of coniferous forest on the northern side of the Koppi River has been clear-cut over 50% of its area. Similarly, another area of 20,000 ha of coniferous forest south of the Koppi River has been clear-cut over 50% of its area This latter region is on the northern edge of the Botchi Basin nature reserve. It is also clear that fires are important in this region with some clearly associated with the extensive logging.

Khabarovsk's forests extend over 47 million ha and are estimated to contain a stock of 5 billion m 3. Of this, 18 million m 3 are easily accessible and consist of 35 % fir, 22 % spruce, 33 % larch, and 14 % birch. Other forest types make up about 8% of the forest cover (US Embassy 1996).   The region has been opened to much commercial activity and speculation over the past decade and more.

Foreign timber concessions continue to be important in the region. In the past, the Japanese have purchased about 50% of the timber production according to Clarke (1996), but political uncertainties and market conditions have led to a decline of 30% in this market over the last 10 years (World Wide Wood 1998). The US Weyerhaeuser Corp. was interested earlier but had abandoned their efforts by 1994 because of economic and political uncertainties. Other foreign interest is high, however. A Malaysian company, 'Rimbunan Hijau', recently obtained a 500,000 ha concession. Russian foresters estimate that 18 million m 3 per year could be removed but are now cutting at a third of that rate (Clark 1996). US Embassy Trade Reports (1996) indicate that timber production for Khabarovsk has fallen by 30% since 1990.

Efforts have been made to protect segments of the now very much restricted habitats of the Siberian (Amur) tiger and the Amur Leopard. A 2,700 ha Botchi Basin reserve (Zapovedniky) appears to have been invaded and partially logged, but we have been unable to determine unequivocally the official boundaries of this reserve. We have requested advice from colleagues (FOE Japan, PERC) who have local familiarity.

Nilsson and Shvidenko (undated) also state that “selective harvesting” has been the dominant form of clearing in this region and that some 45 to 65% of the growing stock has been removed in such cuts. They indicate that total forest area increased by 8% from 1966 to 1993, the area of Korean Pine ( Pinus koraiensis ) decreased by 60 % (1.46 to 0.56 million ha), hence there has been a significant increase in low value secondary forests.

5. Sikhote-Alin Region, Primorsky Kray, the Russian Far East

              This area is entirely within Primorsky Kray and is in the center of tiger habitat. Primorsky Kray is estimated to have about 12 to 13 million ha (30 million acres) of forestland and to have a timber stock of 1.8 billion m 3 . Over the last 25 years, the forest harvest rate was about 10 million m 3 /yr. or about 60,000 ha per year (Cushman and Wallin). More recently the rate has declined to 4.9 million m 3 /yr. in 1990, 2.8 million m 3 /yr. in 1992 and 2.6 million m 3 /yr. in 1994.

It is clear from looking at the available satellite imagery of this region that as of Aug. 1992, extensive clearcutting had already occurred. Selective logging, (or high grading) as evidenced by hundreds of kilometers of logging roads over the majority of the 3,000,000 ha evaluated, has likely already removed a very large fraction of the best of the timber that was available. Cushman and Wallin (unpubl. ms) state that the 4 million ha of Korean Pine that existed in 1949 had been reduced to 2 million ha by 1995.

Changes in Forest Area

Cushman and Wallin (unpubl. ms.) have used the same imagery that we have to calculate a decline in forest cover over a 730,000 ha (7300 km 2 ) area. They estimated that from 1972 to 1992 a forest cover declined from 90% to 77% with a loss rate twice as high in softwoods than in hardwood forests (Table 7). Much of the loss appears to be due to forest fires rather than directly from logging.

Table 7. Rate of Change in Primorsky, Sikhote-Alin region (Cushman & Wallin unpubl. ms 1998).

We have a satellite image for August 1, 1992 and a recently purchased image from May 3, 1997 obtained through the Chinese receiving station. We first classified the 1992 image and analyzed an area of 240,000 ha (2,400 km 2 ), or about a third the size of the area analyzed by Cushman and Wallin (unpubl. ms.)

