State of Art in Regulatory Reference Background to Estimate Non-Wood Forest Resources in the Russian Federation Territory
Authors: Курлович Л.Е. , Косицын В.Н. , Цареградская С.Ю. 
Published: July 2024

Приведены результаты анализа состояния нормативно-справочной базы запасов различных видов недревесных лесных ресурсов. Рассмотрены подходы к составлению различных нормативных таблиц.
The paper covers the analysis findings of state of art in regulatory reference background to estimate various non-wood forest resource stocks The regulatory tables collected during preparation of the manual for Russian forest resource 9excluding timber) survey publication were applied in such analysis. All available tables (517 tables cited from 226 literature sources) were classified according to forest growing zones and engaged forest regions of the Russian Federation, forest use types and resource patterns. Paper key part shows that most of the regulatory reference tables (For the Russian Federation as a whole) were developed for estimation of food and medicinal resources – over 60%. Almost twice and a half less are designed to estimate non-wood forest resources -25% (130 tables) and least of all for forest use in agriculture – around 15% (75 tables). Irregular is distribution of the tables across the Russian Federation forest growing zones and forest regions. The least part of the regulatory reference tables were designed for the subtundra forest and open boreal woodland zone (9tables) and the semi-desert and desert zone (7 tables). The most paert (263 tables more than a half (51%) of the total are designed for the taiga (boreal) zone. 163 tables are designed for food and medicinal resource estimation, 79 tables – for non-wood forest resource estimation and 21 tables for forest use in agriculture. For some forest regions regulatory tables have not been identified at all or just 1–2 tables were found. First of all it applies to all forest regions in subtundra forest and open boreal woodland zone, Karelian north taiga, West Urals, North Urals as well as Lower Angara, Mid Angara and Upper Angara regions of taiga zone. Also there is a weak regulatory background for Transbaikal and far East regions of forest steppe zone, Altay Sayan mountain forest steppe, Baikal and Transbaikal mountain forest regions in the South Siberian mountain zone and some others. There is difference in table structure mostly it implies estimation of food and medicinal resource stocks. Various features: survey, geo-botanical, morphological and some others serve as inputs. Moreover as a rule just one indicator is applied in its arrangement. For example if an input indicator is a forest type there no gradations by other forest survey characteristics (age, species, density etc.). If there is information on tree species productivity related to designed cover often there won't be any typological information and survey characteristics of forests the regulations, concepts and terms are designed that makes its application more difficult [1]. In conclusion it is stated that at the moment regulatory background for characterized forest use types is obviously incomplete and needs further development according to natural climatic conditions of specific forest regions. New regulatory materials should be developed and classified. In future in development of sufficient regulatory reference background for performance of the considered forest use types its unification within a forest region in forest growing zone is feasible and needed.