Multifunctional forestry or timber harvesting?

To meet the rapidly growing demand for numerous forest ecosystem services (FES) and to preserve biodiversity, the traditional forestry practices in Russia, aimed primarily at timber harvesting should be transformed into a multifunctional approach that takes into account the criteria of not only economic, but also social and environmental sustainability. The purpose of this study is to assess the importance of forests for people, people's responsibility for forest state and their understanding of the multifunctional forestry concept. The authors applied the method of quantitative research using a sociological survey of one hundred and fifty-three people. The results showed that most significant criteria for the respondents were regulating and supporting FES, cultural services occupied an intermediate position, and the least valuable criterion was the provisioning FES. The respondents expressed the belief that they had little impact on forests, but at the same time felt major responsibility for forest state. The combination of a high responsibility level and their confidence in insignificance of their individual impact on forest can serve as an indicator of people's distancing from participation in solving environmental problems. There also seems to be a discrepancy between the understanding and the practical implementation of the multipurpose forest use concept, expressed in the forest legislation of Russia. The concept of multipurpose forest use was understood by most respondents as having the same meaning as multifunctional forestry, implying some benefits from provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting FES. Timber harvesting has been identified as a service that conflicts with non-timber products, recreation, carbon sequestration, providing a habitat for living organisms. At the same time all those services were perceived as affecting timber harvesting negatively. Wood supply also turned out to be the most active (influencing other FES) and at the same time the most passive (not being influenced by other FES) service. The least active and at the same time the least passive FES was the provision of non-wood products. The overwhelming majority of respondents expressed their belief that the current Forest Code of the Russian Federation cannot ensure a balance between the FES.