CC BY
20
ЩЩЩБМШНМ
осмысление ноосферы
УДК 630*6 (71+73)
ББК 65.34 (7 КАН + 7 COE)
Hendrik Z.A. van der Loos, A.A. Alimov
public AND private regulation of THE foREsTRY sector: the cases of the united states and canada*
Общественное регулирование обычно рассматривается как одно из основных прав государства. Это положение восходит к Вестфальской концепции национального суверенитета. Однако в наши дни мы видим подъем наднационального и частного регулирования, которое дополняется и, таким образом заполняет пробелы, имеющие место в рамках общественного регулирования. Целью данной статьи является освещение двух различных систем общественного регулирования лесного хозяйства в США и Канаде. На этом основании предлагается рассмотрение этого поля регулирования на базе проведенного анализа современного транснационального и частного регулирования как средства дополнения и представления в данной стать значение национального суверенитета. В конечном итоге, изложенные в представленной статье основные положения будут использованы при рассмотрении вопроса российского лесного сектора, как актора, имеющего наибольшие масштабы в современном мировом лесном хозяйстве.
Ключевые слова:
гражданское общество, лесное хозяйство, окружающая среда, правительство, право, развитие, регулирование, сертификация устойчивость, транснациональное частное регулирование, управление.
van der Loos Hendrik Z.A., Alimov A.A. Public and Private Regulation of the Forestry Sector: The Cases of The United States and Canada // Общество. Среда. Развитие. - 2015, № 2. - С. 133-137.
© Хендрик З. Адриаан Ван дер Лооз - магистрант, Университет Лозанны, Швейцария; стажер, Санкт-петербургский государственный университет; e-mail: [email protected] © Алимов Андрей Алексеевич - кандидат исторических наук, доцент, Санкт-петербургский государственный университет; руководитель, Научная программа «Международное сотрудничество в области окружающей среды и развития, Санкт-Петербург; е-mail: [email protected]
Canada
Public
Canada, in contrast to the United States, displays a different system of forestry oversight and market capture. From a structural standpoint, Canada adheres to the second system of timberland management, in which the government owns the land, about 94% of total forestland, and then leases permits to private shareholders for the purpose of wood extraction [8; 31]. Canada's population is approximately 35 million, or about 10% of the United States [41; 44], of which the forestry industry employs more than 200,000 individuals. This is about twice that of the U.S., measured as a portion of the population. Canada possesses one of the world's largest forests, comprising
* Окончание. Начало - см. № 1'2015, с. 156-163.
approximately 9% of all world forested area over more than 348 million hectares; it is an industry that produces almost $20 billion annually [31], equalling about 1.17% of the total Canadian economy [24]. The Canadian forestry economy is largely export oriented, with almost half of all exports going to the United States [7; 44]. "Canada has long been the world's largest forest products exporter, with a comparative advantage unchallenged globally" [44, p. 18]. Canada's forestry industry touches many corners of the wood market, with major export shares in sawn wood, round wood, plywood, pulp and paperboard [44]. With a relatively small population and an export oriented market, Canada is much more sensitive than the United States to external pressures. The
о
o
3
VO O
Canadian market is strongly cyclical because of its larger dependence on the growth of foreign construction markets [44].
Since the federal and provincial governments own the majority of timberland, [8] public oversight is able to implement stricter sus-tainability requirements. To this effect, under the sustainable forest management laws, "All forests harvested on public lands must be regenerated" [31, p. 1]. Additional policies must also be taken into consideration, including the respect for biodiversity and aboriginal peoples [32]. This has also helped limit and prevent illegal logging. Public initiatives mandating sustainable logging practices have helped foster an atmosphere of environmental consciousness and awareness. "Canada has emerged in recent years as among the world's leaders in aggressively improving sustainability practices. For the most part, Canada employs non-discretionary, clearly spelled out regulations designed to limit the environmental impacts of forestry" [6, p. 10]. Canada is consistently ranked as having strong, clear regulations that are widely respected, thus ensuring a fairly efficient industry that successfully prevents illegal logging [8]. These policies come into play even before third party certification schemes are considered.
Private
Canada has emerged as one of the leaders in third-party certification of forest products [6; 23; 44]. According to Cashore [6, p. 10], "Canada has also, like other leading countries, embraced the concept of providing customers with third party certification of sustainable forest practices. Today, Canada can offer customers more fibre from certified forests than any other country in the world". Approximately 153 million hectares of its forests, comprising more than 40% of Canadian timberland, has been independently certified as sustainably managed [23; 31]. Cashore, Auld and Newsom's comparative study [7], which included the Canadian province of British Columbia, helps shed light onto some of the factors playing a role in Canadian certification. As the researchers state, "Arguably no greater interest has been shown in forest certification as a policy instrument for addressing sustainable forestry than in British Columbia, Canada" [7, p. 59]. A number of features can help explain British Columbia's, and Canada's, interest in third-party forest certification. First, Canadian public forestry governance is already closer to the standards laid out by the FSC and the PEFC than in many other countries in the world, including the United States. This means that forestry companies seeking certification have a smaller energy and monetary investment, and fewer changes to implement, in order to receive certification.
