*[Enwl-eng] Fwd: Fight for Baikal
ecology
ecology at iephb.nw.ru
Fri Jul 25 13:22:15 MSK 2025
Друзья, к вопросу об актуальности смены приоритетов.
Копия письма Анастасии Макарьевой о приложении концепции биотической
регуляции к одному из острых вопросов.
Свет
От: Anastassia Makarieva <bioticregulation at substack.com>
Date: чт, 24 июл. 2025 г. в 23:57
Subject: Fight for Baikal
A Glimpse into Russian Socio-Ecological Processes
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Fight for Baikal
A Glimpse into Russian Socio-Ecological Processes
Anastassia Makarieva and Andrei Nefiodov
Jul 24
READ IN APP
Lake Baikal is the deepest and clearest lake on Earth, surrounded by
natural forests. Like nature everywhere, Baikal’s environment is under
increasing pressure. While ecologically conscious Americans are fighting the
Fix our Forests Act, Brazilians hope to stop the “Devastation Bill”,
Indonesians are desperate about the MIFEE project (the largest-scale
deforestation project currently planned by any state on Earth), people in
our country also face their own ecological struggles.
A couple of years ago, a law was proposed that would open Baikal’s
forests to sanitary clearcutting. Sanitary clearcutting (сплошные санитарные
рубки) means the complete removal of all trees in a designated area,
officially justified as a measure to prevent the spread of pests, disease,
or wildfires. Unlike selective sanitary logging, which targets only damaged
or infected trees, sanitary clearcutting removes entire forest stands,
including healthy trees. In practice, this approach has often been used as a
pretext for large-scale illegal logging disguised as forest health
management, especially in ecologically sensitive or protected areas.
In the Russian ecological narrative, clearcutting has become a synonym
for allowing forests to be completely destroyed or annihilated. According to
current law, clearcuts are prohibited (although we know that selective
sanitary thinning can also pose significant risks).
Recently, during a lecture one of us gave for Bio4Climate’s course
“Water and Climate”, a question was asked about whether Russia can be looked
up to in terms of protecting their forests. In another recent interview, we
encountered the opinion that Russian forests are relatively safe. These are
signals that information about ecological awareness in Russia is quite
scarce. Meanwhile, we have our own ups and downs. Even though strategically
we have been losing the fight for nature, as all other nations have in
recent years, there are some local positive developments that give hope that
a major ethical shift, a phase transition in how people view nature, cannot
be entirely ruled out.
We are not ecological activists, since our main work is scientific
research. However, we are strongly motivated to provide scientific support
to those who work to protect nature (and this work does involve a lot of
hardship). Today we will share with you two open letters: one from a Russian
academician in favor of the law, and another signed by five academicians
opposing the law. This will give you an idea of the debates currently taking
place and how people feel about nature. In the concluding section, a brief
analysis is provided of the scientific debate between these differing views,
framed from the perspective of the biotic regulation concept.
Open letter supporting clearcutting in Baikal Forests
This letter was published in a newspaper under the title
“Cut or Not to Cut”: The Russian Academy of Sciences Supports Buryatia’s
Position on Forest Logging
The emphasis is ours.
On June 23 of this year, a meeting was held at the Presidium of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, chaired by RAS President Academician Gennady
Krasnikov and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Alexander
Kozlov, to discuss one of the most pressing issues for the residents of
Buryatia — the draft law on logging in the Central Ecological Zone of the
Baikal Natural Territory.
As always, there were speeches proposing to postpone the adoption of
the law and to conduct new studies. However, in the end, the position of the
representatives of Buryatia was supported — a position presenting arguments
in favor of endorsing their version of the draft law.
1.. The actions of the residents of the Baikal region are guided
by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which states: “The individual
and his rights and freedoms are the highest value. The recognition,
observance, and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen
shall be the obligation of the state” (Article 2). Furthermore, Article 9
adds: “Land and other natural resources shall be used and protected in the
Russian Federation as the basis of life and activity of the peoples living
on the corresponding territory.”
2.. However, the most important circumstance related to such
environmental restrictions is that the ban on construction, fishing,
firewood harvesting, non-timber forest use, and more has led to a sharp
population decline in the coastal areas of Lake Baikal, an increase in
mortality, and a decrease in birth rates. In the 25 years since the adoption
of the Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal,” the population of the four
coastal districts of Buryatia has decreased by 25%. In the city of
Severobaikalsk alone, while the number of young people has dropped, the
number of pensioners has tripled. Trees can regrow — but the people who have
moved to Moscow will not return. As a result, to meet the demands of the
growing tourist flow, it is already necessary to bring in migrant workers —
just like in Moscow.
