Forest Certification in Eastern Europe and Russia: Rationale and Impacts

1
Forest Certification in Eastern Europe and
Russia Rationale and Impacts

• Vilis Brukas, PhD
• The Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre
• vilis.brukas_at_ess.slu.se

2
Sustainability of forest management in different
regions the public opinion in the main EU
countries (Rametsteiner 1999)
Question to EU citizen How sustainable do your
consider forest management to be in the following
forests of the world?
3
Eastern European versus Scandinavian forestry
4
How FC has developed (Bass 2001)
5
Judging the level of SFM in the case countries
from an environmentalists stance
PL, LV, EE
Sweden
Russia
6
Judging the level of SFM in the case countries
from an economists stance
Sweden
PL, LV, EE
Russia
7
Looking for a rationale for FC

• If we recognise that the major aim of FSC
  certification is to make forest management more
  sustainable with emphasis on environmental
  considerations
• - does Polish and Baltic forestry needs FC,
  having environmental practices above standard?
  
• - thinking of equity along the West-East axis,
  why should the Eastern countries suffer
  relatively higher FC costs and freeze their
  restrictive practices?
• However, if objectives of improved SFM can be
  set aside, but FC could improve communication and
  learning
  
• - FC still might be relevant for Baltic and
  Polish forestry
  
• - FC might be important tool in Russia on both
  accounts

8
Driving forces behind FC
F - major force f - secondary force
9
Poland, Latvia and Estonia

• Direct costs of FSC certification
• - No data in case studies
• - Semi-confidential data from Lithuania, in
  USD
  
• getting the certificate, holding of 200,000
  ha 0.15/ha
  
• getting the certificate, holding of 20,000 ha
  0.60/ha
  
• Indirect costs
• - No estimates but should be low
• (given the ease with which FC standards were
  fulfilled)
  

10
Poland, Latvia and Estonia

• Power effects
• - Poland State forestry reinforced its image
  and dominance
  
• - Estonia Latvia voice of ENGOs better heard,
  improved communication between stakeholders
  
• Additional research is needed to separate effects
  of certification from other influences, e.g.
  development of the National Forest Programme in
  Estonia

11
FC in Poland, Latvia and Estonia

• Economic effects
• - No price premium
• - Better market position questionable
• (additional research needed)

• Social effects
• - Benefits for forest workers
• Environmental effects
• - Marginal

12
Concluding remarks

• Eastern Europe
• FC is not a tool to contribute to SFM in Eastern
  Europe
  
• But can be a tool to empower ENGOs, facilitate
  dialogue and open up decision-making
  
• The main venue for this is the standard
  development process but not the certification
  itself
  
• FC is embraced by State forestry, private
  forestry issues remain unresolved
  
• FC is largely driven by (perceived) market forces
  from the West, but the true market advantages
  remain doubtful
  

13
Concluding remarks (2)

• Russia
• FC might become an important vehicle in
  inducting policy change, in particular at
  regional level
  
• Direct SFM impacts will likely remain localised
  at the Western boarder and be dependent on
  external aid