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

Model Forests in Russia: Local perspectives, Challenges and Outcomes

Abstract

We discuss the development, challenges and outcomes of model forests in Russia,

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 NGOs 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.

Key words: model forest; participatory environmental governance; environmental

management; Russia

1. Introduction

To help develop, test and demonstrate innovative techniques in forest management,

model forests have been set up around the world. Model forests are generally

expected to promote sustainable forestry, ‘help translate national forest programs

into action and provide continuous feedback to governments for use at the policy

level’ (FAO 2012). This institution originates in Canada, where the first model forests

were founded in early 1990s to help resolve conflicts between forestry stakeholders,

including businesses and the local population. The idea was then exported to other

countries, the aims of model forest projects varying from demonstration of novel

logging techniques to increasing public engagement in local forest management or

protecting ecosystems and habitats (International Model Forest Network 2012). The

model forest concept has grown to 60 sites in over 20 countries (Davison 2012, p.

389), having gained particular popularity in Canada and Latin America (Kuzminov

2011). Internationally, some model forests have proved effective in solving issues

such as poverty alleviation conflict resolution, creating national parks, promoting

forest-based research, etc (Dube and Schmithuesen 2007). However, the

achievements of model forests, as a new form of participatory environmental

governance and a participatory approach to sustainable forest management, have, in

practice, varied greatly between countries (Besseau et al. 2002).

Model forests in Russia are regional projects ‘aimed at improvement in the

quality of forest management and effectiveness of forest use’ and ‘based on

partnership and interaction of stakeholders’ (Polozhenie ob... 2007, p. 1). These are

forest territories which have been granted a special status allowing implementation

of forest management techniques that are often common outside Russia but

contradict Russian forestry regulations. So far, there have been four major model

forests in Russia: Gassinski model forest (1994 - 2007 in Khabarovsk Krai), Pskov

model forest (since 2000 in Pskov Oblast), model forest ‘Priluziye’ (since 1997 in

Republic of Komi), and Kologriv model forest (since 2006 in Kostroma Oblast).

Initially, model forests were funded by foreign organizations: Gassinski model

forest by the Canadian International Development Agency; Priluziye by the Swiss

Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); Pskov model forest by the

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, company Stora Enso and

WWF; Kologriv model forest by the Ministry for agriculture, nature and food quality of

the Netherlands. State support has been limited, despite a proposal, in 2007, by the

Russian Federal Forestry Agency to establish 31 model forests in Russia (Kuzminov

2009; Prichinina 2013).

Model forests, and their role in preservation of biodiversity, strengthening

democracy and developing local community, are particularly relevant for Russia, a

country with a historically large state, barely existent community-based natural

resource management, and limited capability of environmental NGOs (Carmin 2010;

Fiorino and Ostergren 2012; Murota and Glazyrina 2010; Torniainen 2006;

Tysiachniouk and Reisman 2004; Ulybina 2014). Model forests in Russia were

proposed as a new form of governance, which can potentially help harmonize (within

certain territories) the interests of different stakeholders, including forest users,

regional and federal authorities, businesses, indigenous peoples and academia, and

increase the role of the public in forest resource management. The idea was similar

to that of voluntary forest certification (Cashore et al. 2006; Ulybina and Fennell

2013) – to promote discussion between stakeholders, to involve local communities in

environmental decision-making, to balance economic, environmental and social

benefits, and in this way, to create models of economically effective, socially

responsible and environmentally friendly forest management.

To-date, a number of achievements have been reported by existing Russian

model forests. These include: increased employment; training programs to improve

the quality of forestry activities; supporting forest certification; adjusting forestry

operations to local soil conditions, landscape and biodiversity; introducing new uses

of non-timber forest resources, and developing innovative techniques of evaluating

biodiversity, key habitats and conservation areas (Kondrashov et al. 2005; Model

forests of Russia and Canada 2012; Yablochkina et al. 2007). A large part of the

discussion of Russian model forests has focused on the introduction of sustainable

yield forestry into Russia (Angelstam et al. 2011, Angelstam and Elkabidze 2008

Elkabidze et al. 2013), which has been part of the Pskov, Komi and Kovdozersk

model forest projects. A wider assessment of Russian model forests and their

outcomes, including aspects of participation, however, has been scarce and far from

comprehensive (e.g., Angelstam and Elbakidze 2008; BBI-Matra 2005; Elbakidze et

al. 2012; Tysiachniouk and Reisman 2004; Valueva 2008).

This paper aims to help address this gap by reviewing the activity of two major

model forests: Gassinski model forest and Pskov model forest. The key question is:

What are the major outcomes of these model forests, particularly in terms of their

transformative capacity, enhancing the role of the public in forest governance and

potential role in shaping the future of Russian forests?

This question is particularly important given the disproportionate role of Russian

forests in the global quest for sustainability, and the increasing international support

for model forests as potentially effective instruments of forest governance.

The Gassinski and Pskov cases were selected as examples of two different

types of model forests. The primary purpose of Gassinski model forest was

sustainable socio-economic and environmental development, whilst Pskov model

forest was more focused on developing environmentally friendly and economically

attractive logging techniques. This paper is based on semi-structured interviews and

explores how the operation and results of these two model forests are interpreted by

key participants of these programmes. Most of what we know about model forests

comes from official reports produced by the organizers, which is often a dry account

of activities carried out. An important purpose of the paper is to go beyond this and

provide a more in-depth picture of model forests. To achieve this, we attempt to

make the voices of a range of key stakeholders, and their ‘insiders’’ interpretations of

the events heard.

This paper is structured as follows: first, we review the relevant wider literature on

environmental governance around the world, in particular relating to issues of

participation and community involvement (section 2), outline our methodological

approach and provide a brief description of selected cases (section 3), present the

findings from our case studies (section 4) and discuss major challenges, outcomes

and prospects of model forests in Russia, along with key policy implications (section

5), before summarizing the results in the conclusion (section 6).