3.. Land-use restrictions on property rights have also led to
political grievances among the local population. During the 2020 vote on
amendments to the Russian Constitution, the residents of Olkhonsky
District — who had been stripped of land rights and live within the Central
Ecological Zone of Lake Baikal — were the only population in all of Russia
to vote against adopting the Constitution.
4.. In nature, a forest must either rot or burn. There is no third
option, and only rational forest management can preserve the forest's
productivity. Moreover, it seems our opponents haven’t even read the Russian
Forest Code, where Article 23.5, Paragraph 3, states: “Clearcutting shall be
recognized as felling in which forests are harvested with the retention of
certain trees and shrubs for forest regeneration, followed by artificial
reforestation measures.”
And Paragraph 4 of the same article clearly states: “Clearcutting is
only permitted on the condition that reforestation measures are planned and
subsequently implemented on the specified forest plots.” In simple terms: if
there is no clearcutting, no one will restore the forest.
5.. Some opponents point to potential conflicts with international
environmental organizations. Unlike certain State Duma deputies, I do not
have foreign bank accounts, children, or wives abroad. Therefore, I fully
agree with Alexander III, who said, “If the West criticizes us, it means we’re
doing everything right.”
6.. Meanwhile, this artificial conflict between the interests of
the local population and the desire of the “greens” to “protect” Lake
Baikal — even from its own residents, tourists, and entrepreneurs fulfilling
the President’s directive to develop the tourism industry — can be easily
resolved. It is enough to introduce the following amendment to Article 11 of
the Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal,” titled “Specifics of the use,
protection, safeguarding, and reproduction of forests in the Central
Ecological Zone”:
“In the Central Ecological Zone of the Baikal Natural Territory,
only logging aimed at the maintenance and development of transport and
social infrastructure, as well as for meeting the essential needs of the
local population, shall be permitted.”
All such facilities are listed in the draft law — and, I hope, no
one opposes them.
Thus, all objections raised by the numerous “defenders” of Baikal
are rendered moot. It is also worth noting that the draft law explicitly
lists all specific locations and volumes of selective logging, which are
many times smaller than the annual natural loss of forest due to wildfires
and pest outbreaks. Unfortunately, this fact is consistently ignored by all
opponents of the bill, who continue to speak of non-existent clearcuts.
It should also be noted that the conclusion issued by the Public
Chamber of the Russian Federation is filled with suspicion toward local
residents, whose activities are allegedly aimed at large-scale clearcutting
and other unlawful actions. Moreover, the document contains not a single
word about protecting the rights and interests of the people living along
the shores of Lake Baikal — as if they simply do not exist. Even the law
itself is titled “On the Protection of Lake Baikal.” But the real question
is: from whom is Baikal being protected? From the local population? From
tourists? From members of the State Duma?
It is worth mentioning that Public Chamber representative E.A.
Sharoykina offered an apology and stated that she had no intention of
restricting the local population’s right to a dignified life.
It was also noted that any such poorly designed legal restrictions
on local economic activity reduce the investment potential for tourism
development on Lake Baikal — a priority destination in Russia’s “Five Seas
and Lake Baikal” tourism project approved by the President.
Let me emphasize once again: many of our problems in Russia stem
from people not doing their own jobs professionally. For some reason, no one
asks me how to save the Volga or Lake Ladoga. And yet, even those with no
background in ecology seem to “know” what should be done on Baikal.
In the end, we must not act “holier than the Pope” or assume that
people living on the lake’s shores are somehow “enemies of Baikal” and that
its salvation depends on orders from Moscow or Murmansk.
Meanwhile, this year the government adopted a resolution allowing
the lake’s water level to be altered by more than two meters to suit the
energy sector. This is an even bigger “ecological bomb” for Baikal. In
Mongolia, a hydropower project is underway on Baikal’s main tributary.
Recent amendments to Russia’s Water Code now hold landowners legally
responsible for flooding and shoreline erosion! Under this law, the Baikal
Nature Reserve is already being prosecuted for shoreline erosion near its
visitor center.