The May 1997 satellite data were taken before deciduous trees had their leaves. Comparisons of deciduous forest cover between 1992 and 1997 were not possible. There was, however, a conspicuous decline in the area of coniferous forest at a rate similar to that found by Cushman and Wallin (unpubl. ms). It is not known how much of this loss could be attributed to fires, which are often an indirect effect of logging. Logging creates enormous quantities of highly flammable slash, kills many trees that are not harvested, and opens hundreds of kilometers of new roads to people who may be careless with fires. In addition, logging promotes increased solar insolation and drying of the remaining trees and litter making them even more susceptible to the ignition and the spread of fire.

The area studied contains at least six major fire scars. The scars range in size from 1,200 to 8,000 ha for a total or about 21,200 ha or about 10% of the total area of the study area. The scars are present in both the 1992 and 1997 image and are essentially unchanged in size. This is one indication of the longevity and persistence of fire scars in this difficult climate. In the classification below the scars are included in the non-forest category. Finally, the area is riddled with logging roads. We estimate a minimum of 200 km of primary logging roads in this 50 by 50 km area. There are many more kilometers of secondary roads in isolated valleys for use in selective logging. The logging roads provide continuous access for hunters and poachers and also provide easy access to future loggers who will no longer need to expend resources for building roads and access to the forests.

Table 8. Rate of Change in Primorsky, Sikhote-Alin region, this research

The forested area of Khabarovsk territory has been estimated at 604,470 km 2 and for Primorsky has been estimated at 132,120 km 2 in 1990. Forest harvest rates appear to have peaked in this region in the mid-1980s and have declined since then (Table 9).

Table 9. Harvesting rates 1966-1988 (Goskomles 1989) (excluding long-term leases) and for 1990-1994 (Newall and Wilson 1996) for Primorsky and Khabarovsk Krays. *= FOE Japan, na = not available, #=Amer. Embassy 1996.

Over the period of the 1960 to 1988 there was a continuous increase in the volume of wood harvested in the Russian Far East (Table 10). Since 1988 there has been a steady decline in the legal harvest rate.

Table 10. Forest Harvest Rates in the RFE (Shwidenko and Nilsson 1994, Korovin et al. 1998)

Conventional Wisdom

The conventional wisdom on Russian Forests is summarized in the title of a book by Barr and Braden (1988) entitled "The Disappearing Russian Forest". They postulate that much of the forests of Russia have been "mined" or subjected to a onetime exploitation that results in a landscape without trees and that Russian forestry seems to have been fueled by expediency without consideration of replacement for future use. The very size of the forests has made it appear as an infinite resource and a "free good" to which terms like "sustained yield" need not apply. Wasteful harvest practices, long transportation distances (often up to 5,000 km) and unrealistic subsidies have also characterized recent forestry practices. It is estimated that that only about 50 % of harvested wood products ever reach the consumer (Gunn and Ristau, 1997).

The now out dated Barr and Braden argument has been answered directly by Shvidenko and Nilsson (1997) who state that it is difficult to support the premise that the forests are disappearing. But, they do state that the growing stock of mature coniferous forest has declined significantly over the 1961 to 1993 period and that the most severe decline has been in forests under state management. Also, they state that the quality of Russian forests was severely degraded over the 1961 to 1991 period due to "creaming" (selective removal of all of the trees of a species) especially in the RFE and in those regions with good infrastructure (such as European Russia) which have been substantially over-harvested. Cushman and Wallin (unpubl. ms.) state that selective harvesting in the Russian Far East has turned into destructive high-grading where all valuable trees (e.g. Korean Pine) are taken on the first cut leaving no sources for regeneration. Shvidenko and Nilsson's (1997) final point is that there are still huge areas of unused, unexploited, and unmanaged forests in Russia.

The recent history of logging activities on a national scale for Russia has been summarized by Nilsson and Shvidenko (1997). They estimated that the actual amount of harvesting (reconstructed from official estimates from the State Statistical Agency or GOSKOMSTAT) has gone from 400 million m 3 /yr. in 1970, to 325 million m 3 /yr. in 1992, to 250 million m3/yr. in 1993, to 160 million m 3 /yr. in 1995, to 125 million m 3 /yr. in 1996 (Figure 3). Generally, a hectare supplies about 150 m 3 of wood.

