Clash of discourses of government, business and the public

The first principle of FSC provides for compliance with the laws of the country where certified forestry enterprise or company. However, international environmental and social certification requirements exceed the requirements of the Russian legislation, thereby contradicting the specific provisions and rules of forest management. Simultaneously, the interpretation of the national state legislation can often be multi-valued. Therefore, the construct of the contradiction between the requirements of Russian legislation and FSC is based primarily on differences in perception and discourse of those who promote FSC-certification, and those who are compliance with the Russian forest, environmental, labor and tax laws. However, if the representatives of government agencies related to forestry, imbued with the ideas of certification, almost all conflicts can be removed.

The absence of the concept of sustainable forest management at the national level leads to the absence of such a discourse in government officials as well. The new Forest Code that entered into force in January 2007 has not filled the gaps, because the idea of promoting sustainable forest management of public organizations and advanced forestry business has not been considered in it. Consequently, the word «sustainable’ is found only for three times in collocations «sustainable forest management’, «sustainable timber production’ and «sustainable development’ in the Forest Code. In this case, it does not include the concept of sustainable forest management, it is not written about and how to realize it. Meanwhile, the final institutionalization and common everyday practical application of requirements for sustainable forest management is only possible with the state participation. This creates barriers to those timber merchants who want to work due to international principles of sustainable forest management.

The process of certification of the Russian logging enterprises that have become the part of large international forest companies is going on more consistently and systematically. Because these companies have already been working in the world in a new way, taking into account aspects of sustainability, sustainable forest management has become part of their official policies. At the same time the business culture of these companies require that the general policy and the new practices were assimilated, digested and accepted by all the staff from management to workers. Thus forest certification is introduced in this way. In this case, their Russian daughter company is no longer combat of discourses and barriers to implementation of the new practice of sustainable forest management.

We will consider how discourse and practices of the different actors clash by the example of a few specific ideas.

 

Old-growth forests

One of the requirements of FSC is to preserve the different categories of forests of high conservation values. One of the categories of those is old-growth forests. Sometimes referred to as old-growth or virgin forests. There is a clash of opinions about this concept and proposed forest management practices in these forests. Preservation of old-growth forests was in the focus of attention of international environmental and social non-governmental organizations before the introduction of voluntary forest certification around the world. On the subject of logging in these forests, on the legitimate point of view of national legislation, were the actions of Greenpeace and consumer boycotts.

The concept was new to the Russian public, loggers and government agencies. On the contrary, such forests are called «ripe’ and «overripe’. And the discourse was that - «they must be cut’. Embarked on the path of FSC-certification of forest companies faced with misunderstanding of their own leadership and a lack of understanding of forest management governmental agencies, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the government and the Duma. Conducted environmental informing with social organizations about the necessity of preserving old-growth forests as a rule reached to the government agencies of the federal and regional levels, and to a lesser extent with to local authorities. However, logging companies working with forestry namely in the regions.

Discourse of local employees of forestry enterprises and the preservation of old-growth forest areas is as follows: lack of understanding of the benefit; the deprivation of the population of economic benefits; this is an excessive environmental requirement; it is a special strategy of competitors to weaken of the Russian economy. As a result, the economic factor - underutilization of forest resources plays the most important role for government agencies. Thus, the International Institute for Sustainable forest management makes certified forest enterprises save old-growth forests, but the state agencies that do not contribute in any way - enterprises pay for the rent of these rather large areas and penalties for undercut.

 

Key biotopes

Another example of the clash of the old and new social institutions is the isolation and preservation of key biotopes. This practice and the concept did not also exist till the FSC-certification, as in forest enterprises, forest management government agencies. It was also included in the discourses and practices owing to a variety of seminars on the subject of voluntary forest certification, organized by international environmental public organizations, in which the representatives of forest management government agencies and timber merchants attended.

In some regions, especially where once there was a demand for FSC-certification, environmental public organizations conducted much information works (for example, in the Arkhangelsk region), regional state authorities were willing to legitimize the allocation of key habitats within the law, that is, to consider them as noncommercial forest land. Customized loyally to the state bodies certification immediately found an opportunity to fit into the legislation. However, key biotopes could be an operating highly productive land. Sometimes, logging company just tried to leave all kinds of key biotopes and pay fines for undercut. But here, a compromise is possible: the legislation deems it undercuts and fines the company. But at the same time, the company temporarily benefits from the fact that the conditions of certification, and received a certificate for it, with all its benefits. Or for all that such plots are drawn up by forester in place as a group of seed bearers or seminal clump.

Complicity causes abandonment and dead trees, as here involved two Russian laws - Forestry (cutting-practice rules) and labor (safety regulations), as leaving the deadwood is dangerous to workers in the plot. But there can be an exception by this. Such trees with decorative crown and hollows can be left as an exception. The decision to leave them or not, not only forestry makes decision but also forest warden on the spot in allocation the plot. However, they usually do not want to take responsibility.

If regional state agencies recognize the need of leaving the key biotopes, then, as a rule, local forestry also follows it. On the contrary, in the areas where certification was not a mass phenomenon, where environmental public organizations did not conduct a special operation with the regional state authorities of forest management, and local forestry enterprises and forestry manifested their negative attitude to the isolation of biotopes there. In the documents of plot of lands is not mentioned anything about leaving the habitats, but it is written that the tenant should all cut down. If there is something called habitat left, then it will be penalized. It is clear for foresters what it is, but they cannot work with biotopes because they are not legalized yet. Some representatives of government agencies of forest management believe that observing all the rules of certification in terms of leaving the biotopes is out of reality.

