Model Forests in the Russian Federation: Local Perspectives, Challenges and Outcomes

Abstract

We discuss the development, challenges and outcomes of model forests in the Russian Federation as potential tools to help ensure forest-based sustainable development. We use in-depth interviews to explore local perspectives on Pskov and Gassinski model forests. We find that despite demand for change from some local non-governmental and companies, as well as support from international players, the idea of participatory environmental governance is still not widely accepted, the system remains dominated by the traditionally big state and effects of such alternative initiatives remain limited. Using our case studies, we show that unless domestic and international stakeholders of model forests refocus their efforts, model forests are likely to remain unstable 'islands' of change with only limited local impact.

The role of pseudo-commons in post-socialist countries

“…Libman and Obydenkova (2014) describe how the state capture alliances between regional governments and a number of privileged firms remained resilient after the 1990s and how the set-up makes local bureaucrats -even after reforms in 2006 -myopic and not interested in improving the quality of the forest. Ulybina (2015) also raises the fact of the historical predominance of top-down forest management and abundant regulations is not a favorable condition for the evolution of self-organized resource management. Therefore, there is no basis for an effective common-property regime and there never was an aim to develop one.…”

“…Another rather weak attempt to establish common-property regimes in Russia's contemporary forestry sector can be observed in a small fraction of the existing model forests. 8 One of the four model forests studied by Ulybina (2015) aimed at facilitating local participation by forest users. The objective of engaging the local population in decision-making processes can be seen as an initial step towards commons management system.…”

“…Model forests in Russia were proposed as a new form of governance, which could potentially help harmonize the interests of different stakeholders, including forest users, regional and federal authorities, businesses, indigenous people and academia, and increase the role of the public in forest resource management. As such, model forests could be regarded as fulfilling the role of strengthening democracy and the development of local communities (Ulybina, 2015). An actual pseudo-organization in that respect is one model forest described in the study which was set up with the help of an international pulp and paper manufacturer, which also controls logging operations in Russia.…”

“…Timber companies consider model forests to be a tool that may help them to avoid fines. According to interviews, the real intention of engaging in the local initiative has been to circumvent the law, since model forests grant the opportunity of complying with slightly different, less stringent laws (Ulybina, 2015).…”

What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests set aside for conservation or restoration? A systematic map

“…Intact Russian forests could provide important reference areas for active management practices in the future, particularly for assessing the broad-scale effectiveness of interventions in impoverished European forests (see also [63]). Unfortunately, the development of experimental approaches for sustainable forest management remains a marginal issue for the Russian forestry sector [64].…”