Forest Certification in Russia
Forest Certification in Russia
复制标题
俄罗斯森林认证
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Tysiachniouk
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Tysiachniouk
虽然俄罗斯新出现的市场经济给俄罗斯森林，特别是老生长林带来了危险，但市场力量的跨界影响也鼓励向俄罗斯输入可持续林业做法。金融监督委员会一直是这一进程的主要力量。最近，以pefc为导向的倡议开始发挥作用。本案例研究描述了FSC进口到俄罗斯的过程，供应链和需求链之间的关系，以及FSC认证对当地和国家机构的影响。它对比了FSC认证在俄罗斯欧洲部分与亚洲部分的相对有效性，亚洲市场目前对可持续林业的价值表现出较低的敏感性。该研究表明，非政府环保组织网络，特别是世界自然基金会和绿色和平组织，在推动FSC认证方面发挥了重要作用。俄罗斯的森林认证耶鲁大学林业与环境研究学院263 1世界自然基金会最近才开始支持自愿森林认证。在2003年之前，世界自然基金会只推广FSC。2 2004年6月对Ilim Pulp负责森林认证的员工的采访。3 2005年5月22日对理事会主席伊萨耶夫院士的采访。2004年3月，普京总统关闭了该部。在俄罗斯，认证最突出的影响是保护高保护价值的森林和采用集约化的森林管理方法来取代社会主义时期占主导地位的粗放式森林管理方法。社会影响包括更好的工人保护和安全以及新形式的部门间对话和民间社会机构，从而加强农村社区民主倡议的发展。迄今为止，尽管FSC认证为俄罗斯公司与西方买家签订合同提供了更大的稳定性和安全性，但经济影响并不那么显著。认证仍处于早期阶段，但寻求认证的出口导向型公司的数量可能会增加。迄今为止，各地区的支持程度各不相同。俄罗斯的欧洲部分比远东地区要大得多，这主要是由于欧洲买家对认证木材的需求，他们自己也受到非政府组织的压力，提出了这样的要求。另一方面，俄罗斯与中国的边境地区则出现了相反的趋势：边境两侧的腐败、广泛的非法采伐和一个无法控制木材价格的野生市场（Kotlobay 2002）。亚洲市场，特别是中国市场对未认证木材的大量需求，以及俄罗斯和中国的腐败网络和非法经营，阻碍了西伯利亚和俄罗斯远东地区的认证。目前在俄罗斯有三种不同的努力来促进森林认证。有两项倡议致力于促进以国家为基础的体系，这将促进认证过程，降低成本，并让俄罗斯审计公司参与进来。第三项倡议是促进森林管理委员会（FSC）制度。第一个国家倡议目前处于发展的早期阶段，得到了世界自然基金会（WWF）、大型国有公司Ilim Pulp和俄罗斯联邦自然资源部的支持。这项倡议产生的标准在程序上和实质上都符合FSC的要求，同时可以通过森林认证认可方案（PEFC -前身为泛欧森林认证）系统得到认可。第二项国家倡议得到木材商人和木材出口商联盟以及前工业科学部的一些前官员的支持。他们还计划通过PEFC认可他们的国家认证体系。俄罗斯两项国家森林核证倡议仍处于筹备阶段，由于发起人之间的个人分歧，不太可能合并。FSC的倡议也处于早期阶段，但进展稳定，特别是自2003年以来。FSC主要由世界自然基金会、其他环保非政府组织和世界自然基金会的合作伙伴，如世界自然基金会-宜家、世界自然基金会- storaenso，以及通过认证或正在进行认证的公司推动。最近，政府部门对金融监督委员会的态度从消极转变为积极。与FSC相关的新机构，如国家工作组、地区工作组和FSC认证中心正在有效运作。国家和地区标准已经制定，但尚未得到国际FSC的认可。2005年2月成立了全国FSC办事处。目前正在实施若干示范项目，包括由世界自然基金会-斯道拉恩索伙伴关系推动的Pscov示范森林，在那里实施并示范了集约化可持续管理系统。目前正在使用一种全新的森林管理规划制度，使用经济规范和采用最优化技术的情景办法。第二个示范森林“银虎示范森林”（Preluzie）也表明，向可持续森林管理过渡是可能的，即使在森林由俄罗斯小公司租用的地方也是如此。priiluzie leskhoz的森林经营证书帮助小公司Luza Les获得了监管链证书。然而，一些经过认证的操作比其他操作涉及更多的积极变化。有一些“弱”的FSC证书，比如阿尔汉格尔斯克地区的Holz-Dammers（国际海事组织是该地区的审计师）的证书，曾被暂时吊销，后来又恢复了。一般来说，只有在世界自然基金会严格审查和指导认证过程的示范森林中，包括公众在内的所有利益相关者才能参与决策。在大多数fsc认证的地区，当地公众被告知，但没有参与认证过程。然而，即使在公众没有直接参与的情况下，森林社区也能从FSC的社会标准体系中获益。此外，FSC认证的公司声称FSC认证给了他们在市场上的稳定性和安全性。在两个案例中，公司声称他们的收入增长了10%。本案例研究只侧重于“初步支持”部分的国家自愿森林核证倡议；整个论文讨论了FSC过程。
Although the newly emergent market economy in Russia has brought danger to Russian forests, particularly old growth forests, the cross-border influence of market forces has also encouraged the importation of sustainable forestry practices to Russia. The FSC has been the major force in this process. More recently, PEFC-oriented initiatives have begun to play a role. This case study describes the processes through which the FSC is being imported to Russia, the relationship between chains of supply and chains of demand, and the effects of FSC certification on local as well as national institutions. It contrasts the relative effectiveness of FSC certification in the European part of Russia with that in the Asian part, where markets currently show less sensitivity to the value of sustainable forestry. The study demonstrates the essential role of environmental NGO networks, especially WWF and Greenpeace, in promoting FSC certification. forest certification in russia yale school of forestry & environmental studies 263 1 WWF only recently started to support voluntary forest certification. Before 2003, WWF was promoting only FSC. 2 Interview with Ilim Pulp staff responsible for forest certification, June 2004. 3 Interview with the president of the council, academician Isaev, May 22, 2005. 4 The Ministry was closed by President Putin in March 2004. introduction The most prominent impacts of certification in Russia are the protection of high conservation value forests and the introduction of intensive forest management practices in place of extensive ones, which were dominant during the socialist period. Social impacts include better worker protection and security and new forms of intersectoral dialogue and civil society institutions, thus enhancing development of democratic initiatives in rural communities. To date, economic impacts are less significant, although FSC certification has given greater stability and security to Russian firms in contracting with western buyers. Certification is still in an early stage, but the number of export-oriented companies pursuing certification is likely to grow. To date, support varies by region. It is much greater in the European part of Russia than in the Far East, largely owing to European buyers’ demands for certified wood, who themselves came under pressure from nongovernmental organizations to make such demands. Russia’s border with China, on the other hand, has experienced countervailing trends: corruption on both sides of the border, extensive illegal logging, and a wild market with no control over wood prices (Kotlobay 2002). High demand for non-certified wood by Asian markets, especially those in China, as well as corruption networks, both Russian and Chinese, and illegal operations, have prevented certification in Siberia and the Russian Far East. There are currently three different efforts to promote forest certification in Russia. Two initiatives are devoted to promoting nationally-based systems that would facilitate the certification process, make it cheaper, and involve Russian auditing firms. The third initiative promotes the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) system. The first national initiative, currently in the early stages of its development, is supported by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the large national company Ilim Pulp, and the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. This initiative has produced standards that are procedurally and substantively consistent with FSC requirements, and at the same time can be accredited through the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC – formerly Pan-European Forest Certification) system. The second national initiative is supported by the Union of Timber Merchants and Timber Exporters and by some former officials from the former Ministry of Industrial Science. They also are planning to accredit their national certification system through PEFC. Both Russian national forest certification initiatives are still in the preparatory stages and, due to personal disagreements among the promoters, are unlikely to merge. The FSC initiative is also at an early stage, but has progressed steadily, especially since 2003. The FSC is promoted primarily by WWF, as well as by other environmental NGOs and WWF partnerships, such as WWF-IKEA, WWF-StoraEnso, and companies that are certified or going through the certification process. The attitudes of governmental agencies toward the FSC have recently changed from negative to positive. New institutions related to the FSC, such as a National Working Group, Regional Working Groups, and FSC certification centers are functioning effectively. National and regional standards have been developed, but not yet accredited by FSC international. A national FSC office was established in February 2005. Several model demonstration projects are now in place, including the Pscov Model Forest, promoted by the WWF-Stora-Enso partnership, where a system of intensive sustainable management has been implemented and demonstrated. A radically new system of forest management planning using economic norms and a scenario approach with optimization techniques is being used. A second model forest, Model Forest Silver Tiger (Preluzie) has also demonstrated that the transition to sustainable forest management is possible, even where forestland is rented by small Russian companies. The forest management certificate of Priluzie leskhoz has helped the small company Luza Les to receive a chain of custody certificate. However, some certified operations involve more positive changes then others. There are some “weak” FSC certificates, such as that of Holz-Dammers (where IMO was the auditor) in the Archangelsk region, which was temporarily suspended and later reinstated. In general, only in model forests, where WWF has closely scrutinized and guided the certification process, have all stakeholders, including the general public, been involved in decision-making. In the majority of FSC-certified territories, the local public was informed, but not involved in the certification process. However, even in cases where the public does not directly participate, forest communities receive benefits embedded in the FSC’s system of social standards. Additionally, FSCcertified companies claim that FSC certification has given them stability and security in the marketplace. In two cases companies claim that their income grew by ten percent. This case study focuses on national voluntary forest certification initiatives only in the “initial support” section; FSC processes are discussed throughout the paper.