By the example of the collision of opinions and practices on two concepts - «old-growth forests’ and «key biotopes’, it becomes clear that the introduction of new rules and concepts using FSC-certification is difficult to happen. The absence of many concepts in legal system that operates certification hampers its accomplishment. At the same time, non-state actors, involving state agencies that studying the programs, organizing study tours to their representatives around Russian and international model forests, a large number of cross-cutting seminars, conferences and meetings, create a new channel of informal institutionalization of sustainable forest management.

Formal law informally reconsiders and adjusts to meet the international requirements for sustainable forest management. In this case, the formal harmonization of national laws and international requirements will not occur. Indeed, despite all the efforts of the public, business and loyal to the voluntary forest certification of state authorities, in the new Forest Code, the rules of timber harvesting and other bylaws, new concepts of sustainable forest management have not been introduced in recent years.

 

Conclusion

Modern forest management standard practice of Russian timber enterprises and their management companies is not sustainable because the economic interests take entirely precedence over environmental and social interests. By virtue of the international environmental public organizations the beaten path that operated the wood industry, as a result, the introduction of voluntary forest certification has been changed. A new path in the form of new timber business practices affected the discourse of state authorities. However, the forestry legislation, enforcement of which lies on the government agencies of forest management, despite the radical change (it has become over the last decade much more marketable), it remains in the same rut. Thereby, the first barrier to the institutionalization of sustainable forest management is state laws and state agencies, which are more than anything else, impede the institutionalization of sustainable forest management and ecological modernization of the forestry sector in Russia.

The introduction of new concepts is often hampered by the certification management and themselves staff of Russian forest enterprises. Managers and employees who have extensive experience in the forest enterprises in the Soviet and post-Soviet period, and learned in the tradition of the «old’ forest management, frequently perceive the environmental requirements of the international forest certification with difficulty, do not understand and do not accept environmental and social requirements, based on consultations with local communities and indigenous peoples, with all different groups of forest users and stakeholders. Thus, there is a clash of discourses and practices of those managers who are agents of certification and its opponents, who suppose the certification as a next formal procedure. The struggle between two approaches inside the timber business is the second barrier for the development of sustainable forest management in Russia.

Adoption of FSC-certification in Russia is the incentive for forming a new Institute for Sustainable Forest Management. About for ten year certification period it took place the institutionalization and adaptation of sustainable forest management in Russia. However, it shouldn’t be asserted that the certification is completely led to sustainable forest management. In practice, there are only fragments in the form of areas of sustainable forest management and fragmentary social networking space systems for sustainable forest management, which are available for replication at the present level of legislation, economic practices and education of personnel. Introduction of sustainable forest management in the education of Russian forest industry personnel will increase institutionalization of sustainable forest management practices in the future.

 

Bibliography

1. Cashor B., Auld G., Newson D. 2004. Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

2. FAO Corporate document repository. 1999. Issues and options for international instruments to support sustainable forest management. State of the world forests. http://www.fao.org/

docrep/w9950e/w9950e10.htm

3. Forest Europe. http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/

MC_helsinki_gral_declaration.pdf

4. FSC Russia. http://www.fsc.ru

5. Keskitalo C., Kulyasova A.A. 2009. The role of governance in community adaptation to climate change // Polar Research. Vol. 28. № 1. p. 60-70.

6. Kotilainen J., Tysiachniouk M.S., Kulyasova A.A., Kulyasov I.P., Pchelkina S.S. 2008. The potential for ecological modernization in the Russia: Scenarios from the forest industry // Environmental Politics. Vol. 17. № 1. p. 58-77.

7. Kotilainen J., Kulyasova A.A., Kulyasov I.P., Pchelkina S.S. 2009. Re-territorializing the Russian North through hybrid forest management // The changing governance of renewable natural resources in North-West Russia. Ed. S. Nysten-Haarala. Farnham: Ashgate. Chapter 7. p. 131-147.

8. Kulyasov I.P. 2005. Ecological modernization: Theoretical aspects // The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. № 3. p. 100-113. (in Russia)

9. Kulyasov I.P. 2010. Building trust in the process of localization of global forest certification // Russia and Europe: from mental images to business practices. Kymenlaakson: University Applied Sciences. p. 110-130.

10. Kulyasov I.P., Kulyasova A.A. 2010. Construction of Trust in the Process of Forest Stewardship Council Certification: Role of NGOs and Experts // The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. Tysiachniouk M.S. (ed.), Special Issue: Internationalization, trust and multistakeholder governance of natural resources, St. Petersburg, p. 282-311. (in Russia)

11. North D.C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance: A new economic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Russian National FSC Standard. Version 6_01_Ru. 08.10.2012. (in Russia) http://www.fsc.ru/upload/file/

Russian_National_FSC_Standard_v_6_01_Ru_itog.pdf

13. Hausner J., Jessop B., Nielsen K. (eds.). 1995. Strategic Choice and Part-Dependency in Post Socialism. Institutional Dynamics in the Transformation Process. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Оглавление

Сведения об авторе