Implementing major structural changes to any business can be costly and thus a deterrent to adopting stricter guidelines; these companies are therefore able to keep certification costs to a minimum whilst garnering the benefits of possessing an eco-label.
Further, as explained by Cashore et. al. [6], the industrialized countries under comparison that were more reliant on exports demonstrated a greater interest in third-party certification. Additionally, the large and concentrated wood industry and unfragmented non-industrial ownership allowed for greater ease in adopting these standards [7]. Finally, the authors [7] evoke a history of forest policy on the public agenda and a sense of public dissatisfaction with forestry practices, brought on by environmental groups concerned about forestry management, as additional reasons that help explain the surge in Canadian certified forest products.
While there is no explicit mandate by the governments of Canada at the federal, regional or local level for companies to obtain third-party certification, a clear demand exists that promotes the active pursuit of more stringent responsible forest management guidelines. The study by Cashore et. al. [7] helped elucidate some of the reasons why the Canadian forestry industry has been proactive in obtaining third-party labels on top of the relatively stringent public regulation mandates. Based on this understanding, it is possible to deduce that the Canadian industry has not attempted to replace or fill in the gaps in public regulation, but rather to supplement or complement the existing system.
Russia
Russia's role as an economic powerhouse in the forestry industry, as well as possessing the most timberland worldwide, accounting for more than 20% of the world's forests, necessitates a brief discussion [27]. At 1.2 billion hectares of forest area, this is approximately three times that of Canada's or the U.S.'s total forest area [27]. The industry employs about 1.1 million individuals [19]. However, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation [19], the Russian forestry industry is significantly underutilised, accounting for below 4% of global wood production. Russia currently has net positive forest growth, i.e. greater growth than exploitation [27]; however, if Russia were to realize its full potential as a wood-producing nation, significant biodiversity loss and climate change could result [19]. Further, illegal logging in Russia is a major problem; some estimates place this value at 20-30% of all harvested wood, although this figure is difficult to verify due to the nature of the problem [8; 19].
The current Russian forestry industry, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., is governed
similar to that of Canada, wherein the government owns the majority of the forestland and thus leases permits to private companies for timberland production [8; 19]. Following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, the forestry industry underwent a number of major changes relating primarily to the institutions responsible for the management of timber-land, leasing and oversight; this has added to an already disorganized forestry sector that is extremely difficult to regulate, manage and supervise due to widespread corruption and a complex bureaucratic administration [8; 19].
Third-party certification currently accounts for approximately 9% of Russian forest area and has begun to grow at a rapid rate, in spite of a slower start than many industrialized nations [23]. Despite the small percentage of total forest area, the absolute area of privately verified timberland, totalling more than 36 million hectares [23], demonstrates a clear demand for labelled wood products. It was not until 2000 that the Russian forestry industry even began to recognize and pursue third-party oversight, and was not until 2005 that the market really began to take-off [19]. One of the reasons for this was the amendment to the Lacey Act in 2008 that explicitly banned the import of illegally harvested wood products. FSC and PEFC certified harvested wood ensures that these goods have been legally obtained [19]. Further, in 2010, the European Union adopted stricter regulations addressing illegal logging; not only was the acquisition of illegally obtained wood products forbidden by law, as has been the case since 2003, companies purchasing these products must do due diligence. This means that the companies must actively ensure that the purchased goods are of legal origin according to national legislation of the exporting country. Section 19 of the legislation explicitly names third-party certifiers as an acceptable means to perform this due diligence [14]. Hence, a European company that purchases certified wood has undergone the process of due diligence. As a major importer of Russian wood products, especially plywood, this regulatory change had a major impact on the Russian forestry industry's desire to obtain third-party certification.
The FAO has evaluated three potential scenarios for the future of the Russian forestry sector, stressing the "innovative scenario", in which Russia heavily invests in increasing wood-production and associated technological innovation, coupled with a major emphasis on sustainable forestry management, primarily through third-party certification programmes [19]. A number of the Food and Agriculture Organization's (2012) main recommendations include increasing effective supervision and
streamlining the regulatory process. Further, since corruption is a major problem for the Russian forestry sector, the FAO placed considerable emphasis on third-party certification programs.
