Search

With 20% of the world's forests, Russia has global potential in bioeconomy development, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. However, unsustainable forest management based on 'wood mining' reduces this potential. Based on document analysis, participant observations and interviews, this article shows how non-state actors—environmental NGOs and forest companies—address forest resource depletion and primary forest loss in Russia. We analyse two key interrelated forest discourses driven by non-state actors in Russia: (1) intensive forest management in secondary forests as a pathway towards sustained yield and primary forest conservation; (2) intact forest landscapes as a priority in primary forest conservation. We illustrate how these discourses have been integrated into policy debates, institutions and practices and discuss their relation to relevant global discourses. The article concludes that despite successful cases in conserving intact forest landscapes, there is still a frontier between sustainable forest management discourses and forestry practice in Russia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores for the first time the attitudes and motivation associated with forest certification among forest industry companies in northwestern Russia. Interviews were carried out in the form of a structured questionnaire including 35 forest industry companies operating in northwestern Russia. Although development of certification in individual companies was initiated by general market demand, representatives of certified companies also emphasized the importance of internal corporate policy. Certified and noncertified groups of respondents identified market demand as a main driving force influencing development of forest certification. Ensuring the legality of wood origin, company's image and competitiveness of wood products were recognized as the most important benefits associated with forest certification. Absence of mandatory requirements from authorities and customers appeared to be the largest obstacle among both groups of respondents. Representatives of noncertified companies pointed out economic inaccessibility and low level of preparedness of management as of high importance, which is mainly associated with absence of quality management system. The results of the study indicated a general positive attitude on forest certification; it was noticed that respondents have gaps in understanding the principles and limited awareness with regards to forest certification, especially among noncertified forest industry companies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]