              In terms of forest conservation, the decline in forest harvesting rates over the last few years is an encouraging sign and provides some "breathing space" for the recovery of the cleared and damaged forests. We should, with the satellite data that we have, be able to document both the earlier higher rates of forest loss and the newer declines in forest harvesting assuming that we have chosen representative sites.

Fig. 3. Forest harvest rates in Russia 1945 - 1996. The squares are from Russian federal reports and the triangles are reconstructed values.

Near Term and Future Pressures on the Forests

Even if the rate of logging has declined recently, there is no reason to be complacent about the future of the Russian forests for at least three reasons. First, the forest resource in Russia available to the market is so large that its attractiveness to businesses and investors will always be enormous, especially when forest resources in most countries are dwindling. Over the long term, some 600 million m 3 /yr. of wood are believed available and some 400 million m 3 /yr. are believed to be available over the short term with much of this "surplus fiber" in the Russian Far East (Backman and Blam 1997). Removal of these timber volumes could mean logging of 30,000 km 2 to 40,000 km 2 per year, an amount equivalent to the highest annual rates of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia. Second, forest fires will likely increase in the region as the climate warms. Greater number of larger fires is almost a certainty if the climate both gets warmer and drier. The spectacular fires in the RFE last year (Kasischke et al. 1999) may become a more typical rather than an unusual event. And, third, the new Forest Law of 1997 has made it possible for the regional authorities to sell logging concessions (Nabuurs 1998).

Conclusions

We have studied five regions of forestry activity across Russia using satellite data. Ancillary data, largely based on official sources, show dramatic declines in forest harvesting in all regions in this decade. Lack of current satellite data prevents us from confirming this in two of the five regions (Krasnoyarsk Kray and Khabarovsk Kray). In two of the remaining three regions, we see continued significant rates of forest loss (the Moscow region and Primorsky region). Only in the St. Petersburg region was there any significant evidence of forest recovery.

The regions examined show wide differences in forest-harvesting techniques. In St. Petersburg and Moscow small clear cuts are typical as might be might expected in a mature forestry region. In Krasnoyarsk Kray and in Khabarovsk Kray extensive clear cutting is the dominant form of harvesting. Only in the Primorsky region is selective logging highly pervasive. Fire is clearly a major factor in the both the areas that we studied in the Russian Far East. Evidence of insect damage is clear in the Krasnoyarsk region.

The current reduction in harvesting activity provides some relief for the forests of Russia. Most of this reduction is due to the collapse of the Russia economy and recessions in Japan and Korea - typically major buyers of Russian timber. In some regions, notably Primorsky, much of the damage has already been done and a renewal of clear cutting and selective logging activity on the scale seen in the early to mid 1980s could spell irreversible damage to the highly endangered Siberian tiger and other exceedingly rare species. The logging roads from the earlier wave of selective harvesting are in place and could be easily activated with an upturn in the East Asian economies. The Chinese economy also will always be a major factor in the Russian Far East and could come to dominate timber trade in the region. The Russian economy will likely also improve in the future and will certainly target timber trade as a major future source of revenue. International and Russian forestry analysts are already recommending "strongly accelerating the harvesting schedule for the next 40 years…" (Korovin et al. 1998) for Siberia and for the Far East. Analysis of future large scale forestry trends must inevitably rely on the only objective and current data of which we are aware; that from satellite imagery

Finally, the vast waves of fires that swept the Russian Far East last year may be a fearful portent of the future climates of the boreal zones. Global warming, expected to be most exaggerated in the boreal zone, could be accompanied by a drier climate. If so, the enormous fires of the fall of 1998 may seem small by comparison.

The solution for the region appears to be setting aside large areas of unique forests and animal species, improved utilization of those areas already harvested and an increasing emphasis on improving forest regeneration in this most challenging climate.

Appendix A

Preparatory Steps Completed, Lisino, St. Petersburg Region

1. The Landsat MSS data from July 11, 1975 were geocorrected to the 1985 TM data.

2. The Landsat MSS data from August 1, 1986 were geocorrected to the 1985 TM data.

3. The Landsat TM image from June 2, 1985 was geocorrected to a Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area (LAEA) map projection.