2. Participatory environmental governance

Participation has been promoted in many different institutional contexts and across

sectors as a key part of multi-level environmental governance and a prerequisite of

fairness and sustainability (Agrawal, Chhatre, Hardin 2008; Ambus and Hoberg

2011; Brosins, Lowenhaupt Tsing and Zerner 2005; Moorman et al. 2013; Pagdee et

al. 2006; Reed 2008). Definitions of participation tend to be very broad and vague,

and encompass public (citizens and communities) and stakeholder (organised

interest groups) participation in decision-making (e.g., Meadowcroft 2004;

Schreckenberg, Luttrell and Moss 2006). 'Participatory environmental governance' is

often used to mean a decentralized and community-oriented approach to natural

resource management. Existing literature tends to view the importance of

participation in two ways – as a means of increasing the efficiency of resource use,

through more complete information, social learning, greater legitimacy and

enforcement of reforms, as well as an end in itself, a fundamental right associated

with community empowerment (Pretty, 1995; Reed, 2008). Participation is further

promoted as a means of ensuring social justice (Brosius, Lowerhaupt Tsing and

Zerner 2005; Brown 2003) or as a means to strengthen the civil society and address

state and market failures (Mansuri and Rao 2013).

However, the practice of environmental management shows a number of key

challenges in creating effective participatory governance mechanisms (e.g., Luyet et

al. 2012; Wily 2002). The evidence concerning the feasibility and effectiveness of

participation remains contradictory and often context-specific; the data tends to be

either of poor quality, incomparable or simply lacking (Bowler et al. 2012;

Schreckenberg, Luttrell and Moss 2006). A large number of studies attest to the

success of polycentric governance systems and participatory institutions of natural

resource management (Ghai and Vivian 2004; Newig and Fritsch 2009), however it

has also been shown that 'very often people are dragged into activities of no interest

to them' with few results (Pretty, 1995). Empirical findings show that many

development initiatives fail to improve performance because they change what

organizations 'look like, not what they do' (Andrews, Pritchett, Woolcock 2013), in the

same way the formal existence of participatory institutions does not guarantee

genuine participation, more effective environmental policy outputs or improved

compliance (Nelson 2010; Newig and Fritsch 2009). Depending on how

'participation' is realised it can mean very different levels and extent of public and

stakeholder involvement in decision-making, with varying power and influence of

those involved on the ultimate decisions, potentially leading to different outcomes

(Arnstein, 1969; Brosius, Lowerhaupt Tsing and Zerner 2005; Pretty, 1995; Reed,

2008).

Limitations and problems of participatory schemes are well-known (Arts et al.

2012a; Arts et al. 2012b; Edmunds and Wollenberg 2003; Evans et al. 2010;

Rametsteiner 2009; Rasula et al. 2011; Ribot and Larson 2005; Shackleton et al.

2002). Ideals of decentralization are not easy to achieve in practice: ‘Democratic

decentralization… requires that representative and accountable local actors have

autonomous, discretionary decision-making spheres with the power and resources to

make significant decisions pertaining to local people’s lives’ (Colfer 2005, p. 296). An

extensive literature explores the conditions, techniques and institutional designs for

effective participation, highlighting the importance of the decision-making processes,

accountability of decision-makers and capacity to implement the created rules

(Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Edmunds and Wollenberg 2003; Luyet et al. 2012;

Morales and Harris 2014; Reed 2008). However, inclusive decision-making and

meaningful involvement of the public and local communities are often challenged by

the local context. Participants come with their own worldviews, informal institutions

lead to outcomes reflecting existing power inequalities, the state may be able to

dominate other participants, local elites may be able to capture the process,

successful collective action may not be possible (Brown 2003; Mansuri and Rao

2013; Meadowcroft 2004; Nelson 2010). On the other hand, local populations may

take more interest in economic rather than environmental issues, meaning that

unchecked authority for community-level decisions results in perverse environmental

outcomes (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Participatory schemes often suffer from being

based on untested assumptions (such as community homogeneity or inherent

effectiveness of natural resource use), simplified view of the actors' behaviour and

preference for shortcuts in international development (Barrett et al. 2001; Ulybina

2014). Differences in the extent and outcomes of participation are largely due to the

nature of local communities, which are complex entities, including multiple actors

with divergent interests, underpinned by complex interactions and politics meaning

that participatory mechanisms need to be tailored to these local conditions (Agrawal

and Gibson 1999; Gibson, McKean and Ostrom 2000). Another major reason of

participation failure is seen in the role of the state and the lack of consensus

between state officials and local people, who tend to have different expectations of

what participation and devolved resource management are supposed to achieve.

State authorities and bureaucracies generally favour 'formal, generalised resource

management rules', while local resource users favour 'site-specific norms adaptable

to changing local contexts' (Shackleton, 2002: 6).

