This presentation focuses on assumptions about landscape policies, discusses why planning is separating people, rivers and the forest and which new approaches are needed now.

1. National policy and landscape reality – new
approaches needed
Przemyslaw Majewski – Baltic Landscape Project, Sweden and Silver
Taiga Foundation, Russia;
Gun Lidestav – Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umeå;
Johan Svensson - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in
Umeå;
Leif Jougda – Swedish Forest Agency, Vilhelmina;
Marcus Hedblom - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in
Uppsala;
Erik Ederlöf – Swedish Forest Agency, Kristianstad

2. Assumption and verification
Assumptions:
1. Policy and legislation at national level is main condition
for sustainable governance in the landscape.
2. Local implementation is made by routine channels of
transfer from policy to ground level.
Verification:
Landscape experience does not support the assumptions
or
Landscape reality is more complex then policy
declarations.

3. Pristine forest of the Komi Republic, Russia
Untouched, European conservation value and logging
resource
Photo P. Majewski – Komi Model Forest

4. Logging frontier in pristine taiga – River Nizhniaja Puzla - 2011 –
The Republic of Komi, Russia

5. Pristine forest after logging – no consideration for landscape and river basin
River Yolva Mezenskaya , the Republic of Komi, Russia
logging

6. Result of pristine forest inventory in productive forests
of the Komi Republic.
Area covered by the inventory
21 mln ha
Area of identified pristine forests
4,8 mln ha (23%)
5 stakeholders
Silver Taiga Foundation
State Forest Service
Territorial Fund of Information

7. Silver Taiga Foundation
State Forestry Agency
for the Komi Republic
Logging regimes in pristine forests
Komi Model Forest
8 stakeholders
800 000 ha
Legend
out of logging - 15 000 ha
limited logging - 43 000 ha
normal logging - 35 000 ha
100 km
Obiachevo

8. Conservation value of pristine forest landscapes (HCVF)
expressed as traffic lights - Udora region
38
40
20
10
8
18
19
9
6
17
7
16
37
33
22
36
32
30
23
14
3
4
41
25
24
15
5
Total area
3 500 000 ha
26
47
39
48
2
34
13
31
45
35
12
1
44
Pristine forest
1 200 000 ha (34%)
11
high value
medium value
60
fragmented areas
63
56
59
river basins
55
58
57
51
54
64
100 km
6 stakeholders
53
Silver Taiga Foundation
State Forest Service
Territorial Fund of Information

9. Progress (in %) in solution of pristine forest problem in the Komi Republic
until 2012.
90%
100%
80%
100%
100%
Silver Taiga Foundation
State Forest Service
Territorial Fund of Information

10. Pristine forest case - Russia
Conclusions:
1. Policy and legislation at national level is late in
comparison to speed of development of market
and social demands.
2. Local initiative can solve also large scale problems
even if national policy is not existing.
3. Knowledge on the ground is needed to deal with
landscape challenges.

11. Pristine, remote river is depleted from fish resources.
Model River Mezen, Russia
Photo Przemyslaw Majewski, Komi Model Forest

12. Salmon harvest in Mezen River 1946-2002
(Zakharov A.B. 2010)
,00 kg
Salmon
1946= 100%
2002= 1%
Other fish
1980= 100%
2010= 15%
ц
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
2002
1999
1991
1987
1984
1981
years
1994-1996
Годы
1978
1975
1971
1968
1961
1958
1955
1952
1949
0
1946
200

13. Why planning is separating people, river and forest?
Photo P. Majewski – Komi Model Forest

14. Model River Mezen case - Russia
Conclusions:
1. Policy and legislation at national level presence is
not enough to ensure implementation.
2. Landscape reality is often not visible from national
perspective.
3. Sectorial approach is not summing up in efficiency.

15. Drainage case – Belarus
Water drainage in forest and on meadows is separated even if
they belong to the same river valley.
Photo P. Majewski – Baltic Landscape

16. Drainage case - Belarus
Conclusions:
1. Policy and legislation based on sectorial borders is
not enough for landscape management.
2. Integration of landscape planning is blocked by
sectorial approach and formal borders of
competence.
3. Even obvious needs of integration are not
addressed for years.

17. Territorial planning case - Poland
Democracy
vs
Expertise
Advantages:
flexibility
Advantages:
expertise
local area for locals
detailed plan
Disadvantages:
limited relevant knowledge
corruption charges
Disadvantages
very expensive
city experts
no flexibility
90% of land has no territorial plans

18. Territorial planning case - Poland
Conclusions:
1. Policy and legislation good intentions are not
enough on landscape level.
2. Timed reaction for feedback from local level is
needed.
3. Small gaps in strict policy can cause large scale
problems.

19. Hydropower case – Sweden - River Ångermanälven, 1936
es.
Fosmo, Ångermanälven , courtesy of Vilhelmina Model Forest

20. Hydropower case – Sweden - River Ångermanälven, now.
No ladders for migratory fish and river temporary without water
photo Mikael Strömberg, courtesy of Vilhelmina Model Forest

21. Hydropower case - Sweden
Conclusions:
1. Policy and legislation based on sectorial borders is
not enough for landscape management.
2. Green light for green energy is creating landscape
“secret, saint cows” which are sometimes good
sometimes destructive.
3. Nationally declared participation of stakeholders is
often superficial.

22. What is needed?
1. National policy and legislation should be followed by local
efficient and agreed tools for implementation,
2. Cross sectorial gradual integration of planning is needed on
landscape level,
3. Efficient feedback and timed corrections should be included
into national programs,
4. Localities should be supported by relevant knowledge and
experience,
5. Network of case landscapes should be developed to
support identification of local needs and barriers and
development of local new approaches and innovations.

23. National policy and landscape reality –
Paddling on both ends is more efficient