A CONCEPT FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF TRADITIONAL LAND USE
ZONES IN SIKHOTE-ALIN

The concept of traditional land use (TLU) zones by indigenous peoples living in the Russian North and Far East and in Siberia, originated in the late ‘80s as the result of much public debate. In government documents, the term first appeared in a USSR Supreme Soviet resolution (Urgent Measures for National Ecological Recovery). The final version of today’s TLU concept became legislation in a Presidential decree envisaging these zones as a way of preserving and developing the traditional agriculture of indigenous peoples during the transition to a market economy, and of promoting ecological safety in the industrial regions of the North. This decree defines TLU zones as the inalienable property of indigenous peoples: they may not be used for industrial, or any other non-TLU, purposes, except by permission.

While developing the TLU concept, a number of its principles were incorporated into temporary local legislation. Today, the right bank of the Amur (the mountainous Sikhote-Alin region in Khabarovsk Krai) boasts 22 TLU zones occupying a combined area of 5,600 hectares. Four more zones (2 million hectares total) are planned for Primoriye Krai. Sikhote-Alin could devote as many as 7.5 million hectares to traditional land use. The condition of these zones and their agricultural development would in large part determine the ecological well-being of the entire region.

TLU zones are an economic prerequisite for the ongoing existence of indigenous peoples. Their main purpose is to foster an environment that allows small indigenous peoples to live as they always have and to support themselves. Unfortunately, the TLU zones created in 1991-93 were political, not ecological, acts. Given the existing ethno-political situation, the goal was limited to securing non-industrial zones for use by indigenous peoples. As a product of that era of democratic romanticism, the TLU idea shared the fate of nascent Russian farming. In 1990, many believed that one had only to return the land to the Russian peasant and in two to three years all problems would be solved. The same thing happened to the TLU idea. The creation of TLU zones was not backed up with the necessary measures for traditional land use development: the socio-economic development of these zones went un-addressed, as did their ecological policy and management of natural resources. Meanwhile, much of the temporary local TLU-related legislation has become obsolete. The actual experience of creating and exploiting TLU zones led to the creation of new institutions and the transformation of many existing ones. The ways in which TLU zones are used often conflict with their environmental intent. Hence the pressing needs for a new TLU concept.

It is our opinion that this new TLU concept should be based on the idea of sustainable growth. This idea dates from the mid-80s. In 1992 it received unanimous support at a United Nations conference on the environment and development in Rio de Janeiro; since then it has come to be seen by the international community as a main artery for the development of society in the 21^st century.

The development of society must be sustainable and therefore cannot be regarded as a purely ecological problem. It is, as well, a social and economic problem. Moreover, land use affects three spheres: ecological (the environment in which people live), economic (the things which people produce), and socio-cultural (the people themselves and their values). Any TLU zone will require a compromise between these three spheres.

The idea of sustainable growth as applied to TLU zones means using all their natural resources in a rational way and taking into account the three basic approaches: socio-economic, ecological, and ethno-cultural.

Socio-economic approach:

• Define TLU zones as a key element in the development of traditional agriculture, deserving to be subsidized by the State in the same way as, say, the coal industry. The federal and regional governments should be made to share responsibility for the future development of these zones (with state funding, tax incentives, etc.);
• Overhaul the material-technical base for traditional agriculture: introduce new technologies, mobile lines and machinery for greater efficiency, for complete processing on site of fish, meat, leather and fur, Siberian stag antlers and ferment materials, wild and medicinal herbs;
• Place State orders for reindeer farming products of indigenous peoples;
• Introduce a system of credits, tax incentives and price policies that will promote traditional land use;
• Create the necessary manufacturing and social infrastructure with a stable supply of electricity, communications, roads and transportation.

TLU zones should be divided according to function into three categories: wildlife reserves, traditional labor and industrial development. The main purpose of the last category is to ensure the zone’s robust socio-economic development, something a traditional economy alone cannot do at present. Moreover, it must provide alternative employment for the many natives whose professional level makes them unable to engage in traditional labor.

The ecological approach sees TLU zones as protected areas intended to conserve biodiversity, both the ecosystem overall and the species within it. Consequently, the economy will be developed in a way that is ecologically sustainable. The preservation of TLU zones is vital from the point of view of nature conservation, while the cost of creating and maintaining them is part of that of protecting the environment.