One gets the impression that the government and parliament of Russia
are not listening to the people who actually live on Baikal’s shores — and
instead are representing some unknown interests while artificially
escalating the environmental situation. If this continues, local residents
might have no choice but to appeal to the Constitutional Court of the
Russian Federation, citing violations of their rights under Articles 2 and 9
of the Constitution. I sincerely hope it does not come to blocking the
Trans-Siberian Railway.
Ultimately, drawing from the experience of planned economy days, I
propose holding a joint regional conference on the shores of Baikal,
involving local party leaders and industry representatives, to discuss all
aspects of Baikal’s challenges — prioritizing the voices of people who
actually live by the lake.
After all, during the Soviet era, Baikal’s environmental problems
were effectively addressed and people lived in comfort. Since then, dozens
of industrial facilities in the Baikal basin have closed, agriculture has
collapsed, the Baikal pulp and paper plant was shut down, industrial logging
ceased, and pollution has drastically decreased. Yet some people — seemingly
in search of self-promotion or research grants — keep shouting “Baikal is
dying!” and calling for the resettlement of local communities. We’ve heard
that slogan “No person – no problem” somewhere before.
In conclusion, I support the Russian Academy of Sciences’ position
recognizing the situation and calling for accelerated parliamentary
hearings. It must also be stressed that:
a.. legislation should not regulate technical forestry procedures;
b.. most objections to the draft law arise from opponents
misreading the Russian Forest Code, which actually addresses all the
concerns raised by “green” activists.
As a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a senator, and a
local resident who understands this issue better than anyone, I state with
full responsibility: stop interfering in our lives — we will preserve our
home, Baikal, ourselves. And President Vladimir Putin has already supported
the appeal from the Head of Buryatia, Alexei Tsydenov, calling to put an end
to the debate and pass the proposed law. After all, ecology is not a science
of prohibitions — it is a science of home and how to take care of it.
In closing, RAS President G.Y. Krasnikov and Minister of Natural
Resources and Ecology A.A. Kozlov agreed that logging must be permitted to
support both forest and human life along Baikal’s shores. Hopefully, this
authoritative opinion of the Russian Academy of Sciences will put an end to
the long-standing “to cut or not to cut” debate — in favor of the
constitutional rights of the local population, who will now build roads,
flood protection systems, improve their homes, defend themselves against
wildfires, and live up to Russian standards — or perhaps even better.
Arnold Tulokhonov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Member of the Federation Council (2013–2017)
Open letter opposing clearcutting in Baikal Forests
To the Chairman of the State Duma
of the Federal Assembly
of the Russian Federation
V.V. Volodin
Copies to:
Chairman of the State Duma Committee
on Ecology, Natural Resources,
and Environmental Protection
D.N. Kobylkin
First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee
on Ecology, Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection
V.A. Fetisov
Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Protection of Lake Baikal
of the State Duma Committee on Ecology, Natural Resources,
and Environmental Protection
N.R. Buduev
On the Risks of Draft Law No. 387575-8 for the Preservation of Lake
Baikal’s Unique Ecosystem
Dear Vyacheslav Viktorovich,
We are compelled once again to address you with growing concern over
the fate of Lake Baikal and the Baikal Natural Territory—unique sites of
Russia’s national heritage.
Currently under consideration by the State Duma is Draft Law No.
387575-8, proposing amendments to Article 25-1 of the Federal Law "On the
Protection of Lake Baikal" and Article 11 of the Federal Law "On
Environmental Expert Review." The draft law was adopted in its first reading
on July 11, 2023, and has caused significant public outcry.
In the time since, numerous scientific and expert forums have voiced
concern and presented well-founded arguments regarding this draft law and
its environmentally harmful orientation, which poses real ecological risks
and threats to Lake Baikal.
It is particularly important to note that the preparation of
amendments to the draft law for the second reading has, for the most part,
proceeded behind closed doors, disregarding the substantiated positions of
the scientific and expert community, including those of the country’s
leading research institutions.
In this regard, on June 23, 2025, a meeting was held at the
Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) under the chairmanship of
RAS President G.Ya. Krasnikov, with the participation of the Minister of
Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, A.A. Kozlov,
along with a number of leading scientists—experts in forestry and ecology.
