Publication: The Impact of Transnational Private Regulation: A Case Study of Forest Certification in Russia
The Impact of Transnational Private Regulation: A Case Study of Forest Certification in Russia
| dc.contributor.author | Malets, O. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:23Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/764 | |
| dc.title | The Impact of Transnational Private Regulation: A Case Study of Forest Certification in Russia | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Malets, O., 2009. The impact of transnational private regulation: A case study of forest certification in Russia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cologne Cologne). | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2009 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Copyrighted; all rights reserved | en |
| dcterms.publisher | Universitaet zu Koeln | |
| dcterms.type | Thesis | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Boreal | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Illegal logging | |
| fsc.issue.social | Local communities | |
| fsc.issue.social | Indigenous peoples | |
| fsc.issue.social | Workers | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | FSC | |
| fsc.subject | Peru | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Deforestation | |
| fsc.subject | Impact Evaluation | |
| fsc.subject | Logging Concessions | |
| fsc.subject | Protected areas | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Price premium | |
| fsc.topic.political | National Forest Policy | |
| fsc.topic.social | Forest workers | |
| fsc.topic.social | Rights | |
| fsc.topic.social | Local communities and Indigenous Peoples' rights | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Russian Federation | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | RU | |
| is.coverage.latitude | 61.52401 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | 105.318756 | |
| is.coverage.region | Europe | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Case studies | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | In this thesis, I have analyzed the processes at both transnational and domestic level and evaluated the local impact and effectiveness of certification and labeling on the bases of an extended case-study of the emergenceand operation of forest certification in Russia.' Also giving an historical analysis of the emergence and development of FSC certification in Russia. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | forest certification has indeed generated environmental and social effects, including better biodiversityprotection on logging sites, better protection of high conservation value forests andparticularly old-growth forests, improved cooperation between certified loggingcompanies and local communities, as well as indigenous peoples communities, andimprovements in worker safety. Yet, its effectiveness has been limited by two majorfactors: (1) the domestic regulations and unfavorable institutional context and (2) bythe market nature of the FSC system and particularly of its compliance assessmentsystem that had a restrictive effect on the FSC impact at the local level. In addition,inadequate qualifications of forest management auditors also decrease the quality offorest management assessment and also have a restrictive effect on the environmentaland social change that forest certification could potentially induce. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Forest certification and commercial interests may go hand in hand and jointly shape companies' behavior. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Many environmental organizations and company managers were convinced that Russianforestry legislation does not adequately address environmental aspects and oftenprescribes behavior that in fact contradicts the FSC's forestry standards. Companymanagers also emphasized that some of the governmental rules and regulations didnot address the economic needs of the forestry sector. Moreover, the monitoring ofcorporate behavior and the enforcement of rules are far from being perfect. The tasksthat the federal and local legislation assigns to forest service officers, including forestinventorying and planning, systematically remained unaccomplished due to severebudget deficits. The legal uncertainty that emerged with the introduction of the newforest code contributed to the growing confusion in the forestry sector. | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international444 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.link.url | http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/4180/ |