Publication: The uneven response to global environmental governance: Russia's contentious politics of forest certification
The uneven response to global environmental governance: Russia's contentious politics of forest certification
| dc.contributor.author | Henry, L.A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tysiachniouk, Maria | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:22Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:22Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/761 | |
| dc.title | The uneven response to global environmental governance: Russia's contentious politics of forest certification | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.issued | 2018 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Boreal | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Political, legal, systemic | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Ecological Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Social Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Economic Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | HCVF | |
| fsc.subject | Participation | |
| fsc.subject | Company Commitments | |
| fsc.subject | Plantations | |
| fsc.subject | Concessions | |
| fsc.subject | Chile | |
| fsc.subject | Latin America | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Russian Federation | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | RU | |
| is.coverage.region | Eastern Europe | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | Not applicable | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This study explores the context and ways that forest industries and government representatives are more likely to mobilize collectively to challenge forest certification. The authors compare the adoption and rejection of the 7th version of the FSC Russian's National Standard between North-West (Karelia, Komi, Arkhangelsk) and Far-East (Primore, Khabarovsk, Irkutsk) regions in Russia. Why did firms adopt forest certification more rapidly and with relatively fewer challenges in the Northwest regions of Russia than did firms in the Russian Far East? In particular, why did an industry-led alliance with government officials emerge in the Far Eastern regions of Khabarovsk and Primore in 2011–2012 in response to the 7th version of Russia's national standards under the Forest Stewardship Council? How did the contentious politics give way to constructive negotiations between stakeholders in 2013–2017?The authors used data from interviews conducted with state, market, and nongovernmental actors. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The study suggests two necessary, but not sufficient, factors that led to contentious politics in the Russian Far East:-High levels of biodiversity and virgin forests. The Far East has more virgin forests, intact landscapes and biodiversity than the Northwest where many forests have already been logged several times. Certification in the Far East represents thus a higher risk of diminishing the area that can be harvested under FSC guidelines. -Proximate location to markets that do not place a premium on certified wood. More specifically, companies in the North-west tend to be more included in transnational holdings exporting to Europe where the demand for certified products is higher. Inversely, companies in the Far East export more to the Asian market (e.g. China) which are not much certification-sensitive. Yet, the most important factor was the emergence of an industry-government alliance, in which state natural resource agencies supported industry's opposition to FSC. This alliance found its roots in pre-existing relationships in illegal logging activities (the region being particularly prone to it). Also, both state and industry actors shared common misunderstandings about FSC certification. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Overall, this study shows:-“contention over private governance is on-going, continuing as rules and standards are revised”-state actors are significant for to the expansion of certification-“the importance of regionally-variable factor even under conditions of similar federal regulation”-“the authority of actors involved in private governance may be context specific” | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The authors finally highlight how new lines of communication and negotiation can lessen contestation: “the creation and expansion of forums of negotiation with the governance generating network offered venues where actors could provide feedback on certification standards, at least temporarily lessening the need for opposition […] These forums […] encouraged dialogue around FSC and brought all actors “inside” the FSC process […] Over time, the Far Eastern regional governments' involvement in the debate over certification became more similar to that in the Northwest.“ | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.014 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international605 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Forest Policy and Economics |