The meeting focused on discussing the aforementioned amendments,
particularly the critically important provision of the draft law that would
permit sanitary clearcutting in the Central Ecological Zone of the Baikal
Natural Territory (hereinafter, CEZ BNT). It must be emphasized that the
current Federal Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal” prohibits such
clearcutting in the CEZ BNT, and the version of the amendments adopted in
the first reading does not repeal this ban.
The final protocol of the aforementioned RAS Presidium meeting has
not yet been signed and is still under revision. It is all the more
surprising, then, that the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, without
waiting for the official position of the Academy, hastily submitted the
existing draft amendments to the Government Commission on Legislative
Activity. On July 7, this Commission reviewed the amendments to Draft
Federal Law No. 387575-8 prepared by the Ministry. There is reason to
believe that these amendments will soon be considered by the relevant State
Duma Committee on Ecology, Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection,
and then brought to the second and third readings.
The proposed amendments, which would legalize sanitary clearcutting
in the Central Ecological Zone of the Baikal Natural Territory (CEZ BNT),
are of greatest concern to the scientific community and the broader public.
The justification for lifting the ban on sanitary clearcutting
raises serious doubts. Under current forest legislation, in areas where
timber harvesting is prohibited, it is still permitted to do the ecological
cleanup of non-merchantable wood (known as уборка неликвидной древесины, УНД
[when dead wood, e.g., after a windfall, is piled up to be naturally
decomposed on the spot — AM]). The fundamental difference between УНД and
sanitary clearcutting of dead stands is that with УНД, the wood must remain
on-site, whereas sanitary clearcutting allows the timber to be removed and
sold commercially.
There are serious grounds to believe that lifting the ban on
sanitary clearcutting in forests of exceptional importance for the
preservation of Lake Baikal's ecosystem will encourage the destruction of
healthy forest stands—for example, by deliberate arson—so that the area can
later be declared dead and the timber commercially exploited. It is no
secret that in recent years, sanitary logging—including in the Baikal
region—has gained a reputation as the perfect cover for illegal logging
activities (https://epp.genproc.gov.ru/web/gprf/search?article=58085382;
https://forestcomplex.ru/rf-protection/rubki-v-zakaznikah-kak-sanitarnye-meropriyatiya-unichtozhajut-ohranyaemye-lesa/).
Logging operations (including artificial reforestation) in
mountainous terrain using heavy machinery also lead to a sharp increase in
soil erosion. The more sanitary clearcutting is carried out near Lake
Baikal, the more clay, sand, and nutrient-rich materials will be washed into
the lake and its tributaries, harming aquatic biological resources.
Another potential consequence of sanitary clearcutting is a
significant increase in fire risk in the forests of the CEZ BNT. Such
operations would require building more roads, which would increase
accessibility to these areas—and, accordingly, the likelihood of fires
caused by careless human activity (as the vast majority of wildfires are
caused by people).
A distinctive feature of the Baikal Natural Territory is its sharply
continental climate, combined with strong, specific wind patterns—partly
caused by Lake Baikal itself. Under these conditions, the development and
spread of forest fires largely depend on how quickly and evenly specific
areas dry out and are exposed to wind.
Sanitary clearcutting creates vast open spaces, which are later
replaced by large areas of young, low-growing forest. These young stands do
little to block wind and dry out quickly under high fire danger conditions.
As a result, the risk of fires spreading over large areas increases
significantly. All else being equal, this leads to more extensive wildfires
and greater resulting damage.
The issue of whether to lift the ban on clearcutting has been
repeatedly discussed by experts at forums hosted by the Civic Chamber of the
Russian Federation and the Russian Academy of Sciences. The overwhelming
majority of specialists participating in these discussions have firmly
opposed allowing sanitary clearcutting in the Lake Baikal region.
In addition to legalizing sanitary clearcutting, the proposed draft
amendments raise serious concerns about the potential for clearcutting to
make way for the construction of tourist infrastructure in special economic
zones, which cover more than 4,000 hectares within the CEZ BNT. There is
also concern over the possibility of virtually unrestricted road
construction in the CEZ BNT.
Experts note that the construction of linear
infrastructure—especially roads—inevitably leads to fragmentation of natural
systems and, as a consequence, their degradation.
It should also be noted that Lake Baikal is a natural heritage site
of global significance, and Russia’s obligations to preserve it arise from
the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage.