Broadly, these issues are about the local political context and the role of

different participatory traditions in supporting sustainable development. How can

participation problems be overcome in different political settings? In particular, in

non-Western statist societies with traditionally weak participation, what contribution

to sustainability can be realistically expected from local communities, the wider

public, commercial interest groups, environmental professionals and the state? What

institutional changes are required to ensure effective decision-making for

environmental sustainability? What mechanisms can help create effective

participation? Various studies of Eastern European countries have shown the

existence of a culture hostile to public participation and the lack of sustainable

cooperative state-society relations (Börzel and Buzogány 2010), as well as

particularly strong dependence of the civil society on the state (Ljubownikow, Crotty

and Rodgers 2013). The implementation of participatory schemes in Africa revealed

that participation may be seriously challenged by the national political economy, that

environmental policy-making is a political rather than rational scientifically-guided

process, and participatory natural resource management may be socially and

politically contested even in places upheld as examples of democracy (Nelson

2010). Participation needs to be enabled by a 'favourable – or at least neutral –

political space', and be based on cooperation of the people with the state (Ghai and

Vivian 2004: 322). Analysis of multiple international studies across Asia and Africa

showed that 'sympathetic political elites' make 'a major difference in how local users

may be able to organize themselves effectively' (Gibson, McKean and Ostrom, 2000:

233). Cross-country evidence suggests that strong local political capital to negotiate

benefits for the local population, as well as organisational capacity to mobilise

resources, are key to enhancing outcomes of participatory natural resource

management (Shackleton et al. 2002).

In practice, it often remains difficult to ensure effective participation in

politically challenging conditions, meaning that top-down approaches have not lost

their central role in natural resource, and in particular forest, management, and the

state often continues to be a major pool of resources for regulation, informal

influences, and law enforcement (Biermann and Pattberg 2012; Edmunds and

Wollenberg 2003; Howlett et al. 2009; Sayer and Collins 2012). The challenge

remains to balance local values with global and national political, economic and

environmental interests (Sayer and Collins 2012) – by developing hybrid forms of

governance, which would effectively integrate state and non-state stakeholders'

efforts (Biermann and Pattberg 2012). 'Most fundamentally, governments need to

enable a situation where resource users have the rights and power to bring about a

fair division of control, responsibility and benefits between government and

themselves' (Shackleton, 2002: 6). However, there is still no theory of participation

which can specify how to effectively combine the engagement of the state with the

public, communities and organized interests (Meadowcroft, 2004). Practitioners often

lack a clear view of when participatory decision-making and resource management

are likely to outperform state or market-dominated institutions. The key questions

remain: Through what mechanisms can participation be successfully organised? To

what extent can participation be institutionalised? In order to answer these questions

and design more effective and appropriate participatory processes, further evidence

about the application of different approaches and participatory mechanisms from

different socio-cultural and political contexts, as well as their comparative systematic

analysis, are needed. This paper will aim to help address this gap by analysing some

recent developments around model forests – a mechanism, which has been recently

promoted as a promising tool of multi-stakeholder partnership, with potential to help

ensure participatory and sustainable resource management (e.g., Rametsteiner

2009).

3. Methodology and Case studies

3.1 Methodology

To understand current development of model forests and how these affect forest

management in Russia, we carried out 22 in-depth interviews (2007 - 2008). Our

study focused on two contrasting model forests – Pskov and Gassinski. The two

model forests – the former in the North-West and the latter in the Far East of Russia

– are located in forest-rich regions with intensive forestry operations, which are

however quite different in terms of their economy, socio-political development and

forests.

Interviews were designed to allow an in-depth exploration of a wide range of

biological, social, political and business processes related to model forests. To this

end, questions were largely open-ended and allowing the respondents to raise the

themes they found relevant.

Given the difficulty of access to many forestry organizations and officials’

reluctance to give interviews in Russia, evidence was gathered through targeted

selection and snowball sampling. We attempted to select respondents with the

relevant expertise and significant experience in the field.

Table 1. Interviewees by sector

Sector Number of interviews

NGO 8

Private sector 11

Academia 2

State 1

Source: author's own.

To differentiate between quotes from individual interviews, this paper uses the

following abbreviations: (P) for private sector, (N) for non-governmental

organizations, (A) for academic research institutions, and (S) for state officials, e.g.

P1, P15, N7, N1, A2, A3, S7 etc.

3.2 Case studies

Gassinski model forest

The model forest at Gassinski was the first to be set up outside the Americas in

Khabarovsky krai in 1994. It was funded as a partnership between the Canadian

International Development Agency and the McGregor Model Forest in Canada

between 1994-98. Khabarovsky krai is in the Far East of Russia and income per

capita is around the Russian average at $20,000 per year. It is home to several

minority ethnic groups, with the model forest situated in the municipal district of the

Nanai people. The model forest consisted of 400,000 hectares around Lake Gassi.

The aims of the model forest were a combination of local forest-based economic

development, with flora and fauna protection, mapping of the forest, and the

establishment of a forest school. Importantly, these aims were expected to be

achieved through participation of the local population in decision-making processes.

The model forest was similar in its aims to those originally founded in Canada. After

the initial Canadian funding the project was continued by the regional and local

authorities until 2007. The Canadian agencies regarded the initial project as a

success and this led to further investment in development by the Canadian

International development Agency in the Khabarovsk region.

Pskov model forest

The Pskov region is one of the poorest regions in Russia, predominately agricultural,

and has suffered from significant depopulation since the end of the Soviet Union.

Originally founded as a WWF project, Pskov model forest existed for eight years

(2000 - 2008), after which management of Pskov model forest was handed over the

'Green Forest' Foundation. The forest was set up with a combination of

environmental and commercial aims, with a partnership between the WWF and the

Finnish ‘Stora Enso’ pulp and paper company. The relatively small, 18,400 hectare

territory, was already leased to a subsidiary of Stora Enso. The forest was based in a

previously exploited area with a good road network. The model forest is based on

principles of intensive management of the growing forest and aims at obtaining a

high-quality (in economic terms) wood, whilst preserving biodiversity. Notably, this

project was much more commercially focussed than the model forest at Gassinski,

The success of the model forest in demonstrating the commercial and environmental

effectiveness of the forest management techniques has led to continuing

demonstration and outreach work.

