Time to read: 8 minutes(s)

(Non)normative waste

NeMoskva investigated why so-called compensatory plantings—trees and bushes planted to replace those cut down—don't significantly improve the greening situation in cities and villages.

Recently, an activist from the Rostov environmental organization GorLesNadzor found herself on Green Island, a city recreation area in the open air. And found A huge cemetery of saplings. Thousands of trees died in their infancy—most likely, they dried up on the vine shortly after planting. 

What was it? Well, here's what: at the very end of October in the Rostov region Launched Traffic on the first section of the Western Chord bypass road. This section is 4,5 kilometers long, and 52,000 trees were cut down for its construction, as officially reported. Again—fifty-two thousand. 

But our builders are law-abiding. And so are the local authorities. So they strictly adhered to the law, which states that if you cut down a certain number of trees, you're required to compensate—plant the same number plus 30%. And the newly discovered cemetery is part of that very compensation, which was so successfully implemented a year ago by Zelenstroy LLC, which operates under the wonderful motto:

Happened regulatory waste — said Alexander Sokolovsky, CEO of Zelenstroy commented The incident was reported to the regional newspaper "Molot." Why did it happen? Because it was completely forbidden to plant trees in that area—something Sokolovsky admitted quite frankly: 

"Fungicide treatments of the seedlings were repeatedly carried out by spraying and applying fungicides and immunostimulants to the roots of the plants. These measures were ineffective, as the immediate cause of the disease development must first be addressed, which was the marshy terrain, which was simply unsuitable for planting.".

Every Rostov resident knows that the floodwaters on Green Island can be knee-deep for months at a time. But what about the client, the regional Ministry of Transport? The district/city/regional authorities who blessed the planting of saplings in the swamp? And the CEO of the all-Russian landscaping company who signed the contract for this planting?

However, the company promises to "plant new trees to replace the fallen ones." I wonder if they'll do it in the same place? And why not, if taxpayers are paying?

On the other hand, are there really enough suitable planting sites left in Rostov and the surrounding region to choose from? So, they bury the poor seedlings wherever they can.

And after that, they are often abandoned to their fate. For example, entered Entrepreneur Maria Tambieva, who cut down perennial coniferous trees on Zelenaya Street (no joke). 

As compensation, she planted 14 spruce trees nearby, but they all dried up.

And, of course, this isn't just happening in Rostov. For example, in Volgograd, at the end of October, pine trees were planted on Rokossovsky Street to replace the trees that had been cut down. And two weeks later uprooted, because, we quote the press service: “the administration’s relevant services identified a discrepancy between the planted plants and the conditions specified in the contract.” 

_{Photo: V1.ru}

Now the mayor's office will terminate the old contract, sign a new one, plant other trees... This is such a reasonable, well-planned activity. 

But let's return to the Rostov Region. The total length of the Western Chord is 13,5 kilometers. As a reminder, 52 trees were felled just for the first, 4,5-kilometer section. The exact number of trees that will be felled during construction of the remaining 9 kilometers is still unknown. However, it is already known that the second section of the road will pass through the Kumzhenskaya Grove, one of the last green spaces in Rostov. 

NotMoscow Wrote Rostov city council members, despite vocal protests from local residents, have authorized the removal and logging of a section of the Kumzhenskaya grove, over a hectare, from city forests. The logging will, of course, be "compensated"—wherever they can and however they can. But what will remain of that grove if a four-lane road runs through it, and the developers are already came up with The name for the next giant residential complex is "KumzhaCity." And how will young trees planted in who-knows-where (if they survive, of course) fix this?

What's going on with compensatory plantings? What should be the right approach—and the law? And how is it actually being done?

NeMoskva asked a forestry specialist, who asked not to be named, to talk about this.

A significant problem lies within the main document—the Forest Code. The wording there is as follows: "Persons using forests in accordance with Articles 43–46 of this Code are obligated to ensure reforestation or afforestation over an area equal to the area of ​​cleared forest stands." Articles 43–46 cover the use of forests for geological exploration and mineral extraction, prospecting, reservoirs, ports, hydraulic structures, linear facilities, and forest processing plants. Therefore, those using forests for these purposes (with some exceptions) are obligated to compensate for the loss of forest by planting new trees.

