U.S.S.R. forest resources and features of their inventory

P. V. VASSILIEV ¹

¹ Professor P.V. Vassiliev is head of the Forest Resources Section of the Board for Investigating Productive Forces at the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science.

THE WORK undertaken by FAO since the war on the statistics of world forest resources is of exceptional importance. The results of the first three world forest inventories published by FAO during this period have, for the first time, provided foresters of different countries with more or less reliable information on the area, reserves and composition of the world's forest resources. In these days, with the steady internationalization of science and with international co-operation continuously increasing, published information about the forest resources of different countries is valuable not only to economists but also to a wide range of workers in forestry, agronomy, geography, botany and other branches of natural science. This makes it all the more important, both that the published data should reflect the actual extent and composition of the forest resources in particular countries as accurately as possible, and that the data of the different countries should be easily comparable. It has to be remembered that the ordinary forester of any country studying the statistics of forest areas and forest reserves of a foreign country tends to interpret those data on the basis of the statistics for his own country, with which he is familiar.

Nevertheless, we are still far from having reached that degree of international unification of data of forest resources which would make it possible reliably to summarize and compare the data from different countries. This is mainly because of the absence of uniform (or at least reconcilable) methods of economic classification of forest areas and forest reserves. Another factor which may have a great bearing on the comparability of similar categories of forest data in different countries is the method used for determining those categories. Failure to understand the specific nature of the national forest inventory can often lead to serious errors when national data are summarized in a world inventory report.

Some ideas and suggestions for improving existing world forest statistics are put forward later in this paper. The current situation is first illustrated by a concrete example: the inventory of forest resources in the U.S.S.R., and the data for the U.S.S.R. included in World forest inventory 1958 (FAO, 1960).

A basic feature of forest statistics in the U.S.S.R. is the distinction drawn between:

a) the total area of the forest reserve lands;
b) the forest area; and
c) the forested (or forest-covered) area.

Failure to grasp the significance of this distinction usually leads to misunderstandings and errors on the part of foresters outside this country (as well as by those inside this country not specialized in forestry).

The total area of the forest reserve lands (also called the total area of the Goslesfond) is the total area of all types of land and water in the charge of the state forestry service or under its control. It consists of (a) the forest area, and (b) the nonforest area. The nonforest area consists of lands which, though in the charge or under the control of the state forest service, are not intended or are unsuitable for the growing of forests. These include (i) areas of different nonforest lands (arable land, grassland, pasture, water, and so forth); (ii) areas used for various general economic purposes (roads, cuttings, canals, farms, etc.); (iii) areas of nonexploited lands (swamps, sands, ravines, sharp slopes, rocks, etc.). The forest area forms the main part of the total area of the forest reserve.

The forest area is the area of lands actually covered by forests and intended for forest growing. This likewise consists of two parts: the forested area and the area not covered by forests. The latter includes lands suitable for the growing of forest but not presently covered by forest, e.g., burnt-cut areas, areas under dead stands, cutovers which have not yet regenerated, waste lands, clearings and sparse forest areas. The forested area is the main part of the forest area.

The forested area (or forest-covered area) is the area of lands presently occupied by forests (including shrubs).

The areas of these several categories, according to the U.S.S.R. inventory of 1 January 1956, are as follows:

	Thousand hectares
Total area of the forest reserve lands	1,131,116
Nonforest area	295,424
Forest area	835,692
Area not covered by forest (open area)	113,423
Forested (or forest-covered) area	722,269

Full details of the composition of the nonforest area and of the open area are given in references books on the U.S.S.R. forest reserve.

The first of these categories - the total area of the forest reserve lands - is, as far as is known, peculiar o the U.S.S.R. It did not exist in prerevolutionary Russia. It reflects the classification of lands in the U.S.S.R., and in particular the absolute predominance of state landownership.