4. Case Study Findings

4.1 Drivers of model forests

The model forests considered in this study were driven by a combination of

commercial and environmental interests. In the case of Pskov model forest,

which was set up with the help of an international pulp and paper manufacturer,

which also controls logging operations in Russia: ‘the ones who are really

interested in the project are timber companies’ (N8). They consider model forests

as a tool that may help them ‘to avoid fines imposed by leskhozes1’ when

companies attempt to comply with international forestry requirements that may

contradict Russian law (P33). The special status of model territory gives an

‘opportunity to live according to slightly different laws than everyone else in the

forest sector’ and to circumvent Russian law, e.g. to leave behind ‘key habitats’

on the logging sites (P33).

1 Leskhoz is a state body of local forestry administration. It is an independent legal entity, organises forest use,

protection and regeneration. and interacts with forest users (Forestforum Greenpeace Russia, 2007).

Some other model areas, organized by private companies, also serve the

purpose of experimenting with forestry methods, e.g., combination of final felling

with environmentally friendly techniques (P11, P10). The development of model

forests is strongly associated with international companies and their entry into the

Russian market: ‘In the Soviet time, leskhozes and lespromkhozes2 did not have

such model plots on their territories. And now, that the UPM [company] has

come, ever more attention is given to this’ (P8). In particular, this process is

believed to be triggered by ‘certification (in order to conserve biodiversity and use

forests in a sustainable way)’ and ‘certain corporate requirements’ (P8).

At the same time, not all companies are interested in developing model

forests. In the case of the failed model forest project in Chuguyevsky Rayon in

the late 1990s, despite the availability of foreign funding and the participation of

the local administration and other state agencies, ‘local companies worked with

China and were not interested in sustainable forest use’ (N9). The private sector

pursues economically attractive opportunities, which means that market forces

alone cannot be a reliable driver for model forests.

Compared to Pskov, Gassinski model forest appears to have been more

scientifically and ecologically driven (N2). International and domestic NGOs have

played a great role in promoting model forests, with the idea ‘to demonstrate

what an intensive and sustainable forestry in Russia is and how it can be

implemented in practice’ (N8). These environmental interests have been,

however, quite disunited, and cooperation between model forests and their key

2 Lespromkhoz is a timber logging company. The word lespromkhoz was inherited from the Soviet era and is

still often used. In 1990s, old state companies, which were responsible for forest management and forest use at

the same time, were divided into leskhozes (which formed the state system of forest management) and

lespromkhozes (Forestforum Greenpeace Russia, 2007).

stakeholders is viewed as limited: ‘Does the model forest network help us in any

way? They just reimburse our travel expenses to meetings. And apart from this

no, it does not help’ (N2).

4.2 Local perspectives on the concept and purposes of model forests

The concept and purposes of model forests are differently understood by various

stakeholders of Russian model forests. For some actors in the European part of

Russia, model forests are a Russian adaptation of the Scandinavian, market-

oriented model of intensive, efficient forest use: ‘This means organizing forestry

according to Western patterns and going away from Russian requirements’ (P11). It

is understood that ‘Western’ forestry methods are based ‘on getting profits and

minimizing expenses’, whereas the Russian system ‘has still remained of the Soviet

kind’ (P11).

NGOs and business share a profit- and technology-oriented discourse. Private

companies naturally prioritize commercial value and economic viability of

investments. NGOs also see goals of model forests in ‘improving the quality of forest

to make it more valuable for timber business’ (N8). NGOs expect model forests to

bring new technologies for ‘intensive sustainable model of forest management’,

including new methods of evaluation of forest resources, methods of economic

planning of forest use, logging technologies (N8). Some representatives of the

private sector refer to model forests as a potential ‘link between science, technology

and production’ (P38).

Other aspects of model forests were emphasized by the director of Gassinski

model forest, who described it as ‘a territory where one tests a management model’

and where ‘a managing company has to unite interests of different parties’ (forest

users, game and fishing husbandries, and indigenous people) with an aim to

‘economically secure everyone working in this region’, to put an end to illegal

activities in the forest and preserve or restore biodiversity (N2). Due to a different

history of logging in the Far East and a greater abundance of forest resources

compared to European Russia, the focus here is not so much on technology and

intensive forestry, but rather on ensuring a democratic, participatory, multi-

stakeholder forest management system and ecological balance. It is also widely

accepted that model forests are about economic security of local communities: ‘to

achieve growth of revenue of local population’ (N2); to provide alternative

employment opportunities, e.g. eco-tourism; to provide ‘social stability’ (N9, N8); ‘to

support settlements financially and also develop them culturally’ (P38).

Some respondents see model forests as a continuation of, or a return to,

Soviet institutions, as institutes providing further education and training in ecology

and environmental law compliance (A2); or ‘model’, ‘ideal’ territories that are highly

regulated by the state and are expected to be copied across regions rather than

provide opportunities for experiments and innovation: ‘Pskov Model Forest is

basically a return to the Soviet system, because one introduces rigid regulations

again (for example, how far from watercourses one is allowed to cut), but on smaller

territories now’ (P1). The historical predominance of top-down forest management,

abundant regulations and recent existence of ‘model’ structures in various areas of

socio-economic life shape the perception of model forests in Russia.

Sometimes, on the contrary, model forests are criticized as an imported

form of ‘green extremism’ and an unnecessary restriction of logging: ‘One should

not turn Primorski Krai into a strict reserve. Of course, I support model forests,

but one should not overdo it. There are logging techniques that facilitate forest

regeneration. Why should we ban forest logging?’ (A3). It is felt that existing

national legislation is sufficient as a framework for environmentally friendly and

sustainable forestry: ‘During the last five years, foresters pillaged the forest under

the guise of unconventional logging. The problem is not bad rules, but that we

cannot control their implementation’ (A3). The respondent felt that model forests

would only impose additional regulations without improving the situation on the

ground, due to poor law enforcement and uncontrolled implementation.