Conclusion
This article has explored two different systems of public forestry regulation stemming from two major industrial powers, the United States and Canada. The U.S. employs an entirely privatized system in which forestry companies own and process the land; the Canadian government, on the other hand, owns the timberland and leases permits to private forestry companies for the purpose of resource extraction. Both countries have a long history of wood production and forest exploitation, but demonstrate a number of different characteristics and behaviours. Economically, the United States consumes the majority of its wood products and imports the rest. Canada, on the other hand, is an export-oriented market, that heavily relies on the United States and other international buyers. From a regulatory perspective, the United States exhibits an almost entirely privatized system of forestry governance for commercial timberland; private enterprises own the physical tracts of land and decide in what ways it wishes to yield the resources. Public regulation does not explicitly cover sustainable harvestry practices; however, regulations do exist covering certain elements of environmental and social management, such as the protection of endangered species and limiting pollution. Canada, on the other hand, functions on a two-tiered system. The government, mostly at the provincial level, owns the territory and then leases this territory to private companies. Further, in recent years, Canada has taken significant steps to help ensure sustainable management that goes above and beyond the public regulations of the United States. Russia, as an emerging market in the post-Soviet era, operates a system similar to that of Canada in which the government owns the land and leases the property to private companies for resource extraction. Russia does not employ an explicit sustainable regulatory mandate. Further, corruption and illegal logging have hampered Russia's ability to not only fully reach its potential, but also its capacity to ensure sustainable resource exploitation.
Following the failure of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992 to established strict international forestry guidelines, private regulatory programmes emerged. These programmes, which are based on the idea of private regulation - i.e. not government-led - are voluntary by nature.
o
3 vo o
Organisations, mostly private companies, seek- has been the case for hundreds of years and af-ing certification for environmental and social firmed by recent international treaties, the in-good-practices, willingly adhere to one of these creasing role of supranational regulation and private certification programmes. The United transnational private governance has begun to States exhibits a much smaller interest in certi- take serious root. The normative and pragmat-fying products as a percentage of total timber- ic reasons for which supply and demand has land compared to Canadian wood producing followed this trend are still up for debate; how-companies; this now accounts for nearly 40% ever, there is no doubt that this is a growing of all Canadian forests. Thus, Canada is the phenomenon that is here to stay and expand. largest certified wood producer and exporter As the world is becoming increasingly global-in the world. Russia, as a major wood-exporter, ized, private actors are playing a more active is extremely susceptible to the demands of its role on the international stage. The results and markets. As regulation becomes more strin- benefits are as of yet unknown, as this supple-gent in a number of markets, including the ment and complement to traditional regulaUnited States and the European Union, Rus- tion remains in its naissance. As other major sia has begun to seek ever-increasing certifica- forest-producing countries engage in the wood tion through third-party private organisations. trade, public and private regulation standards The lack of sustainability requirements by the are becoming increasingly crucial for the pro-Russian government and its incapacity to con- tection of the global ecosystem and climate trol illegal logging have been citied as primary change management. It is without a doubt that reasons for obtaining these labels. forests play a crucial role in the everyday life While there is little doubt or debate that of most humans around the world and ensure sovereign national governments retain the ul- ecosystem stability; the means to protect and timate right of regulation over its territory, as regulate forests is thus of critical importance.
Bibliography:
[1] Abbott K., Snidal D. The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State // The Politics of Global Regulation; E. Mattli, N. Woods (eds.). - New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 2009. - P. 44-88.
[2] Allen R. The Industrial Revolution in Miniature: The Spinning Jenny in Britain, France, and India // The Journal of Economic History. - 2009, № 69(4). - P. 901-927.
[3] Andonova L., Mitchell R. The Rescaling of Global Environmental Politics // The Annual Review of Environment and Resources. - 2010, № 35. - P. 255-282.
[4] Breitmeier H., Underdal A., Young O. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Comparing and Contrasting Findings from Quantitative Research // International Studies Review. - 2011, № 13. -P. 579-605.
[5] Cafaggi F. New Foundations of Transnational Private Regulation // Journal of Law and Society. - 2011, № 38(1). - P. 20-49.
[6] Cashore B. How Canada Compares. International Review of Forest Policy and Regulation. A Summary of a study conducted by Professor Benjamin Cashore, Yale University, July 2004. - Forest Products Association of Canada, 2004.
[7] Cashore B., Auld N., Newsom D. Governing Through Markets. Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. - New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2004.
[8] Contreras-Hermosilla A., Gregerson H., White, A. Forest Governance in Countries with Federal Systems of Government. Lessons and Implications for Decentralization. - Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2008.
[9] Davenport D. An Alternative Explanation for the Failure of the UNCED Forest Negotiations // Global Environmental Politics. - 2005, № 5(1). - P. 105-130.
[10] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Major Existing EPA Laws and Programs That Could Affect Agricultural Producers. - Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Counselor. Office of the Administrator, 2007.