What's wrong here? The fact that one article, one requirement, confuses two different concepts: reforestation (i.e., planting forests where they recently existed—for example, in a clearcut or burnt area) and afforestation (i.e., planting forests where none existed before—for example, in a reclaimed quarry, an abandoned hayfield, etc.). These are clearly completely different situations:

🔸 Afforestation compensates for the area of ​​logging by planting forests elsewhere, which helps preserve the overall forest area.

🔸 Reforestation does not compensate for losses, since only part of the cut-down forest is restored, which leads to a reduction in the total area.

With afforestation, everything is clear: in one place, a forest is cleared (for example, during the construction of a new road), and in another, a new one of the same size is planted (for example, on the site of a former quarry). In one place, let's say, a hectare of forest is lost, while in another, the same hectare is gained, and the resulting forest area remains the same.

With reforestation, things are different. In one place, a hectare of forest was cleared (for example, to build a new road), in another, a clearcut for sanitary purposes was carried out over the same area, for which no compensation is provided, and then new trees were planted there. A total of two hectares were lost. And one hectare was planted—in the same place where it was cut down for sanitary purposes. So, the forest area has decreased by one hectare. Where's the compensation?

- And there are even funnier ones.— the specialist says. — Here's a specific example of compensatory reforestation from the Moscow region. In one place, 0,7 hectares of forest were cleared for the construction of a new road. In another, the same amount was clearcut for sanitary logging and pine seedlings were planted. But in the spring, some idiot came along with matches, set fire to the dry grass in the clearing, and the seedlings burned, completely dying. They cleared 0,7 hectares of them and replanted them, declaring it "compensatory reforestation." This is where things get even more interesting: three 0,7 hectares were lost, and only those same 0,7 hectares were replanted. So where's the compensation?

Essentially, if compensatory afforestation is a measure to preserve forest area, then compensatory reforestation is simply a form of punishment for those who clear forests for certain activities. For the compensation mechanism to truly work, the law must separate these two concepts, the expert believes. 

Moreover, for forest planting to yield any significant results, simply planting trees is not enough: it also requires considerable subsequent care. This is especially true during reforestation, when planted valuable young trees must compete with the natural growth of fast-growing trees and shrubs that quickly overgrow virtually any cleared or burned area. Typically, to cultivate valuable young forests of optimal composition and density, so they can continue to thrive, care must be continued until they are approximately 15-20 years old. The Forest Code, however, requires that care be carried out "for three years from the date of planting." After that, either the state (or, in fact, the region to which the forest has been transferred for management) will find the funds to continue the care, in which case the planting may be of some benefit, or it will not find the funds, in which case, in most cases, there will be no benefit. In addition to care, protection from fires is also needed (the most intensive is in the first few decades, since young trees are most easily burned), from pests and diseases, and from all sorts of other disasters.

We also need real monitoring of the final results—and we're doing poorly here, too: the state forest regeneration monitoring system is highly selective, and it only covers about ten years from the time of planting, which isn't enough.

As for compensatory plantings in cities and other settlements, the main problems there are often related to the fact that large trees, which make a significant contribution to the city's environmental quality, are cut down and replaced with smaller trees that still have a long way to go. Moreover, these trees are often planted in places other than where older, larger trees once stood.

Here is a quote from explanatory note to the latest Moscow bill: 

"...The current compensatory greening mechanism no longer ensures the preservation of green space, both due to the lack of sufficient space for planting new trees in congested urban areas and due to the failure to consider the significance of the tree being removed for the area where it grows, its quality, and its recreational functions. As a result, in practice, we often see dense, chaotic plantings of low-value tree species or plantings in unsuitable areas, leading to the death of the planted trees and, ultimately, the lack of compensation benefits for Muscovites." 

It is unlikely that the situation is better in other regions.