On July 7, the 47th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee
opened. In the Committee’s draft decision
(https://whc.unesco.org/document/221412), it is stated, among other things,
that the Committee once again expresses concern about the weakening of the
legal protection of Baikal at a time when its ecological condition continues
to deteriorate. The Committee strongly urges the State Party to ensure and
stabilize the legal status of the site to safeguard its outstanding
universal value, to assess the impact of the proposed legislative changes,
to provide relevant information to the World Heritage Centre, and to avoid
any legislative amendments that could lead to adverse consequences.
It is important to keep in mind that the highest leadership of our
country regards UNESCO as an important platform for international
cooperation. For example, in the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation
and the People’s Republic of China on Deepening the Comprehensive
Partnership and Strategic Interaction (May 16, 2024, during President
Vladimir V. Putin’s visit to China), the Parties emphasized the need to
further strengthen UNESCO’s capacity as a universal intergovernmental
humanitarian forum, to promote a respectful and professional dialogue on
this platform aimed at constructive consensus among member states, and to
advance a unifying agenda (http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/6132).
In light of the above, it appears that the current version of Draft
Law No. 387575-8 does not meet the goal of preserving the unique ecological
system of Lake Baikal, the fulfillment of which, according to the Decree of
the President of Russia dated May 7, 2024, No. 309 “On the National
Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2030 and
with a Vision to 2036,” characterizes the achievement of the national goal
“Environmental Well-being.”
We kindly ask you, Vyacheslav Viktorovich, to prevent the hasty
adoption of Draft Law No. 387575-8 in the form of the current proposed
amendments, including refraining from bringing it to the second reading. We
believe that the final version of the draft law should address the
socio-economic challenges of the region while maintaining an adequate level
of legal protection for the unique Baikal ecosystem.
In turn, the scientific and expert community stands ready to
actively participate in the further development of this draft law.
Danilov-Danilyan V. I.
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Earth Sciences Department
of the Russian Academy of Sciences on “Land Water Resources,”
Chairman of the Scientific-Expert Council of the All-Russian Society
for Nature Conservation,
Co-chair of the International Public Organization “Expert Council on
Protected Areas,”
Scientific Director of the Institute of Water Problems of the
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Dgebuadze Yu. Yu.
Chairman of the Russian National Committee for the UNESCO "Man and
the Biosphere" Programme,
Head of the Department of General Ecology and Hydrobiology,
Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Rozhnov V. V.
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of
Sciences on Ecology of Biological Systems, Academician of the Russian
Academy of Sciences
Chivilev A. A.
Honored Geographer of the Russian Federation,
Vice-President of the Russian Geographical Society,
Chairman of the Permanent Environmental Commission of the Russian
Geographical Society,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lukina N. V.
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of
Sciences on Forests,
Director of the Center for Ecology and Productivity of Forests of
the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
25 July 2025
For the original text, see https://t.me/RusEcology/3181 and discussion
by academician A.R. Khokhlov at https://t.me/khokhlovAR/1034
Biotic Regulation Comments
Despite the many perspectives, both international and domestic, that
distinguish the two letters, the core disagreement can be seen as being
primarily scientific. It concerns the nature of forest stability and its
relationship with the environment. In the first letter, forests are seen as
inevitably destined to either rot or burn, and therefore their productivity
must be sustained through human management. It is further argued that, since
restoration is legally required to follow logging, the absence of logging
would mean that no restoration will occur—implying the forest would remain
in a degraded, burned, or decaying state.
Conversely, the second letter emphasizes that clearcutting will
undermine the resilience of the forest ecosystem and its environment. In
particular, it argues that clearcutting increases vulnerability to large
fires—not only because more roads lead to a higher human risk of fire
ignition, but also because young, even-aged stands that grow on logged areas
do not reduce wind speeds, thereby facilitating the spread of fires.
Moreover, these stands dry out more easily than natural forests. The letter
also notes that mechanized forest restoration on steep slopes will increase
soil erosion and contribute to pollution of Lake Baikal.
Ecosystem’s ability to regulate its moisture status declines with
increasing human harvest — Fig. 5 from Xiao et al. 2023
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1211/2023/
The second letter, therefore, implicitly supports the core idea of the
biotic regulation concept—that undisturbed ecosystems stabilize both
themselves and their environment and broader climate, while their
disturbance leads to environmental and climatic degradation. In fact, at
least three of the academicians who signed the letter are well acquainted
with the biotic regulation concept, having co-authored papers on the topic,
publicly expressed surprise over the “conspiracy of silence” around the
concept, or published our ideas in their journals and spread the narrative.
