the case of the georgian forest reform:transition from centrally planned to market oriented forest m

The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented

Forest Management

GLOBAL POLICY BRIEFING | GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented Forest Management Ann Inasaridze, June 2013

KEY POINTS

• The administrative and economic system that existed in the former Soviet Union was not able to detect consumer preferences and

surpluses, eventually leading to unsustainable resource allocation and ineffective natural resources management.

• The Georgian government supported the idea to transfer the forest use rights to private stakeholders for better forest management

and utilisation.

• Using the Georgian government reform example in the forest sector as a case study, this policy briefing tries to critically assess the

implementation process of this new forest policy and its impacts on Sustainable Forest Management (SFM).

• The new policy refers to the tenure reform in Georgia, which implies transfer of Forest Use Rights to the private sector, while land

remains under the state’s ownership. The government cedes responsibility for forest management and retains only forest licensing

and control functions.

• In particular, this policy briefing critically evaluates the new policy instrument that was used in Georgia, in order to identify the

aspects that hindered SFM.

• The outdated National Forest Inventory (NFI), the improperly designed auctions that hindered competition, the poor enforcement

capacity of the government and the lack of public participation were among the causes, which were responsible for the failure of the

reform.

• The experience in Georgia has shown that the governmental officials preparing the new forest policy, have overlooked several

aspects at the initial stage of the reform, which resulted in improper forest resource utilisation.

• This policy briefing recommends that the role of the government through a properly designed policy mechanism, is significant in

order to ensure the effective implementation of the main principles of sustainable forest governance, such as transparency,

accountability, equity, competition and innovation.

• This policy briefing concludes that a country should first build its policy implementation capacity before relying on market forces for

natural resources management.

KEYWORDS

Illegal logging, corruption, Sustainable Forest Management, Georgia, centrally planned economy, market oriented economy, tenure,

forestry reform, sustainability, natural resources management, forest governance, forest privatisation, rights of investors, threat to

biodiversity, transparency and accountability, competitiveness and efficiency, international practices, forest utilisation plans.

Racha Region, Georgia

www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org

http://www.goldmercury.org


Forest Management

Abstract

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. Inclusion of Private Sector in Forest Management

1.1 Implementing a new Forest Code in Georgia

1.2 Forest Policy Reform

1.3 Benefits of Forest Privatisation

1.4 Missing Markets and Failure of Public Policy

2.The Legal Rights and Responsibilities of the Private Sector

in Forest Management in Georgia

2.1 Violation of the Rights of the Investors

2.2 Threat to Biodiversity

2.3 Transparency and Accountability

2.4 Forest Monitoring Capacity

2.5 Introduction of Third Party Certification

3. Analysis of the Georgian Forest Reform and Comparison

with International Practices

3.1 Development of the Forest Utilisation Plan

3.2 Competitiveness and Efficiency

3.3 The Role of the Government in Forest Governance is still

Important to Ensure SFM

4. Recommendations

5. Conclusion

6. References

Table of contents

i

i

1

2

2

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

10

10

11

12






Forest Management

ABSTRACT

Using the Georgian government reform in forest policy

as an illustrative example, this policy briefing aims to

explore the impact of the new forest policy on

sustainable utilisation of forest resources. Since 2004,

forest tenure and institutional reforms have been

undertaken in Georgia and particularly the transfer of

the long-term forest use rights to the private sector,

under the necessity to reduce government obligations in

managing private forests. While some legislative and

institutional changes have already taken place, still

more has to be done to improve the functionality of the

new policy mechanism and to ensure the

implementation of Sustainable Forest Management

(SFM) in the country.

There has been little attention devoted to assess the

implementation process of the forest reform in Georgia,

particularly, what measures have been taken by the

government prior to the adoption of this new policy

mechanism. This policy briefing will try to explore why

the transfer of Forest Management Rights (FMR) to the

private sector failed to improve SFM in Georgia, arguing

that the inclusion of the private sector in forest

management does not necessarily ensure effective

forest utilisation. The government is the only body that

can ensure the effective implementation of the main

principles of effective forest governance, such as

transparency, accountability, equity, efficiency,

application of a strong regulatory framework,

institutional capacity, effective control and monitoring

mechanisms.

