

The timber industry in Russia under sanctions: Losses and opportunities
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-4-45-66
Abstract
The article considers the prospects of the domestic timber industry in the context of sanctions restrictions. Based on the data on average annual trade flows for 2018—2020, the potential damage from trade restrictions is assessed. Particular attention is paid to the fifth package of EU sanctions, which contains the most severe restrictions on trade with Russia for a wide range of forest commodities. The potential loss of income for the Russian timber industry from the ban on exports to the EU is estimated at 3.5 billion dollars. The ban on imports from the EU countries may also be sensitive for the industry, but it should not be regarded as fatal. The possibilities of partial replacement of the deficit of products for a considerable list of goods are shown. At the same time, the violation of free trade in forest products because of sanctions becomes a new turn in the spiral of the global crisis, which began in the pandemic COVID-19. Consequently, the damage to countries imposing sanctions on Russia is also significant. The most affected will be the largest RF trading partners in Europe — Finland and Germany, as well as the Baltic States. A sharp increase in logging in the EU against the background of the energy crisis creates an additional opportunity for the Russian timber complex. The reciprocal nature of economic losses, as well as multiple examples of circumventing sanctions in other industries, suggest that the most likely scenario will be attempts to maintain trade relations while formally implementing the imposed restrictions.
About the Authors
R. V. GordeevRussian Federation
Roman V. Gordeev, senior researcher in Laboratory for Economics of Climate Change and Ecological Development, Siberian Federal University; junior research assistant in Krasnoyarsk Department of Forecasting the Economic Development of the Region, Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Krasnoyarsk; Novosibirsk
A. I. Pyzhev
Russian Federation
Anton I. Pyzhev, Head of the Laboratory for Economics of Climate Change and Ecological Development, Siberian Federal University; Head of the Krasnoyarsk Department of Forecasting the Economic Development of the Region, Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Krasnoyarsk; Novosibirsk
References
1. WhatWood (2021). Timber complex of Russia in 2020—2021. LPK Sibiri, No. 2. (In Russian). https://lpk-sibiri.ru/forest-industry/lesnoj-kompleks-rossii-v-2020-2021-godah/
2. Antonova N. E. (2021). National timber industry complex: Changes in spatial distribution. Regionalistica, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 5—20. (In Russian). https:// doi.org/10.14530/reg.2021.3.5
3. Vaganov E. A., Porfiryev B. N., Shirov A. A., Kolpakov A. Y., Pyzhev A. I. (2021). Assessment of the contribution of Russian forests to climate change mitigation. Economy of Regions, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 1096—1109. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2021-4-4
4. Glazyrina I. P., Faleichik L. M., Yakovleva K. A. (2015). Socioeconomic effectiveness and “green” growth of regional forest use. Geography and Natural Resources, No. 4, pp. 17—25. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1875372815040022
5. Gnidchenko A. (2022). Plots of foreign trade, No. 16. Moscow: Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-term Forecasting. (In Russian).
6. Gnidchenko A., Salnikov V. (2020). Plots of foreign trade, No. 8. Moscow: Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-term Forecasting. (In Russian).
7. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2013). Behavioral economics and new paternalism (Part I). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 66—90. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-9-66-90
8. Komarovskaya N. V. (2016). The evolution of homo economicus. MGIMO Review of International Relations, Vol. 1, No. 46, pp. 129—142. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2016-1-46-129-142
9. Ostrovskiy A. V. (2022). Sino-Russian trade and economic cooperation: Problems and prospects. Region: Economics and Sociology, No. 2, pp. 206—227. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15372/REG20220209
10. Porfiriev B. N., Shirov A. A., Kolpakov A. Y. (2021). Comprehensive approach to the strategy of low-carbon socio-economic development of Russia. Georesources, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 3—7. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18599/grs.2021.3.1
11. Simachev Y., Kuzyk M., Zudin N. (2016). Import dependence and import substitution in Russian manufacturing: A business viewpoint. Foresight and STI Governance, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 25—45. (In Russian). http://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2016.4.25.45
12. Gordeev R. V. (2020). Comparative advantages of Russian forest products on the global market. Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 119, article 102286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102286
13. Liu K., Wang H., Liu H., Nie S., Du H., Si C. (2020). COVID-19: Challenges and perspectives for the pulp and paper industry worldwide. BioResources, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 4638—4641. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.15.3.4638-4641
14. Pyzhev A. I., Gordeev R. V., Vaganov E. A. (2021). Reliability and integrity of forest sector statistics — a major constraint to effective forest policy in Russia. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 1, article 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010086
15. van Kooten G. C., Schmitz A. (2022). COVID-19 impacts on U.S. lumber markets. Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 135, article 102665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102665
16. Wunder S., Kaimowitz D., Jensen S., Feder S. (2021). Coronavirus, macroeconomy, and forests: What likely impacts? Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 131, article 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102536
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Gordeev R.V., Pyzhev A.I. The timber industry in Russia under sanctions: Losses and opportunities. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2023;(4):45-66. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-4-45-66