As may be seen from the above figures, this total area of forest reserve lands includes over 295 million hectares of nonforest area. It is not the total area of forest reserve lands, therefore, which should be compared with the total forest areas of other countries in reports on world forest resources. The more appropriate figure, and the one most comparable, is the forest area (actually 835,692,000 hectares). This is the figure which corresponds most nearly to the figures of forest area published by other countries, and it is from this figure that one should proceed in determining the forest area of the several regions and of the world as a whole. In fact the category total area of forest reserve lands (1,131,116,000 hectares) is never used in the U.S.S.R. to characterize forest resources in the country's forest statistics. Clearly it cannot be used as a basis for determining such parameters as forests as a percentage of land area, average growing stock per hectare or net growth per hectare.

The forest area (835,692,000 hectares) is divided, according to the form of management, into

a) centrally managed forests, i.e., those directly in the charge of the forestry service;

b) granted forests, i.e., those ascribed to other administrative bodies, scientific institutions, etc. (5,797,000 hectares); and

c) collective farm forests, i.e., those granted (together with lands) in perpetuity to collective farms (39,226,000 hectares).¹

¹ Somewhat different figures of the area of collective farm forests have been published in Soviet forestry literature from time to time. For example, both in Forest Economy No. 1, 1953 and in No. 3, 1958, a figure of over 90 million hectares was given for collective farm forests. This higher figure included an area of over 50 million hectares of reindeer pasture, sparsely forested, in the belt bordering the tundra. In the present paper these areas are regarded as agricultural lands rather than as forest areas and have therefore been excluded from the figure for collective farm forests.

Within the limits of each form of management the forest-covered areas are distinguished and the forests growing on these areas are inventoried according to the sizes of the areas, their timber reserves and the prevalence of coniferous or broadleaved types.

The division of the centrally-managed forests into three groups according to their national economic significance is of major importance in the inventory of the forest resources of the U.S.S.R. This division has been discussed several times already and therefore we shall content ourselves here with a very brief account.

Group I includes green zones, forests protecting fields and soils, small ranges of forests (kolki) in the steppes, forests in resort areas, restricted shelter belts along rivers, railways, highways, around lakes and reservoirs, shelter belts bordering the tundra, etc.

Group II includes forests of economic and general water conservation importance growing in forest-scarce regions.

Group III includes all other forests. It is in the forests of this third group that the main activity of the logging industry takes place.

The areas of the forests of these three groups, as of 1 January 1956, are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1. - CLASSIFICATION OF CENTRALLY-MANAGED FORESTS

Forest groups	Total area of forest land		Forest area area		Forest covered area
	1,000 ha.	%	1,000 ha.	%	1,000-ha.	%
Group I	30 507	2.8	24 706	3.1	19 428	2.9
Group II	83 792	7.7	72 409	9.2	62 497	9.2
Group III	969 995	89.5	693 564	87.7	599 028	87.9
TOTAL	1 084 294	100	790 669	100	680 945	100

For each group special procedures for forest utilization have been established.

Should 'the national economic significance of any particular forest range change, it is transferred from one group to another. In fact, a number of transfers have taken place recently, so that, for example, the area of the first group has more than doubled, while that of the second group has also grown considerably. These changes, which show the process of intensification of the country's forest economy, will be fully reflected in the new inventory data to be published shortly.

Recently, in the forest inventory, a distinction has been drawn in the forests of centralized management between forests-in-use (exploited forests) and unexploited forests (those reserved). The unexploited forests are the forest ranges situated at a considerable distance from main transport lines and not intended for development during the next 20 years. It -will be recalled that the forest area of the centrally-managed forests is 790,669,000 hectares. Of this area 413,520,000 hectares are in use, the remainder being unexploited, or reserved, forests. The entire forest area of the granted forests (5,797,000 hectares) and of the collective farm forests (39,226,000 hectares) is regarded as being in use, so that the total area of exploited forests in the U.S.S.R. amounts to 458,543,000 hectares. Unexploited forests, or reserved forests, amount to 377,149,000 hectares, and lie entirely in the centrally-managed forests.

Of the 458,543,000 hectares of exploited forests, however, no less than 60,625,000 hectares consist of open areas, so that the forested area of exploited forests is no more than 397,918,000 hectares, of which, as may be seen from Table 2, 277,025,000 hectares consist of mainly coniferous forest.

