In the article:

The discussion about the changes proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources in the Government Decree No. 1509 on the rules for the use of forests on agricultural lands continues. If the amendments are adopted in the current form, this will actually destroy the possibilities for ecologically stable intensive forestry on abandoned agricultural lands. The amendments proposed by officials proceed from two myths. We explain why these myths have no reason and you should not be afraid of them.

Myth 1. The threat of food security of Russia

Allegedly, this threat is created by the overgrowing of agricultural land. In fact, in the last decade the situation is virtually reverse. The more agricultural land overgrown with forests (according to various sources from 44 million hectares to 76 million hectares), the more wheat exports from Russia have increased: from the late 90s. The last century, by 2020, wheat exports reached 45 million tons or $ 8 billion.

Moreover, this trend since 2003 is also characteristic of almost all groups of agricultural products, not only grain. It can be concluded that the agricultural land overgrown with forests fell out of economic turnover, in the USSR, Focus was on the "physical accessibility" of food , and not the economic expediency and efficiency of its production. " Food safety in modern conditions is based on the intensification of agricultural production, including the growth of productivity, and not on extensive growth of the area of the sown fields.

The process of modern massive overgrowing of agricultural land is not due only to the economic problems of the late 80s-early 90s of the XX century. The massive overgrowing of agricultural land began immediately after issuing in 1958–1960. Passports to collective farmers, who began to massively leave the countryside and get a job in cities. As a result, in just 20 years, the forestiness of European Russia increased by 20%! By 1980, it became impossible to hide under the guise of plugged pastures of fields and meadows, overgrown with small -leaved forests, and they were forced to transfer them to the forests of the state flesh.

Why does the ground have no owners

The vast majority of agricultural land (67%) are still in state or municipal property, and 58% of the state for 30 years could not determine which one (federal, regional or municipal). Another 21% is in unrequited share property - this is an inheritance that is considered to be employees of former collective farms and state farms. There are no real “private owners” there - people belong to virtual shares (share) without borders and location, including the registration of shares requires the cost of paying for cadastrust work. Often, owners of shares are afraid to allocate and formalize them, because after registering and allocating them almost immediately they begin to be fine for overgrowing by the forest. The solution to the problem of economic stimulation of the registration of real ownership of land shares seems to be an independent important task to ensure social justice comparable to the privatization of housing in the 90s of the last century.

And only 12% of agricultural land are in allocated and delimited property of individuals and legal entities - that is, in real private property. Obviously, restoring order using agricultural land is required not only on this 1/8 part of their area. At the same time, the average grain yield has grown from the first half of the eighties by about two times, and the indicators of providing people with agricultural products, which were planned in the USSR food program, have long been blocked.

Myth 2. The transfer of overgrown agricultural lands to the state flesh will eliminate wood deficiency

The main problem of providing forest resources of industry is that the Rosleskhoz and the Ministry of Natural Resources refuse to economically stimulate the transition to a model of intensive use and restoration of forests. That is, the transition from the collection of rent per unit of the volume of wood to leasing rents for the rental area. As a result, tenants do not have economic incentives for investments in increasing the growth and stock of wood. In this situation, the increase in the area of the state grounds of the state flesh will stimulate either an increase in investment in the forestry, nor a decrease in the gap of forestry indicators in Russia and in countries with similar natural-climatic conditions, which differ approximately 6-7 times, and ensure the quality of forestry.

It should be borne in mind that the forest administration, combined with the forest industry in the mixed and taiga forest zone, is at least at least, but, most likely, a more profitable industry than agriculture, and that almost all economically affordable forests on the lands of the State Forestfond on the European territory of Russia (ETR) are already leased. At the same time, the overgrown lands of agricultural purposes are outside of legal use. The cost of returning agricultural land to the circulation, including their rebooting, is extremely high. The value of forests in previously treeless territories will probably grow in connection with the emergence of a new carbon deposit market with forests.