The Georgian case can serve as a useful example for

other countries, aiming to pursue similar reforms, in

order to avoid mistakes during the initial process of

forest reform. Findings in this report are based on

secondary qualitative data, supplemented by in-depth

interviews with the Georgian governmental officials and

non-governmental representatives, conducted in the

Georgian capital, Tbilisi, in March 2013.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unsustainable use of forest resources is one of the most

urgent problems in Georgia at present. The State Forest

Fund is a highly valuable asset of the country and any

problem related to the rational use of forest resources

can be seen as a threat to sustainable development.

Despite the importance of the forest resources,

substantial decline in forest protection and

unsustainable resource utilisation have been witnessed

in Georgia. The bureaucratic approach in managing

forests under the centrally planned economy can be

seen as a main contributor to unsustainable forest use in

Georgia.

From Government to Governance

In developing countries, command and control

approach under traditional forestry institutions is

becoming outdated as they fail to manage forests in a

sustainable way. Georgia gained independence in 1991,

after 70 years of socialism and therefore it has

undergone a long transition period towards a

democratic system and market oriented economy. The

transition to a market economy revealed that the forest

sector was very weak and inappropriate to develop

SFM. The administrative economic system that existed

in the former Soviet Union was not able to detect

consumer preferences and surpluses of resources,

eventually leading to the unsustainable resource

allocation. For this reason, the Georgian government

realised that it was urgent to prepare a new forest

policy that ensures the effective functioning of

ecosystem services, provided by the forests and

woodlands, while at the same time encourages

sustainable production of wood for commercial

purposes.

Private Sector in Forest Governance

In this regard, the new Georgian Forest Code (FC) has

been adopted in 1999, which sets the framework for the

reorientation of the forestry sector from central

planning to a market oriented system. It underlines that

Georgia’s State Department of Forestry will not directly

carry out commercial activities and that it will transfer

them to private enterprises for the future. In addition,

the FC allows multiple forms of forest ownership (state,

local community, church and private) to coexist.

The government supported the idea to transfer forest

use rights to private stakeholders for better forest

management and utilisation, as in general, private

ownership of natural resources leads to economically

efficient outcomes, better than in a centrally planned

economy. According to Adam Smith’s idea, the market

economy, based on individual self-interest, would be

more effective from the resource allocation perspective.

i






Forest Management

Working towards this direction, the Ministry of

Environment of Georgia declared “tenure” reform.

Tenure refers to the allocation of rights to use, manage,

control, sell, lease or transfer of natural resources. The

large-scale national forestry sector reform was based on

the idea that the state should cede responsibility for

forest management and transfer it to the private sector.

Tenure reform in Georgia implies transfer only of Forest

Use Rights to the private sector, while the land remains

still the property of the state.

The Role of the Government

The role of the government is significant in order to

ensure the effective implementation of the main

principles of effective forest governance, such as

transparency, accountability, equity, competition and

innovation through properly designed policy

mechanisms.

Furthermore, the government has to carefully evaluate

the ecosystem services of forest fund to make trade-offs

between forest commercial benefits and social costs. As

Panayotou (1994) suggests, it is not suitable to transfer

property rights of resources management, where the

utilisation of resources itself creates significant

externalities as a result of missing markets. In other

words, if we assume that no markets exist for the social

and environmental services of forests; most private

companies undervalue its ecosystem functions under the

improperly defined environmental policy, while

operating on their territories. Therefore, it remains the

role of the government to implement a national forest

policy that addresses the problem of the market failure.

The Main Objective of This Policy Briefing

This policy briefing attempts to identify those aspects of

the decision making process that hindered the effective

multipurpose utilisation of the Georgian forest fund. In

particular, it assesses the design of the new policy

instrument, in order to identify those aspects that hinder

SFM, such as outdated National Forest Inventory (NFI),

the improperly designed auctions that hinder

competition and efficiency, and the lack of public

participation, as well as the poor enforcement capacity.