Some representatives of the state sector view model forests as something

alien to the national forestry and a deviation from legitimate rules: ‘In general, it

does not comply with our rules… During final felling, they usually leave some

trees on the site… But this is a departure from our rules’ (S7). This shows a firm

belief in domestic state-designed forestry rules, rather than in alternative non-

state driven initiatives.

4.3 Challenges and outcomes of model forests

The studied model forests are said to have delivered some positive results. New

regional regulations have been developed on reforestation, logging, improvement

cutting, and conservation planning (N8). Model forest projects included additional

inventory checks of flora and fauna, monitoring of biodiversity, respective changes in

logging practices, and organization of wildlife reserves, which resulted in

improvement in the quality of the forest fund (N2).

New forms of engagement with the local population have emerged, such as

public hearings, consultations, forest clubs and discussions about what is ‘important

and necessary for them’ (N8). Model forests are seen as a framework for

consideration of cultural, recreational, ecological and economic interests of the local

population: ‘One tries to combine a model of more or less intensive forestry with

interests of the local population; to take into account villagers’ interests, where they

gather berries and pick mushrooms; their requirements to preserve forests which are

valuable for them’ (N1). Model forests have strengthened the awareness of the need

to cooperate with all stakeholders, including local population and state agencies, in

order to establish sustainable forestry: ‘Everyone learned that one cannot conserve

biodiversity if there is no united effort’ (N2).

Despite this increasing awareness of the importance of cooperation, model

forests have been only relatively successful in developing public participation and

building partnerships: ‘The main thing that we failed to achieve was our main goal,

namely partnership and public participation in natural resource management’ (N2).

The failure is believed to be caused by the lack of legal mechanisms for public

participation and the ‘Russian mentality’ (N2). The idea of participatory natural

resource management is believed to be common to international practices but new

and alien to the Russian mentality, which slows down the development of model

forests in Russia: ‘Of course, it is difficult for us to understand it. Our thinking is

different. For example, when we have public hearings and someone makes a

presentation, there are neither debates nor any questions after the presentation…

Our people are passive, and everything happens very quietly’ (P38). It is noted that

the tradition of public participation in forest management is weak in Russia. The

population has ‘lost their sense of responsibility’ (N15), are reluctant to get involved

in forestry and are happy to delegate total authority to few individuals (P38, N2, N11,

P8, P24, P10). There is a feeling of individuals’ impotence to change common

practices, and belief in the state’s powers to reform and improve forest use:

‘Government has control and power to change things’ (P35).

Some interviewees questioned the very intentions of model forest organizers,

referring to Gassinski model forest as ‘merely a feeding bowl for certain circles and

organizations’ (N9), providing funding for ‘para-scientific’ research projects rather

than innovative techniques of forest management. This model forest is said to ‘have

failed to develop the idea of its long-term sustainable existence’ because its

president ‘controlled the money and did not install a democratic system of model

forest management’ (P38). Its participants were said to have pursued their personal,

rather than common interests and ‘were trying to snatch as much money as possible’

(P38). Strong dependence on irregular funding and eventual lack of financial

resources predetermined the outcome of the project: ‘once they had eaten up the

grant, the project was over’ (N15).

Outcomes of model forests are shaped not only by intentions and behaviour of

their immediate participants but also by their, often complicated, relationships with

the state. They ‘develop only to the extent to which one succeeds to avoid the

everyday control of state forestry bodies’; ‘everything that is created under

immediate supervision of state forestry bodies perishes’ (N12). Contrary to the

common view among the local communities mentioned above, the private sector and

NGOs tend to share low trust in the state’s reformative capacity. Civil servants are

believed to resist changes: they ‘do not understand most innovations’, ‘are simply not

familiar with those things that have been long perceived as a norm in countries with

developed forestry – due to their isolation’ (N1), and ‘hardly understand practical

issues’ (N8). Corruption, red tape and inertia of the bureaucratic machine are seen

as major obstacles to innovation and collaboration (P10, P42, N5, N15, N2). ‘There

are very few people who promote innovations. And if there are such people, they

encounter such bureaucratic hurdles that... For example, there is a big shot civil

servant in a state agency... Here comes a lower-ranking official, who works

immediately with logging companies and environmental organizations. He says:

‘Let’s change this – it will make things better for everyone.’ But no, he will be

stopped, for sure. They will tell him: ‘Do keep a low profile! If you don’t, we’ll get rid

of you’ (P26). Interviewees are concerned that civil servants may ‘falsify or simplify’

the idea of model forests and ignore its social or environmental components (N5).

Some respondents feel there is a danger of ‘bureaucratization’ and a state-imposed

unification of the system of model forests in Russia: ‘When a decision was made that

the Rosleskhoz [Federal Forestry Agency] would manage the Russian network of

model forests, everything started to be assessed according to the same criteria and

principles’ (N2). The involvement of the state in the development of model forests is

believed to be accompanied by ‘a lot of instructions, guidelines and documents’,

which ‘leads to nothing good’ (N2).

Overall, there continues to be some visible activity in Pskov model forest.

Gassinski model forest is now closed. Despite attempts of different stakeholders to

develop model areas into forestry innovation hubs and mechanisms of democratic

governance, these attempts have remained isolated, sparse ‘islands of change’ with

an uncertain future (P13, N2). Despite official declarations of the need to develop a

network of model forests (Gosudarstvennaya programma… 2012, p. 97), it remains

unclear if the state will provide support to model forests in the future. As noted by the

deputy director of the Komi model forest, there has been ‘no real support so far –

neither financial, nor conceptual, nor organizational; Rosleskhoz is silent about this

despite continuing to make declarations on the international level’ (Silver Taiga

2010). On a personal level, some state officials support approaches developed in

model forests. However, there is nothing in their official duties that could motivate

them to provide actual support. Model forests are not mentioned in the Russian

Forest Code, which makes state officials more likely to ignore them. Regional or

local initiatives are few, and the idea of public participation in forest management

remains exotic.