What the Ministry of Natural Resources offers and what you cannot agree with

Limiting the use of forest for a period of 10 years. 10 years is too short for forestry: during this time you can cut down the forest (if the earth has been abandoned for a long time and the forest “matured”), but this is completely insufficient to grow the forest (if the earth is abandoned for several years). Even if, after cutting down, the copyright holders want to restore the forest, they will not do this, because in 10 years it will not grow, and they will be asked to carry out reclamation and return the land to agriculture. We offer not to introduce any restrictions on the timing of the use of forests.
The deadline for submitting an application is two years. By fixing the deadlines for submitting an application in the government’s decree, we lose potential owners from the rural population who can grow the forest on their site, since they will not be able to submit an application after two years (the owners must pay for land shares). We propose to cancel the temporary restrictions on submitting the application and the deadline or significantly increase the deadline for filing such applications.
Unreasonable prohibitions for conducting intensive forestry and excess regulation . Clause 7 of the project “Changes” of the Ministry of Natural Resources to the owners and tenants of forests on agricultural lands is ordered to carry out only continuous cutting and all types of selective cutting are completely prohibited, which is necessary for a long -term environmentally friendly intensive forest use. We propose to exclude this item and other unreasonable prohibitions for forestry and excess regulation.
An unreasonable increase in the number of opaque consulting and permits . The copyright holders, who have already filed an application to the possible adoption of amendments, must submit it again according to the new rules, although four months have passed since the entry into force of the situation and only individual points of amendments can be applied, for example, the allocation and taxation of the timber -sulfur. The requirements for the preparation of papers and documents adopted in the activities of the government management bodies of the State Forestfond, which are trying to extend to the activities of owners and tenants of forests in agricultural lands. We propose to exclude excessive agreements and permits. To ensure the protection of the interests of citizens - owners of agricultural land (approximately 28% of agricultural land, including unrequited shares), requirements for forest owners on agricultural lands with an area of up to 50 hectares (two maximum soldiers of the share) and more than 50 hectares should differ significantly.
The overestimated values of the parameters of the forest, which can be preserved or used . The draft resolution stimulates only one possibility - if there is already a forest on the site, then it is chopped. In order to conduct intensive forestry, in paragraph 1 of the draft decree we offer the height of the trees to reduce to 3-3.5 meters, the forest cover should be more than 50% (and not 75%!), And the indicator of the clinic clinica should be reduced to 0.6.
The lack of opportunities for the implementation of the forest -climate projects under the Paris Agreement to reduce import duties (EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) and to attract investments of European companies interested in buying certified carbon units of emissions (ERUs). Forestslimatic projects on agricultural agricultural lands are best suited for this: when the start date of overgrowing is known, the tenant and/or the owner can provide the best carbon accumulation regime, which ensures compliance with the requirements of the Paris Agreement. We propose to finalize the draft resolution so that it ensures the regulatory basis for the implementation of forest-climate projects under the Paris Agreement.

What will happen if you accept the amendments of the Ministry of Natural Resources

Amendments to the presented edition do not allow to prevent negative phenomena in response to regulatory requirements, such as a decrease in forest area due to arson. The current types of punishment, up to the seizure of land for non -use or improper use, will force the owners and tenants to destroy the forest, and the easiest way to destroy it is to burn it.
Further reduction in the number and deprivation of residents of the village of potential jobs. The Ministry of Agriculture proposed reducing the financing of the program “Complex development of rural territories for 2020–2025” with 2.3 trillion rubles. Up to 1.5 trillion rubles, in the next three years (up to 2022), it is planned to spend only 241.5 billion rubles on the program, which suggests that many agricultural land will still not be used, and therefore can be used for forestry . By the end of 2030, it is planned to return to agricultural production only 12 million hectares of agricultural land, which is several times less than it out of agricultural production and is overgrown with forest.
The amendments proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources lead to a significant increase in transaction costs that determine the decrease in the investment attractiveness of the use of forests on agricultural lands, up to the elimination of the economic feasibility of investment in this sphere.

In fact, the proposals of the Ministry of Natural Resources contradict the order of the president of PR-126, paragraph 3 B, who instructed the government until April 30, 2020, “to take measures aimed at establishing the features of use, protection, protection and reproduction of forests located on agricultural land, which has provided the possibility of the implementation of this category of all types of forest use without the need to change the form of ownership of land and changes in the category of land. ".

Мы уверены, что предлагаемые Минприроды изменения в постановление Правительства РФ № 1509 от 21.09.2020 года нельзя принимать в данном виде как минимум до завершения эксперимента по реализации этого постановления в Бурятии, Московской, Рязанской, Архангельской, Ленинградской, Тверской, Кировской, Нижегородской, Пензенской, Иркутской, Ярославской, Костромской, Псковской, Свердловской областях, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk and Perm region. Consider the possibility of expanding the list by including Smolensk, Kaluga and Novgorod regions in it.

The author’s opinion may not coincide with the position of the VTIMES.

Two myths that kill the forest