CC BY
20
Украшський державний лкотехшчний унiверситет
Охарактеризованi форми лщини звичайно!' можуть бути використаш для виведення нових сорив фундука в умовах Розточчя.
Лггература
1. Анучин Н.П. Лесная таксация. - М.: Лесн. пром-сть, 1982. - 549 с.
2. Денисова Ф.Н. Особенности биологии плодоношения селекционных форм лещины в Тамбовской области: Автореф. дис...канд.с.х.наук: 06.01.05/ Всесоюзн. НИ ин-т растениеводства им. Н И. Вавилова. - Л., 1976. - 20 с.
3. Джиаукштас П.И. Формовое разнообразие лещины и лесоводственные основы организации хозяйства на лещину в широколиственных лесах Литовской ССР: Авто-реф.дис...канд. с.х. наук:/ Ин-т леса АН СССР. - М., 1958. - 20 с.
4. Комаров Ф.С. Лещина в лесах Полесья УССР, ее лесоводственное значение: Автореф. дис...канд. с.х. наук:/ Укр. с.х. академ. - К., 1965. - 20 с.
5. Кудашева Р.Ф. Разведение и селекция лещины и фундука. - М.: Лесн. пром-сть, 1965. - 132 с.
Dr. Norbert Weber - Institute of Forest Economics and Forest Management Planning, Dresden University of Technology
CURRENT ISSUES OF GERMAN FOREST POLICY5
The main issues of nowadays German forest policy have been discussed in the paper, including questions of forest organization and organizational reforms, forest certification, National Forest Program, new societal demands to the forests and forestry sector.
Д-р. Норберт Вебер - 1нститут Лковог Економти i Планування Лкового Господарства, Дрезденський Технологiчний Ушверситет
Сучасш проблеми .псовоУ полггики Шмеччини
Люова пол^ика Кмеччини в значнш Mipi регулюеться на píbhí федеральних земель, однак вона охоплюе i загальнодержавш проблеми. Одним Í3 найбшьш важли-вих питань люово! политики краши е сертифжащя лю1в. Пан-Свропейська система сертифшацп в краш е бшьш успешною щ^вняно з системою FSC. Наслщком впли-ву мiжнародноl люово! полiтики е створення на державному рiвнi та ргвш окремих земель Нащонально! Люово! Програми. Подiею спрямованою назустрiч вимогам сус-пiльства до лiсiв i люовласниюв став Саммiт Кмеччини з Люгв, проведений у 2002 р.
1. The Forest Resources of Germany
Germany possesses large forest resources. Forests cover about 10.7 million hectares, that is about one third of the country. However, in relation to the population of 80 million people, there are only 0.14 ha available per inhabitant. On average, the wooded areas consist of 66 % conifer forests and 34 % broadleaved forests. About 30-40 million cbm wood are harvested each year; the potential amounts to 57 million cbm. Forestry employs about 60.000 people and the wood working industry provides more than 700.000 jobs (cf. BMVEL 2001).
Forest decline and high nitrogen inputs to the soil are still an important threat to the forests. Moreover, some extreme climatic events caused a lot of dama-
5 Presentation at the International Scientific-Practical Conference "Forestry Researches in Ukraine", Ukrainian State University of Forestry and Wood Technology, May 22, 2002 (revised paper)
282
Ллнвницью дослщження в Укра'лш
HayKQBHH bíchhk, 2002, BHn. 12.4
ge during recent years. Especially the storms of 1990 and 1999 have to be mentioned that resulted in an additional offer of 75 million cbm and 30 million cbm, respectively. In regions with a large hoofed game population (for example in the Alps), the forest stands suffer from browsing and other negative influences.
2. Forest Organization and Organizational Reforms
Because of the Federal system, the primary responsibility for the forest resources lies with the Federal States, the so-called Laender. Thus, German forest policy means 15 different forest policies. However, there are some policies and programs at federal level. The latter comprise the National Forest Report of 1994, a Forest Policy Concept of 1996 and a variety of forest-related programs in specific areas, e.g. for the reduction of airborne pollution, conservation of genetic resources and promotion of renewable resources (BML 2000a).