4. The May 19, 1994 Landsat TM 1994 image was geocorrected to the 1985 TM image.

5. The Lisino forestry region (Lezhoz) map was scanned, converted to vectors, and geocorrected. The resulting vectors fit perfectly on the four images.

6. Each date of imagery was classified into several land cover classes.

7. Classification results for each date were compared.

Appendix B

Preparatory Steps Completed, Yevgoryevsk, Moscow Region

1. We have created a base map to allow geometric correction of the satellite imagery. Each of the original maps were digitally scanned and joined. The completed map base was then resampled into Lambert Azimuth Equal Area projection coordinates and verified.

2. Each MSS image (August 26, 1975 and August 29, 1985) was geo-corrected to the new base map.

3. The June 1995 Landsat TM image was geo-corrected to the 1985 Landsat MSS image and the resulting image maintained a resolution of 28.5m.

4. The Yevgoryevsk Leshoz map was scanned and converted to vectors.

5. Each date of imagery was classified into several land cover classes.

6. Classification results for each date were compared.

References

Alexeyev, V. A. and R Birdsey (eds.) 1998. Carbon storage in forests and peatlands of Russia. Northeast Research Station Technical Report NE-244. Radnor, PA, USDA-USFS, 137 pp.

American Consulate, St, Petersburg, 1997. Illegal logging of the Karelian Forest Exposed by Commission, US Dept. of Commerce, Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) (http://iepnt1.itaiep.doc.gov/)

Backman, C. and Y. Balm, 1997. Russian and Siberian Forest Industry Past, Present, and Future: The Way Ahead, US Dept. of Commerce, Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) (http://iepnt1.itaiep.doc.gov/)

Barr, B., and K. Braden 1987. The Disappearing Russian Forest, Rowman and Littlefield, London, 252 pp.

Clark, J. 1996. Russian Forest Industry seeks Capital, Logging and Sawmill Journal, Nov 1996. (http://www.forestnet.com/log&saw/november/russia.html

G. Korovin, E. Karpov, A. Isaev, V. Nefedjev, D. Efremov, V. Sedych, V. Sokolov, T. Schmidt, K. Blauberg, O. Ljusk Eriksson, S. Nilsson, G. Raile, O. Sallnäs, and A. Shvidenko, 1998. Siberia and Far East Russia’s Future Wood Supply: An Analysis Interim Report, IIASA IR-98-001, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis A-2361 Laxenburg, 138 pp.

Goskomles SSSR, 1989. Dynamics of forests under state management by species 1966-1988 (Excluding the Long Term Forest Leases). State Forestry Committee of the USR, Moscow, (in Russian).

Gunn, T and B. Ristau, 1997. Timber: The Growing Russian Forest Products Market, US Dept. of Commerce, Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) (http://iepnt1.itaiep.doc.gov/).

Janetos, A, C., A. Isaev, V. Sukhikh, V. Zhirin, S. Bartalev, D. Ershov, A. Shatalov, M. Gurskiy, A. Pismenniy, T. Ziemelis, H. Shugart, B. Orlick, T. Murphy, E. Kasischke N. French and T. Stone, 1998. Boreal Forest Characterization and Sustainability Study - Report on Phase I and II Results. U.S. Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation Environmental Working Group. 13 pp.

Kaschicke, E. S., K. Bergen, R. Fennimore, F. Sotelo, G. Stephens, A. Janetos and H. Shugart, 1999. Satellite Imagery Gives Clear Picture of Russia's Boreal Forest Fires, EOS 80(13):141,147.

Naburrs, G-J, 1998, What is he future of the Leningrad region forests? European Forestry Institute News, Nov. 1998, p 16.

Newall, J. and E. Wilson, 1996. The Russian Far East: Forest Diversity Hotspots and Industrial Developments, Friends of the Earth-Japan, Tokyo, 200 pp.

Nilsson, S. and A. Shvidenko, 1997. The Russian Forest Sector: A Position Paper for the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development.