A re-inventory of the forests, as of 1 January 1961, is presently in progress, and though this re-inventory may lead to a number of minor changes and corrections, it is not expected that the general picture summarized in Table 2 will undergo serious modification.

TABLE 2. - U.S.S.R. FOREST RESOURCES: FOREST AREA AND FOREST A-REA IN USE

Category	Total area	Area in use	Unexploited area
	Thousand hectares
1. FOREST AREA
Centrally-managed forests (state forest reserves)	790 669	413 520	377 149
Granted forests (in charge of different organizations)	5 797	5 797	-
Collective farm forests	39 226	39 226	-
TOTAL	835 692	458 543	377 149
Of which
Open areas (area not covered by forest)	113 424	60 625	52 799
Forested (forest-covered) area	722 268	397 918	324 350
Of which:
Mainly coniferous	560 198	277 025	283 173
Mainly broadleaved	162 070	120 893	41 177
	Million cubic meters
2. TOTAL TIMBER STOCK
Centrally-managed forests (state forest reserves)	75 090	40 018	35 072
Granted forests (in charge of different organizations)	473	473	-
Collective farm forests	2 322	2 322	-
TOTAL	77 885	42 813	35 072
Of which:
Coniferous	66 858	34 610	32 248
Broadleaved	11 027	8 203	2 824
3. TOTAL STOCK or MATURE AND OVERMATURE FORESTS	64 815	26 750	28 065
Of which:
Coniferous	49 351	23 186	26 165
Broadleaved	5 464	3 564	1 900

As yet the productivity of the forests of the U.S.S.R., especially that of the unexploited forests, has been insufficiently studied. The Soviet forest survey service and management organization mostly use, as indicators of the productivity of the country's forests, figures of average standing stock or of annual average growth per hectare of forested area. Investigations are presently being carried out on methods of determining the common index of current growth. The average growth in the U.S.S.R. is determined as the relation of the volume of the standing stock (excluding natural losses and shifting cultivation) to the age of the stand. The current growth is determined as the relation of gross increment (including natural losses as well as shifting cultivation) for the period of 5 or 10 years to that period. Both are measures of average annual increment. However, our "average growth" in its essence is close to the international "net increment"; this can also be zero, or even negative, in overmature forest. Current data on standing stock and growth per hectare are given in Table 3.

TABLE 3. - STANDING STOCK AND GROWTH IN THE U.S.S.R.¹

	Unit	All ests	Forest-in-use	Unexploided forests
Forest area	million ha	835.7	458.5	377.2
Forested area	million ha	722.2	397.9	324.3
Total standing stock	thousand million m³	77.9	42.8	35.1
Standing stock per hectare of forested area:
All forests	m³	108	107	108
Coniferous	m³	119	125	114
Broadleaved	m³	69	68	69
Standing stock per hectare of forest area:	m³	93.2	93.4	93.1
Total annual growth	million m³	958.6	671.2	187.4
Annual growth as percentage of standing stock	percentage	1.10	1.57	0.53
Average growth per hectare of forest area	m³	1.03	1.5	0.5
Average growth per hectare of forested area	m³	1.2	1.7	0.6

¹The indices of growth relating to both forests-in-use and unexploited forests are unofficial.

The data derived from the U.S.S.R. forest inventory and set out in Tables 2 and 3 do in fact contain the same elements as are contained in the international statistics published by FAO. However, comparable categories arise in different connections and sometimes have different names; in several cases correspondence is not complete. The situation can best be understood by reference to the schematic diagram (Figure 3), in which the forest classification adopted in the U.S.S.R. forest statistics is compared with that used in FAO's statistics. Here it is possible to pick out the categories which correspond in the two classifications. At the same time it will be observed, as will appear from the following notes, that the correspondence is not exact at all points. First, it will be observed that the nonforest area of the U.S.S.R. (i.e., lands which, though in the charge or under the control of the state forest service, are not intended or are unsuitable for the growing of forests these amount to 295 million hectares) has no counterpart in the FAO statistics and is therefore excluded from the FAO diagram. The forest area is the true index of the territorial extent of the forests, and it is this figure which corresponds to the basic figure in the international classification.