The overall distribution of ownership is 46 % private forests, 34 % state forests and 20 % communal forests, i.e. forests in the property of towns and communes. According to latest estimations, the number of private forest owners amounts to 1.5 to 1.7 million; about 800.000 of them possess less than one hectare. A special situation is given in the eastern part of Germany where the five Laender administrate between 14 and 30 % so-called Treuhandwald. These forests that comprised more than 700.000 ha at the beginning of the 1990s had been in state ownership during GDR times. Up to now, about 400.000 ha of these forests have been restituted or privatized (BMVEL 2001). At the moment, in Germany the future of public forests is discussed intensely (cf. figure 1).
Organizational Reforms of Forestry
Discussion on legal aspects and policy principles
Deficits in public budgets
Crisis of Forest Enterprises
Paradigms of
Solution
(New Public
Management,
Privatisation,
Mechanisation)
Special Situation In Eastern Germany
• sites less productive
• unemployment
• Treuhandwald
Figure 1. Organizational reforms
Mainly as a consequence of grave deficits in public budgets, during recent years state forests have been undergoing deep structural and functional reforms, including processes of rationalization, down-sizing and outsourcing. Staff is reduced at upper (u), medium (m) and lower (l) levels on the way to 'lean organizations'. In some cases, the medium level has been abolished and a separation bet-
3. ^icQBiaHOB^eHHH, ce^eK^HHo-reHeTHum MeTogu noKpaweHHH ^ÎCÎB
283
yKpaiHcbKHH aep^aBHHH ^icoTexHiuHHH yHiBepcHTeT
ween the forest enterprise and the forest authority took place (Weber & Thode 2001).
Communal forest enterprises suffer from unsatisfying revenues, small budgets of the communes, conflicts because of different interests of land use, and some of them want to get rid of state influence in the form of obligatory management by state forest authorities.
With respect to private owners, we observe an increasing number of so-called urban owners with attitudes and values differing significantly from the typical rural forest owner. Very often these new forest owners even do not live in the surroundings of their forests. This results in an enormous challenge for forest extension, and foresters have to find new ways to find access to these owners and to find out their priorities (cf. Volz & Bieling).
3. Forest Certification and Nature Conservation
In recent years, forest certification has been an important issue of German forest policy, maybe even the most important one. The forest enterprises had to decide if they should join the certification system of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), that was strongly advocated by environmental organizations, or the Pan-European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC), favoured by most of the state forest authorities and forest owner associations. Meanwhile, both systems have been introduced, the PEFC being more successful with more than 5.58 million ha (i.e. 52 % of the forested area) certified by April 2002. However, the FSC succeeded in convincing some state forest enterprises and well-known communal forest enterprises. By stressing ecological and social aspects, forest certification opened new ways of influencing forest policy for groups outside the traditional forest sector.
Nature protection agencies and environmental NGOs have been increasing their pressure on forest owners to integrate environmental issues in forest management. At the moment, forest owners in Germany are scared about the influences that will arise from the implementation of the European Union system of protected areas called Natura 2000. Germany is affected with about one third of the forest area. One reason is that several forest types, including beech forests belonging to the plant associations Luzulo-Fagetum and Asperulo-Fagetum, are listed in the Annex 1 of the European Habitat Directive that, together with the Directive for the Protection of Birds, forms the legal framework of Natura 2000 (cf. Weber & Christophersen 2002).
4. Forests, Foresters and Society
As a consequence of developments in international forest policy, the German Federal Government and some of the Laender have initiated National Forest Programmes. According to international agreements (e.g. the IPF/IFF proposals for action), NFPs are continuous dialogue processes that describe a comprehensive framework for sustainable development. During this process, representatives of different interest groups, associations and sectors discuss important forest-policy issues in order to define the expectations placed by society in the forest and forestry as well as those placed by the forest owners in society. While the first part of
284
^ícíbhh^kí gociig^eHHH b yKpaiHi
HayKQBHH bíchhk, 2002, B«n. 12.4
the NFP process was dominated by the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry (cf. BML 2000b), in the following year the power balance between the participating actors changed dramatically, and the NGOs even managed that the title of the process was changed from Nationales Forstprogramm to Nationales Waldprogramm. According to the NGO view, this should mirror the increasing meaning of forests for purposes besides wood production. In addition to the national process of developing a NFP, the Laender began to develop own regional forest programmes. Baden-Wuerttemberg, starting the process in 1999, was the first German Land to take up the new form of forestry dialogue, and it ranks among the top group of countries worldwide that have decided to start a NFP process (Anonymous 2000). Other countries, e.g. Bavaria, are still in the discussion process.