5. Discussion

As this paper has discussed, the phrase ‘model forest’ can be used as a label for

different things, of which the Russian experience provides a good example. A model

forest can be a commercially driven project, which, if run by competent and similarly

minded businesses and NGOs, is likely to achieve its targets. Pskov model forest

demonstrates this well: it was largely dedicated to promoting sustainable forestry

techniques which comply with both Russian regulations and international ecological

standards. This model forest paved the way for ecologically sound and, at the same

time, commercially attractive forestry in Russia, thus becoming a meeting point for

big business and big NGO interests, which then worked together to develop

collaboration with state agencies. The Pskov model forest showed the possibility of

accommodating government forest policy with international forestry standards. This

is particularly important for countries where dominant forestry techniques are not in

line with newer international standards and national policy changes are slow

(Meidinger 2011).

A model forest can also be a non-commercial project, driven by wider social

and ecological development objectives, including public participation, as in the case

of Gassinski. The success and outcomes of the latter type are less predictable, as

they depend to a lesser extent on relatively stable business investment and more on

short-term external funding, and therefore may find it harder to deliver. Gassinski

model forest is an example of such an ambitious but ‘failed’ project: the key aim to

increase public participation in forest management and ensure socially inclusive

forest-based local development turned out to be unrealisable within the frame of one

time-, resources- and spatially limited initiative.

Advocates of the idea of model forests need to be aware of this difference and

international funding providers may benefit from reconsidering their funding

strategies, potentially re-directing funding into projects with longer-term and

geographically more significant effects.

The underlying idea of a model forest as ‘a neutral place to facilitate

discussion’, innovation and collaboration, and develop mechanisms that allow the

social, cultural, economic and ecological interests of everyone involved in a given

landscape to be combined (International Model Forests Network 2012) is challenging

to create. Our cases show that model forests may not be useful for promoting

participatory environmental governance, ensuring a broad consensus, propelling

significant social changes or affecting the fundamentals of people-forest

relationships. They have failed to provide sufficient incentives for more active public

involvement in forestry matters. Nor is there any evidence that they helped

institutionalise and make more effective the state-non-state dialogue: successful

multi-stakeholder cooperation between state agencies, NGOs and companies is

localised and largely due to individual initiative. Model forests in Russia have not yet

fulfilled their potential to provide an effective non-state governance mechanism.

Unlike forest certification (Cashore et al. 2006), model forests do not have an

internationally recognised brand, with its associated commercial benefits, which

might have helped model forests become an alternative governance tool.

Smaller-scale targets of technical improvements or local biodiversity

conservation are more realistic. This is not to downplay the importance of such

targets: in the Russian context, providing a space for innovation and the

demonstration of new techniques is still valuable.

6. Conclusion

The changing social and environmental situation in post-Soviet Russia, along with

limited state capacity, has contributed to an increased awareness of the need to

modernize the forest sector and change everyday forestry practices. This demand for

change has linked with international environmental ideas, such as that of model

forests, as a promising mechanism of participatory decision-making and forest

resource management.

In this paper, we highlight the diversity of opinions among key participants of

the two major model forests in Russia, and draw attention to the complexity of the

model forest movement, as well as the ambiguity of its results. Model forests in

Russia have so far been too few and disconnected from each other to have a

significant effect on the quality of forestry practices or to have a serious institutional

impact in historically such a centralized and state-dominated system. Key challenges

have been in the areas of bureaucratic and legal hindrances, attitudes of the local

population and state officials, lack of trust and belief in such new and independently

funded initiatives, lack of public involvement in social life and forest management in

particular. Attempting to improve the quality of forest management, NGOs and

companies seem likely to benefit more from focussing on mutual partnerships and

working with federal and regional state bodies, rather than on building wider

partnerships with the public. Our study highlights the difficulty of developing effective

participatory and truly inclusive forest management regimes in places with a weak

tradition of public participation. The reality of Russian model forests remains far from

ideals of non-state participatory governance. At the same time, the potential of model

forests as vehicles for innovative forestry techniques should be acknowledged, and

in this role they remain an important part of forest management.

References

Agrawal, A., A. Chhatre, R. Hardin. 2008. Changing Governance of the World's

Forests. Science 320 (5882): 1460-1462.

Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of

Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development 27(4): 629-649.

Ambus, L. and G. Hoberg. 2011. The Evolution of Devolution: A Critical Analysis of

the Community Forest Agreement in British Columbia. Society and Natural

Resources 24(9): 933-950.

Andrews, M., L. Pritchett, M. Woolcock. 2013. Escaping Capability Traps Through

Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation. World Development 51: 234-244

Angelstam, P., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Laestadius, L.,, Lazdinis, M., Nordberg,

M., Pătru-Stupariu, I., and Smith, M. 2011 Knowledge production and learning for

sustainable forest management on the ground: Pan-European landscapes as a time

machine. Forestry 84: 581-596.

Angelstam, P. and M. Elbakidze. 2008. Towards sustainable forest management in

the Kovdozersky Model Forest in NW Russia: the need for multi-scale spatial

planning. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Accessed on 6th December

2012 at

http://euroscapes.org/koppladefiler/Kovdozersky_MF_Multiscale_planning_AngElb__

081015.pdf.

Arnstein, A. 1969. A Ladder of Citizenship Participation. Journal of the American

Institute of Planners 26: 216-233.

Arts, B., S. van Bommel, M. Ros-Tonen, G. Verschoor. 2012a. Forest-People

Interfaces: Understanding Community Forestry and Bio-Cultural Diversity.

Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Arts, B., J. Behagel, S. van Bommel, J. de Koning, J., E. Turnhout. 2012b. Forest

and Nature Governance: A Practice Based Approach. Dordrecht: Springer.

BBI-Matra. 2005. Kologriv Model Forest. BBI-Matra 2005 / 027. Alterra proj.nr. 5 232

350. Moscow - Wageningen.

Barrett, C., K. Brandon, C. Gibson, and H. Gjertsen. 2001. Conserving biodiversity

amid weak institutions. BioScience 51(6): 497-502.

Besseau, P., K. Dansou and F. Johnson. 2002. The International Model Forest

Network (IMFN): Elements of Success. The Forestry Chronicle 78(5): 648-654.

Biermann, F. and P. Pattberg, eds. 2012. Global Environmental Governance

Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Börzel T. and A. Buzogány 2010. Environmental organisations and the

Europeanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: the case of

biodiversity governance. Environmental Politics 19(5): 708-735.

Bowler, D. E., L. M. Buyung-Ali, J. R. Healey, J. P. G. Jones, T. M. Knight, and A. S.

Pullin. 2012. Does community forest management provide global environmental

benefits and improve local welfare? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:

29-36

Brosius, P. J., A. Lowenhaupt Tsing, C. Zerner, eds. 2005. Communities and

Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource

Management. Rowman Altamira: Plymouth, UK

Brown, K. 2003. Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation. Global

Ecology and Biogeography 12: 89-92.

Carmin, J. A. 2010. Civic Engagement in Environmental Governance in Central and

Eastern Europe. In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, eds. M.

R. Redclift and G. Woodgate, pp. 394-407. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cashore, B., F. Gale, E. Meidinger, and D. Newsom, eds. 2006. Confronting

Sustainability: Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Countries. Yale:

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Colfer, C. J. P., ed. 2005. The Politics of Decentralization: "Forests, Power and

People". London: Earthscan Publications.

Davison, P. 2012. Model Forest News. The Forestry Chronicle 88(4): 389-390.

Dube, Y. C. and F. Schmithuesen. 2007. Cross-sectoral policy developments in

forestry. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Edmunds, D. S. and E. K. Wollenberg, eds. 2003. Local Forest Management: The

Impacts of Devolution Policies. London: Earthscan Publications.

Elbakidze, M., P. Angelstam, R. Axelsson. 2012. Stakeholder identification and

analysis for adaptive governance in the Kovdozersky Model Forest, Russian

Federation. The Forestry Chronicle 88(3): 298-305.

Elbakidze, M., Andersson, K., Angelstam, P., Armstrong, G.W., Axelsson, R., Doyon,

F., Hermansson, M., Jacobsson, J., and Pautov, Y. 2013. Sustained Yield Forestry in

Sweden and Russia: How Does it Correspond to Sustainable Forest Management

Policy? Ambio. 42: 160–173

Elbakidze, M., P. Angelstam, C. Sandström and R. Axelsson. 2010. Multi-

stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish model forest initiatives: adaptive

governance toward sustainable forest management? Ecology and society 15(2): 1-

20.

Evans, K., W. de Jong, P. Cronkletonc and T. H. Nghi. 2010. Participatory Methods

for Planning the Future in Forest Communities. Society and Natural Resources

23(7): 604-619.

Fiorino, T. and D. Ostergren. 2012. Institutional Instability and the Challenges of

Protected Area Management in Russia. Society and Natural Resources 25(2): 191-

202.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2012. Accessed at

http://www.fao.org/forestry/modelforests/en/ on 24 November 2012.

Forestforum Greenpeace Russia, 2007. Forest terminology. Accessed on 9

December 2014 at http://forestforum.ru/voc.php

Ghai, D. and J. M. Vivian, eds. 2004. Grassroots Environmental Action: People's

participation in sustainable development. Routledge, Abingdon.

Gibson, C. C., M. A. McKean and E. Ostrom. 2000. People and Forests:

Communities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press

Gosudarstvennaya programma Rossiyskoy Federatsii ‘Razvitie lesnogo hozyaystva’

na 2013 – 2020 gody (State Programme of the Russia Federation ‘Development of

forestry’ for 2013 – 2020). 2012. Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the

Russian Federation. Accessed at

http://www.mnr.gov.ru/online/detail.php?ID=129561 on 8th December 2012.

Howlett, M., J. Rayner, C. Tollefson. 2009. From government to governance in forest

planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest

initiative. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5-6): 383-391.

International Model Forest Network. 2012. Accessed at http://www.imfn.net/about-

model-forests on 24 November 2012.

Kondrashov, L. G., V. F. Pominov, S. S. Poruchenkova, G. P. Telitsin. 2005.

Modelny les ‘Gassinski’ i ustoychivoe razvitie territoriy (Model Forest ‘Gassinski’ and

Sustainable Development of the Territories). Sosnovka.

Kotilainen, J., M. Tysiachniouk, A. Kuliasova, I. Kuliasov and S. Pchelkina. 2008.

The potential for ecological modernization in Russia: scenarios from the forest

industry. Environmental Politics 17(1): 58-77.

Kuzminov, I. 2009. Modelnye lesa: Istoriya razvitiya i tematika proektov (Model

forests: History of development and themes of projects). Ustoychivoe lesopolzovanie

3(22): 45-49.

Kuzminov, I. 2011. Perspektivy Mezhdunarodnoy Seti Modelnyh Lesov

(Perspectives of the International Model Forests Network). Lesprom 6(80): 20-25.

Ljubownikow, S., J. Crotty and P. W. Rodgers 2013. The state and civil society in

Post-Soviet Russia: The development of a Russian-style civil society. Progress in

Development Studies 13: 153-166.