FIGURE 3. - Distribution of the forest areas in the USSR (in millions hectares)

USSR CLASSIFICATION

FAO CLASSIFICATION

Next, it should be noted that in the inventory data available on 1 January 1956 relating to the U.S.S.R. forest resources, inaccessible forests are not singled out. Inaccessible forests do exist in the U.S.S.R., occupying small areas in the Caucasus, the Urals, Siberia and the Far Eastern regions.

Nor is a distinction drawn between productive and unproductive forests. In a very broad sense, however, the distinction which is drawn between forested area and nonforested area can be taken as corresponding roughly to the FAO distinction between productive and unproductive forests. (See definition of nonforested area given above.)

Forests-in-use and unexploited forests have identical meanings in both classifications.

As to the species classification, the U.S.S.R. statistics distinguish only mainly coniferous and mainly broadleaved; there is no mixed woods category.

With the aid of Figure 1, and taking into account the foregoing observations, it now becomes possible to enter accurate figures for the U.S.S.R. in the FAO tables.

Unfortunately, when the third world forest inventory was compiled, neither the Soviet forest economists, nor the FAO compilers were able to carry out a detailed reconciliation of the U.S.S.R. and FAO classifications. As a result, both the World forest inventory 1958 (issued in 1960) and the summary thereof published in Unasylva Volume 14, Number 3 contain serious and regrettable errors. Thus, for example, forest area was given not as 835,692,000 hectares (the correct figure) but as 1,131,116,000 hectares - which is, in fact, the total area of forest reserve lands and which includes 295,434,000 hectares of nonforest area.

Similarly, errors occurred in presenting the U.S.S.R. data on area and stock of exploited forests. The area of forests-in-use was given correctly, at 458,543,000 hectares. The figure given for timber stock (69,847 million cubic meters), however, did not relate to the area of forests-in-use but to the area of another forest classification group, peculiar to Soviet statistics, namely, the so-called forests of industrial utility.² Forests of industrial utility, in Soviet statistics, include most of the Group II and Group III forests (see Table 1). They amount to 636,629,000 hectares (rather less than the total of Group II and III, which is 765,964,000 hectares), and their stock is reckoned at 69,847 million cubic meters, of which 61,043 million cubic meters are coniferous and 8,804 million cubic meters broadleaved.

² The similarity between the FAO term "forests of exploitable value and the U.S.S.R. term" forests of industrial utility probably misled the compilers of the U.S.S.R. data.

Perhaps because the significance of these two figures was not fully explained in translation, they were erroneously connected in compiling. Dividing the stock by the area of forests-in-use gave the following results: 152 cubic meters per hectare for all forests, 168 cubic meters per hectare for coniferous forests and 81 cubic meters per hectare for broadleaved forests. However, as explained, the above-mentioned figure for timber stock relates to an area much larger than that of forests-in-use. The actual timber stock in forests-in-use, as indicated in Table 2, is 42,813 million cubic meters, of which 34,610 million cubic meters are coniferous and 8,203 million cubic meters broadleaved. Calculating timber stock per hectare of forested area in use we arrive at the following indices: 107 cubic meters per hectare all types, 125 cubic meters per hectare coniferous and 68 cubic meters per hectare broadleaved.

It is clear that the wrong basis of calculation adopted for the U.S.S.R. figures has led to very serious errors. In the case we have just discussed, the published figure for standing stock per hectare of forests-in-use is 152 cubic meters (all types), whereas the correct figure is 107 cubic meters. The total standing stock of forests-in-use should be 42.800 million cubic meters, as against the published figure of 69.800 million cubic meters. The growth figures, too, need correction. The figures for gross increment per hectare in forests-in-use published in the World forest inventory 1958 are 1.9 (all types), 1.9 (coniferous) and 1.7 (broadleaved). The correct figure for average growth per hectare of forests-in-use is 1.7 cubic meters (all types). The corresponding figure for unexploited forests is 0.6 cubic meter, and for all forests taken together 1.2 cubic meters.