The ecological approach as applied to Sikhote-Alin has its own special features. Almost all the existing and projected TLU zones in Sikhote-Alin are forested areas (with forestation of 85-95%). Needless to say, all biological resources in such zones depend on the forest’s condition.

Only through proper treatment of forested areas will their biological resources remain intact. However, most TLU forests fall into the third category, all but ruling out the possibility of sustainable use. This is because the amount of logging, its organization and the technology are determined by the needs and capabilities of the loggers themselves. The current system of “projected cutting” does not ensure sustainable growth. More than half of the Far East’s cedar forests have been irretrievably lost in the last 50 years alone. Equally as depleting is the current exploitation of ash and spruce forests.

Clear cutting on the mountain slopes of Sikhote-Alin is wringing profound changes in forest ecosystems, destabilizing large natural complexes, and impeding the organization of multifunctional sustainable forestry. This situation is undermining not only the TLU zones’ own resources, but the ecological security of Sikhote-Alin and vast neighboring areas.

In order for the natural resources of forested TLU zones to serve as the basis of their sustainable growth, the forests’ status must be changed, also the manner of calculating the dimensions of principal cutting and the methods of “projected cutting”. Moreover, the rules for cutting in forested TLU zones must be revised to exclude the use of logging technologies that damage the forests and the environment.

In order to change the status of forested TLU zones, they must first be transferred from the third to the first group of the State Forest Foundation. And within the first group a new group should be created for forests in need of protection, i.e. forested TLU zones inhabited by small indigenous peoples in the Russian North and Far East. Eventually these forests could be moved into a separate group all their own.

The methods of principal cutting in growing forest stands must be confined to selection cutting of the following intensities:

• on slopes with an incline of up to 10º: 30% intensity;
• on slopes with an 11-25º incline: 20% intensity;
• on slopes with an incline of more than 25º: principal cutting should be banned altogether and these areas deemed "specially protected".
• in dead forests: clear cutting according to the regulations should be allowed.

Annual cutting should be calculated only for first-group forests under exploitation. The exploitable diameter in the all forest formations should be increased by one stage (4 cm.) over that in the current regulations.

“Projected cutting” should be determined for every river basin of 20,000-30,000 square hectares. Cutting more than is allowed in one river basin cannot be compensated for by cutting less in another.

In addition to stocks of valuable wood, Sikhote-Alin contains large reserves of unique alimentary, medicinal and technical species of flora and fauna. Sustainable use as applied to Sikhote-Alin TLU zones aims primarily at multipurpose exploitation of the land with an even burden on different resources. The less pressure on the wood stocks and the broader the use of non-forest flora and fauna, the more traditional the exploitation will be.

Also indispensable is immediate certification of renewable resources in terms of composition, structure, and productivity. This will allow one to determine their ecological and resource potential, and to predict whether or not a specific zone can support itself given complete processing of its resources and how much State funding will be needed. This certification, incidentally, was envisaged in a 1996 federal program (Economic and Social Development of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian North until 2000).

Coefficients of resource capacity and level of deviation from the standard (those with minimal disturbance) for every landscape category could serve indicators of non-depleting use and sustainable growth.

The ethno-cultural approach reflects the indissoluble connection between the ethnic culture and traditional land use. TLU zones set aside for indigenous peoples must respect their inalienable rights and help them to preserve their unique cultural traditions. All forms of land use that can damage the environment (i.e. breeding grounds, cedar forests, rare and endangered birds, animal and plant species, cultural and historical monuments, etc.) must be banned in these zones.

In conclusion, we would note the importance of natural resource management and control over resource exploitation. This management system must be based on recognition of the rural community as an institution of economic autonomy and land use. The tribal family communities and national enterprises that exist today are primarily economic and cannot act either as organs of self-determination for indigenous people or as organs of control over exploitation in TLU zones.

Autonomous rural communities of indigenous peoples must be allowed to manage their own resources themselves as well as their exploitation. Today this management is in the hands of various departments and district administrations with no interest in promoting ethnic land use. As a result, aggressive new businesses are overexploiting natural resources and getting away with it because of weak state control and people’s ignorance.

Given the importance of these forest resources to the survival of indigenous peoples, specialized forestries must be organized in forested TLU zones. In regional divisions of the Federal Forest Service, special departments must be organized for forested TLU zones. Regional committees for nature preservation would also be well advised to address the problems of forested TLU zones.

These are the main points of our TLU concept, all of which must be considered in the drafting of TLU-related legislation, federal and regional.