However, even the second letter does not mention the broader role that
natural forest ecosystems play in climate stabilization. This is
understandable, as such a discussion would require a higher level of
conceptualization and argumentation that is not easily achievable in an
official letter calling for prompt measures—in this case, to prevent the
hasty adoption of the law. However, strategically, bringing attention to the
climate-regulating functions of natural ecosystems is vital.
What this discussion reveals is that issues that can be perceived as
purely academic, such as what natural ecosystems might do for climate, and
how that function depends on their “naturalness” versus anthropogenic use,
are, in fact, central to making strategic decisions that will affect people’s
lives and our land for generations to come. Because an old tree cut down
today won’t grow back tomorrow, and its function will, in practical terms,
be lost to us forever.
Stop cutting and giving away land, or Baikal will rise in anger. —
Gennady Tugulov, 13th-generation shaman
One might argue that, in the case of Baikal forests, this concerns a
relatively small area—and that whatever happens here cannot have a global
impact. In other words, even if we preserve the forests around Lake Baikal,
continued widespread logging elsewhere would render their
climate-stabilizing impact insignificant.
However, Lake Baikal is a powerful symbol of Nature and Purity—a
globally recognized gem in the necklace of the Biosphere. The way we choose
to treat Lake Baikal may therefore carry far-reaching consequences for how
people relate to nature more broadly. A good decision made here can set a
precedent, echoing far beyond the region.
That is why it is so important to foster thoughtful, respectful, and
science-based discussions about what forests actually do for our climate.
For instance, as key drivers of atmospheric moisture transport, the natural
forests of Siberia and the Russian Far East play a crucial role in
sustaining moist air circulation over China (e.g., van der Ent et al. 2010).
Instead of continuing to log native forests in Russia while promoting
artificial afforestation in China, why not pursue cooperation between all
the regional powers to preserve natural forests and protect the integrity of
moisture flows? Timber production could then be concentrated in smaller,
intensively managed forest plantations—minimizing ecological and climatic
damage.
Plantations are said to occupy just 3% of global tree stands yet
generate 33% of global timber. Why not set aside ten times more natural
forest for permanent protection for every new plantation we establish? This
way, we could solve both deforestation once and for all, and timber supply
for the time being—until we learn how to live by exploiting forests less
than we do now. Provided, of course, that the timber industry doesn’t
succeed in lobbying for infinite growth under the banner of making wood the
foundation of a green “circular economy.” Turning the Earth into one vast
timber plantation might seem efficient—for a moment—before it ends in
irreversible collapse.
Intensely managed forests in Europe are in effect tree plantations,
and they are struggling with all types of disturbances. Figure source:
Scherpenhuijzen et al. 2025. Notably, in France, Spain and Portugal
harvesting is most intense. When reading about “wildfires” in Spain or
Portugal, remember that these affect heavily exploited, ecologically
devastated vegetation deprived of the capacity to regulate moisture. On the
contrary, native forests in Portugal, however small, could stop even intense
fires. We don’t call an industrial chicken farm an “ecosystem,” so let’s not
deceive ourselves by calling modern, heavily harvested tree stands
“forests.”
If we choose now to stop cutting down multicentennial trees for toilet
paper or “sustainable” packaging (see “Trees might be green—but paper isn’t”
by Rachel Donald), future generations—if able to look back from their
ecologically wiser world—may regard us with gratitude and applaud our
civilizational committment.
PS: Consideration of the law by the Duma has apparently been
postponed. According to the telegram channel “Ecology of Russia”, the law
has disappeared from the Duma’s timetable.
A guest post by
Andrei Nefiodov Subscribe
You're currently a free subscriber to Biotic Regulation and Biotic
Pump. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Upgrade to paid
Like
Comment
Restack
© 2025 Anastassia Makarieva
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
--
Вы получили это сообщение, поскольку подписаны на группу "Региональная
платформа по водным вопросам Центральной Азии и др регионов".
From: Svet Zabelin <svetfrog at gmail.com>
Date: пт, 25 июл. 2025 г. в 00:30
Subject: Fwd: Fight for Baikal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.enwl.net.ru/pipermail/enwl-eng/attachments/20250725/663c03ff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Enwl-eng
mailing list