[11] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Forestry. - 2013. URL: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/forestry. html (07.12.2014)
[12] Espach R. Private Regulation Amid Public Disarray: An Analysis of Two Private Environmental Regulatory Programs in Argentina // Business and Politics. - 2005, № 7(2).
[13] Espach R. Private Environmental Regimes in Developing Countries. Globally Sown, Locally Grown. - New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
[14] European Union. Regulation (EU) № 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 // Official Journal of the European Union. 2010, № 53(L295). - P. 1-90.
[15] Falk R. Revising Westphalia, Discovering Post-Westphalia // The Journal of Ethics. - 2002, № 6(4). - P. 311-352.
[16] Finney J. Forest Resources and Conservation // Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. - 1910, № 35(1). - P. 67-76.
[17] Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment. Main Report. № 163. -Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010.
[18
[19 [20 [21 [22 [23 [24
[25 [26 [27
[28
[29 [30
[31
[32
[33
[34
[35
[36 [37 [38 [39 [40
[41 [42 [43 [44 [45
[46 [47 [48 [49
Food And Agricultural Organization (FAO). Global Forest Products Facts and Figures. - 2011. - URL: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/2011%20GFP%20Facts%20and%20Figures.pdf
(07.12.2014)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Russian Federation Forestry Sector. Outlook Study to 2030. - Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012.
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. - Forest Stewardship Council A.C. FSC-STD-01-001 (version 4-0), 1996.
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Russia National Office. - FSC Forest Stewardship Council Standard for Russian Federation. FSC Russian National Office, 2012.
Graz J., Nölke A. Transnational Private Governance and its Limits. - London & New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review. -Manitoba, Canada, 2014.
International Monetary Fund. World Economy Outlook Database 2014. - 2014. URL: http://www.imf. org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx? pr.x=30&pr.y=9&sy=2014&ey=2014&scsm=1&s sd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=156&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a
(06.01.2015)
ISEAL. About Us. - 2012. - URL: http://www.isealalliance.org/about-us (08.01.2015)
ISEAL. Full Members. - 2012. URL: http://www.isealalliance.org/our-members/full-members (08.01.2015) Karvinen S., Välkky E., Torniainen T., Gerasimov Y. Northwest Russian Forestry in a Nutshell. - Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2006.
Langhelle O. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Ethics of "Our Common Future" // International Political Science Review. - 1999, № 20(2). - P. 129-149.
Manin B. Principes du gouvernement représentatif. - Paris, France: Calmann-Lévy, 1995. Meidinger E. The Administrative Law of Global Public-Private Regulation: The Case of Forestry // The European Journal of International Law. - 2006, № 17(1). - P. 47-87.
Natural Resources Canada. Canada's Forests: Key Facts. - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014. (represented by the Minister of Natural Resources Canada)
Natural Resources Canada. Forests. Legality and Sustainability. - 2014. - URL: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/for-ests/canada/sustainable-forest-management/13303 (06.01.2015)
O'Neill K. The Environment and International Relations. - New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certificates (PEFC). Sustainable Forest Management - Requirements. - PEFC Council, 2010.
Regulation. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (3 ed.). - 2014. - URL: http://www.oxfordreference. com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199207800.001.0001/acref-9780199207800-e-1146?rskey=wX2HZU&result=1 226 (06.12.2014)
Russian Federal Forestry Agency. Лесная политика. - URL: http://www.rosleshoz.gov.ru/activity/politics
(07.12.2014)
Smith A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of the Nations (Electronic Classics Series). - Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania State University, 2005. (Original work published 1776) Smith B., Darr D. U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends. - Virginia, USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004.
Statista. Facts on the U.S. Forest Products Industry. - 2015. - URL: http://www.statista.com/topics/1316/for-est-products-industry/ (04.01.2014)
Statisa. Financial key figures of the U.S. forest, paper and packaging (FPP) industry in 2010 and 2012. -2015. - URL: from http://www.statista.com/statistics/252978/financial-key-figures-of-the-us-forest-paper-and-packaging-industry/ (04.012014)
Statistics Canada 2014. Population by year, by province and territory. - URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm (22.01.2015)
Suchman M. Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches // The Academy of Management Review. -1995, № 20(3). - P. 571-610.
United Nations. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development. - 1992. -URL: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm (07.12.2014)
United Nations. The North American Forest Sector Outlook Study 2006-2030. - Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Publishing Service, 2012.
United Nations Environmental Program. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. - 2014. - URL: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97& articleid=1503 (06.12.2014)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lacey Act. - URL: http://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agree-ments/us-conservation-laws/lacey-act.html (06.01.2015)
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987.
World Bank. GDP (Current US$). - URL: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
(22.01.2015)
Young O. Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 2011, № 108(50). - P. 1985319860.
137
о