Taking into account the increasing demands on the forests and the forest owners that have been formulated by society and NGOs representing different groups of society, the German Forestry Council (DFWR) decided to hold a German Summit on Forests (Waldgipfel) last year. The aim was to develop a treaty of generations about the future use of forests. Although not all groups did sign the treaty at the end of the meeting, it can be seen as a great success that it was possible to identify the different interests and demands of many groups, canalize them and to show the limits of the charge of forest owners (cf. DFWR 2001).
In the context of the 'magic triangle' between forests, forestry and society, Germany is undergoing fundamental changes that seemed unimaginable a few years ago. The new campaign of the German Association of Forestry (Deutscher Forstverein) presents some slogans in English language. According to the authors of the campaign, this is necessary to address young and young-feeling people and to enable European and international alliances (DFV 2002).
5. Forest Education and Research
Forest Education in Germany has a long tradition. The first academic foresters were educated in 1770 in Goettingen, and since 1811 forest sciences have been tought in Tharandt continuously (Moog 2001). Many foreign foresters have graduated in German forest schools and universities. At the moment, the internationalization of study courses and curricula is a big issue, and Bachelor/Master courses are being introduced. In addition to this, the job market for graduates in forest sciences has changed completely; only a small amount of graduates finds a job in the traditional field of forestry. The universities come up to that challenge by offering possibilities of specialization. Forest research is more and more organized in multidiscipline research groups. Some important research issues are ecosystem research; the conversion of pure conifer stands into mixed forests or changes in the distribution and changes in forest ownership structures. However, social sciences have to suffer from a decrease in attention and funding. Conclusions
When we compare the situation of German forest policy between the 1970s and today, we can identify some fundamental changes (figure 2).
3. ^icoBiaHQB^eHHH, ce^eK^HHo-reHeTHum MeToa« noKpaweHHH ráciB
285
yKpaïHCbKHH aep^aBHHH tticoTexHÎHHHH yHiBepcHTeT
Constellation of Actors in German Forest Policy
1970 Today
Figure 2. Constellation of Actors in German Forest Policy
About 30 years ago, the forest policy situation was characterized by strong state forest authorities (S) and close ties between all types of forest owners and associations in the forest cluster. External groups had no access to this closed network of actors. Today, the 'protective shield' is not working any more. New actors (especially nature conservation agencies and NGOs on national and international level), have been entering the stage (cf. Weber et al. 2000). The political position of state forest authorities became weaker. Interest groups representing communal (C) and private forests (P) developed own policies.
Although nature conservation gained more importance, in Germany a wide separation between production forests and protection forests, like in New Zealand, is not likely to happen. It can be assumed that multifunctional forestry will dominate forest policy deliberations in Germany in the near future, too.
References
1. Anonymous (2000): Forstprogramm Baden-Württemberg. Ein gellschaftlicher Dialog unter Einbeziehung internationaler Vereinbarungen nach dem Konzept des Intergovernmental Panel on Forests der Vereinten Nationen (IPF). http://www.wald-online-bw.de/1lfv/3aktuelles/nfp.htm
2. BML - Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (2000a):
Information provided to the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth sessions of the UN-CSD, Last update February 2000.
3. BML (2000b): Nationales Forstprogramm Deutschland. Bonn.
4. BMVEL - Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (2001): Gesamtwaldbericht der Bundesregierung.
5. BMVEL (2002): Ernährungs- und agrarpolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung.
6. DFV - Deutscher Forstverein (2002): Neue Image-Kampagne des DFV. http://www.forstverein.de/
7. DFWR - Deutscher Forstwirtschaftsrat (2001): 1. Deutscher Waldgipfel: Nachhaltigkeit - Ein Generationenvertrag mit der Zukunft. Dokumentation. Bonn/ Bad Honnef.
