|
Solution
I - Completely
stop deforestation in the Russian Taiga
by making the felling of trees illegal
In order to completely preserve the taiga of the Russian Far East and
allow for the re-growth of forest that has previously been clear-cut. Clear
cutting is still the preferred method of deforestation and is the mass felling
of trees in a particular area. As of 2001 around 3500 specialized timber cutting
production was state owned and 33,000 private companies were involved in timber
production. The term "illegal logging" has no clearly been defined in
"Defining 'illegal logging' would require extensive
fieldwork."
Forestry economist Alexander Sheingauz argues, if all forestry regulations were
taken into account, virtually every logging operation in the RFE would be
illegal.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of
Russia
has a more narrow description, “limiting illegal logging to harvesting more
than permitted volumes, harvesting outside the permitted area, logging banned
species or those not allowed for logging in a given area, commercial logging
under the guise of sanitary or salvage logging, and logging without a license or
with forged papers.”
Additionally the WWF fails to acknowledge logging violations that are
byproducts of the actual felling of trees. These side effects include failing to
clean up sites after harvesting and logging operations or using unfit harvest
methods. Josh Newell’s book The Russian Far East observes
the following about the disputed volume and profit of illicit harvesting:
WWF Russia estimated that in 1999
about 1.5 million cubic meters of timber (50 percent of total production) in [the
Russian forests] were illegally logged; this represents about US $450 million in
unreported revenue. The Russian government, eager to dispel claims of unbridled
illegal logging, maintains only 24,000 cubic meters were illegally logged in 1999. Greenpeace-Russia puts the figure at 600,000
cubic meters Not only is the
amount of illegal logging disputed between organizations within and outside of
the government but the definition of illegal logging is disputed.
Since the
Soviet Union
’s collapse, “the privatization of the Russian timber industry, the opening
of Asian markets, the collapse of processing, and the disintegration and
corruption of the Federal Forest Service's regulatory functions-- triggered a
flurry of illegal logging and export operations throughout the RFE.”
Official statistics for the RFE indicate a sharp decline in timber harvest
throughout the 1990s: “Production was between 12 and 15 million cubic meters in 2000,
down from 29.6 million in 1990 and from 34.5 million in 1985, but up from a
post-Soviet low of 9.1 million in 1996. These figures, however, do not reflect
actual harvest levels. According to numerous RFE timber sector studies, actual
production may be twice as high as the official figures.”
The lack of reporting is due to tax and penalty evasion.
If all logging was considered illegal within Russia
there would be no dispute or efforts to evade taxes and penalties. The timber
market would have to be supplied by sources from outside of Russia. Furthermore, it would be easier to prosecute
offenders as they would have no loopholes to hide behind. Additionally if the fine for
logging were severe, and the regulations were upheld, there would be virtually
no incidence of clear cutting, a practice that removes essentially all the
trees in a selected area
and is considered the most destructive method of logging.
Once old growth forest
regained its momentum in the regeneration process and a clearly defined standard
of regulating legal logging became effective, logging may be able to be resumed.
Logging would remain illegal until the government and Ministry of Forestry
became capable of monitoring and maintaining sustainable development practices.
Making the felling of trees illegal would require large amounts of funding to enforce regulation
and would provide forestry jobs for individuals. Russia
would then turn to focus on a manufacturing based economy which would prove to
be beneficial in the long run as the economy would not have to rely on
fluctuations of the global commodities market. The Department of Forest Ministry
would have to increase workers’ salaries, in order to make eco-friendly jobs more
enticing. The more enticing and profitable the forestry jobs are the less apt people are to turn to
corruption and more likely they would be to perform their jobs efficiently.
|