Nilsson, S. and A. Shvidenko, undated. Is Sustainable Development of the Russian Forest Sector Possible? IUFRO Occa sional Paper No. 11 ISSN 1024-414X.

WCFSD, 1999. Our Forests, Our Future. Report of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development. E. Salim and O. Ullsten Co-chairman. Cambridge University Press. 205 pp.

Shvidenko, A. and S. Nilsson, 1997. Are the Russian Forests Disappearing? Unasylva 48(188): 57-64.

Shvidenko, A. and S. Nilsson, 1994. What do we know about the Siberian Forests? Ambio 23(7):396-404.

U.S. Embassy -Moscow, 1996. Overview of the Timber and Woods Processing Industry in Khabarovsk Territory, Russian Far East. (http://www.mac.doc.gov/bisnis/cables/961125r2.htm).

Uphyrkina, O. 1996. Assessment of the Influence of Forest Exploitation on Species Diversity in the Russian Far East. IIASA WP-96-147, 64 pp.

Publications, Meetings

International Boreal Forest Research Association, IBFRA97. One talk and poster presentation at IBFRA, August 1997, Duluth, MN.

The Forestry Subgroup of the EWG Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission (Russian and English versions of this report sent to A. W. Jones Foundation in early April 1998. Several meetings in the US and in Russia.

Schlesinger, P. T. Stone and V. A. Alexeyev, 1997 [abs]. A Spatially Explicit Map of Forest Carbon for Russia: A First Approximation, IBFRA 97, Duluth.

Stone, T. A., R. A. Houghton and P. Schlesinger, 1997 [abs.]. A Digital Land Cover Map of the Former Soviet Union Based Upon a Time Series Of 15 km Resolution NOAA AVHRR Data, IBFRA 1997, Duluth.

Janetos, A, C., A. Isaev, V. Sukhikh, V. Zhirin, S. Bartalev, D. Ershov, A. Shatalov, M. Gurskiy, A. Pismenniy, T. Ziemelis, H. Shugart, B. Orlick, T. Murphy, E. Kasischke N. French and T. Stone, 1998. Boreal Forest Characterization and Sustainability Study - Report on Phase I and II Results. U.S. Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation Environmental Working Group. 13 pp.

Stone, T. A., R. A. Houghton and P. Schlesinger, in press 1998a, A Digital Land Cover Map of the Former Soviet Union Based Upon a Time Series of 15 km Resolution NOAA AVHRR Data. International Boreal Forest Research Association 1997, Duluth, Symposium Proceedings.

Stone, T. A, P. Schlesinger, and V. A. Alexeyev, in press. 1998b. A Spatially Explicit Map of Forest Stand Carbon for Russia: A First Approximation. International Boreal Forest Research Association, 1997, Duluth, Symposium Proceedings.

                  Stone, T. A. and L. Neuenschwander, in prep. GIS and Remote Sensing Applications in Fuel Mapping and Fire Modeling Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop Crossing the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age of Fire Management, June 15-17, 1999, Boise Idaho.

Volokitina A. V., T. A. Stone, P. S c hlesinger, and M. A. Sofronov, submitted. Medium-Scale Vegetation Fuel Mapping in the Lake Baikal Basin. Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop Crossing the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age of Fire Management, June 15-17, 1999, Boise Idaho.

During September 23-24 1997, the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (WCFSD) hosted a public hearing in St. Petersburg, Russia on the status of Forest in Russia. G. M. Woodwell is a commissioner and Chairman of the Science Committee. A book, Forests in a Full World , has recently been published (May 1999). This book contains specific analyses of northern forests will supply additional background for the bold recommendations of this independent Commission.

World Resources Institute: World Forest Watch Planning Meeting, Jan. 15-16, 1998, Washington D. C. The Forest Watch is an initiative of the World Commission adopted by WRI with the encouragement of the Commission.

Third NASA Land Cover and Land Use Change Science Team Meeting, Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia, May 18-21, 1999.

Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop - Crossing the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age of Fire Management, June 15-17, 1999, Boise Idaho. Two presentations, one invited and one contributed paper.

©Woods Hole Research Center, 2007