8. Moog, M. (2001): Persepektiven der Forstwissenschaft. Der Wald als Erfahrungsobjekt verschiedener Disziplinen. Forschung und Lehre 11/2001.
9. Volz, K. - R. und Bieling, A. (1998): Zur Soziologie des Kleinprivatwaldes. In: Forst und Holz, 53. Jahrgang, Heft Nr. 3.
10. Weber, N.; Härdter, U.; Rother, A.; Weishaupt, M. (2000): Forstpolitische Aktivitäten von Umweltverbänden in Deutschland - eine vorläufige Bestandsaufnahme. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 171 (8): 144-152
286
^iciBH^bKi gociig^eHHH b yKpaÏHi
Науковий вкник, 2002, вип. 12.4
11. Weber, N.; Thode, H. (2001): Forstreformen in Deutschland - Rahmenbedingungen, Handlungsräume und bisherige Umsetzung. Forst und Holz 56 (4): 124-129 (2001)
12. Weber, N.; Christophersen, C. (2002): The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process. Journal of Forest Policy and Economics 4: 1-12
УДК 630*453:595.78 В.Л. Мешкова, канд. бюл. наук - УкрЦДШГА, м. Харшв
ДИНАМ1КА ДЕФОЛ1АЦП ДУБОВИХ ДЕРЕВОСТАН1В ЛИСТОГ-РИЗАМИ ЗАЛЕЖНО В1Д ЛОКАЛЬНИХ УМОВ
Дослщжено динамшу пошкоджень дубових насаджень листогризами на 12 пробних площах на швшчному сходi Харювсько! областi. Встановлено, що на амплiтуду та piBern дeфолiащl впливають лiсорослиннi умови, icropk спалахiв та проведения винищувальних заходiв.
V. Meshkova
Dynamics of oak stands damage by insect-defoliators dependence of local
conditions
Dynamics of oak stands damage by insect-defoliators was studied in 12 sample plots in the northern-east part of Kharkov region. It was stated that forest site conditions, outbreak and control measures history have impact on defoliation level and amplitude.
Пошкодження листового апарату дерев комахами ввдграе значну роль у попршанш стану насаджень, зниженш 'х приросту, а у випадку сильного багаторазового об'''дання призводить до всихання деревосташв.
Встановлено, що спалахи масового розмноження комах-дефолiаторiв розвиваються у певш перюди циклу сонячно!' активносп, що тдтверджено iсторично-географiчним аналiзом динамiки осередюв шкiдникiв [3, 4]. Незва-жаючи на синхроннiсть перiодiв масового розмноження комах у вщдалених точках Земно!' кулi, ймовiрнiсть !'х виникнення вiдрiзняeться у рiзних областях Укра'ни, що обумовлено, насамперед, клшатичними факторами [5]. При цьому в конкретному насадженш ймовiрнiсть розвитку спалах1в окремих ви-дiв комах обумовлена як !'х бiологiчними особливостями та конкурентними взаeмовiдносинами, так i локальними умовами [2, 6].
У цш робоп ми зробили спробу визначити локальш чинники, що зу-мовлюють вiдмiнностi у динамiцi пошкоджень дубових деревосташв листогризами.
Для аналiзу використаш масиви даних з пошкодження дубових насаджень листогризами, одержат у перюд багаторiчних спостережень на пробних площах (ППП), розташованих у напрнш частинi пiвнiчного сходу Хар-кiвськоí областi i закладених М.1. Прокопенко на початку 70-х роюв у Ли-пецькому лiсництвi Данилiвського ДЛГ (ППП 1-3), Куп'янському лiсництвi Куп'янського ДЛГ (ППП 4-5) та Жовтневому лiсництвi Вовчанського ДЛГ (ППП 6-12). На цих ППП щорiчно враховуеться р1вень дефолiацií, стану насаджень та вiдпаду дерев, що дозволило з'ясувати деят закономiрностi впли-
3. Лiсовiдновлення, селекцшно-генетичш методи покращення лiсiв
287