Luyet, V., R. Schlaepfer, M. B. Parlange, A. Buttler. 2012. A Framework to

Implement Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Projects. Journal of

Environmental Management 111: 213-219.

Mansuri, G. and V. Rao, 2013. Localizing Development: Does participation work? A

World Bank Policy Research Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Meadowcroft, J. 2004. Participation and sustainable development: modes of citizen,

community and organizational involvement. In Governance for Sustainable

Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, ed. W. M. Lafferty, pp.

162-190. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Meidinger, E. 2011 Forest certification and democracy. European Journal of Forest

Research 130, 407-419

Model forests of Russia and Canada: Experience of cooperation. 2012. Research

and Innovation Centre of Ecology and Forestry. Accessed at

http://modelforest.ru/?page_id=3 on 18th June 2012.

Moorman, M. C., N. Petersona, S. E. Moorea and P. J. Donosob. 2013. Stakeholder

Perspectives on Prospects for Co-Management of an Old-Growth Forest Watershed

Near Valdivia, Chile. Society and Natural Resources 26(9): 1022-1036.

Morales, M. C. and L. M. Harris. 2014. Using Subjectivity and Emotion to Reconsider

Participatory Natural Resource Management. World Development 64: 703-712

Murota, T. and I. P. Glazyrina. 2010. Common-pool resources in East Russia: A

case study on the creation of a new national park as a form of community-based

natural resource governance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 11(1):

37-52.

Nelson, F., ed. 2010. Community Rights, Conservation and Contested Land: The

Politics of Natural Resource Governance in Africa. Abingdon, UK: Earthscan.

Newig, J and O. Fritsch. 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level –

and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 197-214.

Nysten-Haarala, S., ed. 2009. The Changing Governance of Renewable Natural

Resources in Northwest Russia. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Pagdee, A., Y. Kim and P. J. Daugherty. 2006. What makes community forest

management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world.

Society and Natural Resources 10(1): 33-53.

Polozhenie ob initsiativnoy seti modelnyh lesov Rossii (Statement about the Initiative

Network of Model Forests of Russia), 2007. Accessed at

http://www.komimodelforest.ru/files/polozhenie_ob_ISMLR.pdf on July 23rd 2009.

Pretty, J. N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World

Development 23(8): 1247-1263.

Prichinina, E. 2013. Modelny les kak instrument obespecheniya ustoychivogo

upravleniya lesami (Model forest as an tool for securing sustainable forest

management). In Sovremennye problemy i perspektivy sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo

razvitiya predpriyatiy, otrasley, regionov, ed. M. M. Akhmadeeva, pp. 459-462.

Yoshkar-Ola: Povolzhskiy gosudarstvenny tehnologicheskiy universitet.

Rametsteiner, E. 2009. Governance Concepts and Their Application in Forest Policy

Initiatives from Global to Local Levels. Small-scale Forestry (2009) 8: 143-158.

Rasula, G., G. B. Thapab and M. B. Karkia. 2011. Comparative Analysis of Evolution

of Participatory Forest Management Institutions in South Asia. Society and Natural

Resources 24(12): 1322-1334.

Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A

literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431.

Ribot, J. C. and A. M. Larson, eds. 2005. Democratic Decentralization through a

Natural Resources Lens. London: Routledge.

Sayer, J. A. and M. Collins. 2012. Forest Governance in a Changing World:

Reconciling Local and Global Values. The Round Table: The Commonwealth

Journal of International Affairs 101(2): 137-146.

Schreckenberg, K., C. Luttrell and C. Moss. 2006. Forest Policy and Environment

Programme: Grey Literature. Participatory Forest Management: an overview.

London: ODI. Accessed on 16 January 2015 at

http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3781.pdf

Shackleton, S., B. Campbell, E. Wollenberg and D. Edmunds. 2002. Devolution and

Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Creating Space for Local People

to Participate and Benefit? Natural Resource Perspective 76(March 2002). London:

DFID.

‘Silver Taiga’, Komi Regional Non-Profit Foundation. 2010. Accessed at

http://silvertaiga.ru/news/237/ on 8th December 2012.

Torniainen, T. J., O. J. Saastamoinen and A. P. Petrov. 2006. Russian forest policy

in the turmoil of the changing balance of power. Forest Policy and Economics 9(4):

403-416.

Tysiachniouk, M. and J. Reisman. 2004. Co-Managing the Taiga: Russian Forests

and the Challenge of International Environmentalism. In Politics of Forests: Northern

Forest-industrial Regimes in the Age of Globalization, eds. A. A. Lehtinen, J. Donner-

Amnell, B. Sæther, pp. 157-173. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Ulybina, O. 2014. Participatory Forest Management: The experience of Foreign-

Funded Programmes in the Kyrgyz Republic. Environmental Policy and Governance.

doi: 10.1002/eet.1648

Valueva, E. 2008. Istoriya i sovremennoe sostoyanie proekta 'Modelny les

'Kovdozerskiy' (History and current state of the project 'Kovdozersk Model forest').

Ustoychivoe Lesopolzovanie 2(18): 39-41.

Yablochkina, Ye. M., B.D. Romanyuk and Ye. A. Chernenkova. 2007. Proyekt WWF

‘Pskovsky modelny les’ (The Project of WWF ‘Pskov Model Forest’). St. Petersburg.

Ulybina, O. and S. Fennell. 2013. Forest Certification in Russia: Challenges of

Institutional Development. Ecological Economics (2013) 95: 178-187.

Ulybina, O. 2014. Russian Forests: The Path of Reform. Forest Policy and

Economics 38: 143-150.

Wily, L. A. 2002. Participatory forest management in Africa: an overview of progress

and issues. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Participatory

Forestry in Africa, pp. 31-58. FAO: Rome.