Since Soviet forests comprise a considerable part of total world forest resources, the inclusion of exaggerated data concerning the U.S.S.R. in the general tables has led to considerable errors in the world totals and averages. No doubt FAO will wish to carry out the appropriate revisions to these tables based on the information given in this article.

In conclusion, we should like to make a few suggestions for improving and developing world forest statistics. Obviously this problem is connected in the first place with the existing level and system of forest inventory presently in use in each country. The system of summary inventory adopted by FAO, and the way in which the data are published, are in our opinion quite satisfactory, and we believe that at this stage attention should be concentrated on eliminating those gaps in the summary tables which arise either from the absence of certain data for particular countries or from the lack of comparability of data between countries. Thus the solution of this part of the problem depends largely on securing an improvement in national forest inventory systems.

Forest statisticians in the U.S.S.R. are also confronted with these problems, and we are giving our attention to them. We believe that for the further development and improvement of our system of inventorying resources we must study the possibility of introducing a number of indices presently used in world forest statistics, such as annual gross increment and net growth for different species, classification of forests by density of stands, etc.

But we believe too that, along with supplying FAO with better inventory data in accordance with the existing list of indices, it is also necessary to consider ways and means of expanding this list and of improving the system of summary inventory. In particular, we consider that special attention should be given to problems of, and indices reflecting, the intensity of the forest economy. The World forest inventory 1958 contains practically no data to show the level of intensity of the forest economies of different countries.

Concerning this problem we suggest that consideration should be given to the possibility of introducing the following indices:

1. The area of artificially reproduced and created forests to be included in forests-in-use.

2. The area of tree plantations which have not yet reached the age when the crowns interjoin and have not yet become part of the forest reserve available in the inventory year.

3. The area and output of existing forest nurseries and forest schools producing marketable tree seedlings in the year of the inventory.

4. The quantity of tree seed collected during the inventory year.

5. The number of man-days spent during the inventory year on all types of forest work (other than industrial timber logging). In the absence of direct records this information can easily be arrived at on the basis of information concerning wages paid to forest workers.

6. Length of forest roads: total length and length per 100 hectares of forest area.

Data relating to all these categories of information (except 6 -length of forest roads) are systematically compiled in the U.S.S.R. every year.

Even if these data cannot be obtained for private forests, it would probably be advisable to start collecting and analyzing them for the public forests.

There is another group of indicators, forest economic indices, which in our opinion would be well worth including in world forest statistics. Here the main difficulty, of course, is the complications which arise in attempting to present cost, price and value data on a comparable basis. However, FAO has already acquired considerable experience in evaluating forest production, and if this experience can be successfully applied to the calculation of incomes and expenditures in the forest economy we believe it would be advisable to try to introduce the following indices (even if they relate only to the public forests):

1. The average (national) marketable stumpage value for the main species of industrial timber.
2. Total income from the utilization of forests (except revenues from the industrial logging of the forests).
3. Expenditures on the forest economy (except expenditures on industrial logging).

These suggestions, if they are to be considered for inclusion in the next world forest inventory, will of course require thorough preliminary study at a forthcoming session of the FAO/ECE Joint Working Party on Forest and Forest Products Statistics or at a specially convened meeting. It is our conviction that a further improvement of world forest statistics along the lines we have suggested will meet with general approval and support.

EDITOR'S NOTE

We welcome Professor Vassiliev's frank and lucid account of the differences in classification between the U.S.S.R. forest statistics and those collected by FAO for the world forest inventory and published in the World forest inventory 1958. The corrections needed in the U.S.S.R. figures, to which Professor Vassiliev has drawn attention, will lead to considerable revision in the world totals and averages published in the foregoing publication and in Unasylva, Volume 14, Number 3. Revised summary tables are now being prepared, and will be published in the next issue of Unasylva.

We are particularly happy to note that it is intended to adapt the U.S.S.R. forest statistics in certain respects to bring them into close correspondence with those published by FAO. Professor Vassiliev's suggestions for further improving world forest statistics will be formally submitted for the consideration of the expert group which will be convened to advise FAO on drawing up the questionnaires for the fourth world forest inventory, due to be taken in respect of the year 1963.