This policy briefing reviews the outcomes of the

qualitative studies conducted by international experts

and consultants, assessing the current legislative and

institutional changes in the forestry sector in Georgia.

This secondary analysis of existing empirical data is

complemented by in-depth interviews with Georgian

governmental officials, NGO representatives and forest

experts.

Overall, the experience in Georgia has shown that the

governmental officials who were preparing the new

forest policy have overlooked several aspects at the

initial stage of the reform, which resulted in improper

forest resource utilisation. For this reason, this policy

briefing has developed recommendations for other

governments, which aim to pursue similar reforms in the

forestry sector in the future.

Recommendations

1. Preparing a national forest inventory is a primary

requirement in order to determine sustainable forest

management priorities, including the classification of

selected forest categories as well as of the national

allowable cut. Furthermore, the government must obtain

the accurate forest data prior to the reform.

2. The government has to guarantee transparent

allocation of Forest Use Rights through properly

designed auctions that ensure the equity among the

participants. Designing competitive auctions with fair

procedures and requirements is important for

promoting innovation and efficiency in the forest sector.

3. Public participation and stakeholder consultation is an

essential part of the decision making process as forests

belong to the whole nation and they are closely

intertwined with environmental, social and economic

issues. Taking into consideration the rights of local

people before transferring the Forest Use Rights to the

private sector for commercial timber production, will

avoid conflict of interests between the new owners of

forest resources and the local population.

4. Promote a strong verification, certification and

labeling system through knowledge and education prior

to relying on a third party certification scheme.

5. The government has to build a strong enforcement

and monitoring capacity mechanism, based on proper

allocation of human resources, in terms of skills and

experience, development of knowledge on technical

issues, as well as on financial stability and proper

distribution of budgets.

ii






Forest Management

INTRODUCTION

Georgian Forests are ancient woodlands that have

managed to survive the Ice Ages and other natural

cataclysms; they are one of the very few virgin forests

remaining in the world. Compared to country’s total land

(6,949.4 southland hectare), Georgia is considered to be

a forest rich country. “Total area of forest land is

2,988,000 ha, from which 2,767,000 is covered by

forests. In other words forests cover 40 % of the

country’s territory of which 2,528,000 ha are state

property and called State Forest Fund (SFF). Only about

600,000 ha or 21% of the SFF is considered to have

commercial value for timber production. Former

kolkhoz land, covers an area of 540,000 ha (20% of the

total forest cover) and is according to the Forest Code

classified as the Local Forest Fund (LFF). The rest of the

forest land is classified as conservation and recreation

forests. Another 24% of the total territory is classified as

pasture land, 11% as arable land and 5% as horticulture

land” (FLEG2, 2010).

During the Soviet period, the Georgian forests were

nationalised. In 1921, the forest territories and forest

resources were declared to be state-owned property and

were split into two main categories: 1. National Forests,

including production forests and 2. Collective Farm

Forests (CFF) belonging to the Kolkhoz territories, which

refers to the local collective farms within the Soviet

Union countries, the same as LFF. In subsequent years,

due to the national industrialisation agenda, the

pressure on forest production along with the

development of the timber processing industry in the

country has increased significantly.

Under the Soviet Union regulation of 1932, the public

body (Commissariat of the Forest Industry) responsible

for forest utilisation for production purposes (e.g. supply

industry with timber) was formed. However, it’s Soviet-

style and centrally managed forest utilisation practices

were ineffective as they were not able to avoid conflict of

interests. National forests were managed by the state

bodies, which undertook both control and management

functions. Furthermore, forest activities were financed

by the government under the occasional budget

constraints. Overall, this environment created fertile

conditions for corruption and illegal logging. Related to

this concern, “The Georgian government declared large-

scale national forestry sector reform based on the idea

that the state should cede responsibility for forest

management and maintenance and retain only forest

licensing and control functions.

BOX 1 : Country Profile

Georgia has signed environmental international agreements on: Air Pollution, Biodiversity, Climate Change

Protocol (Kyoto Protocol), Desertification, Endangered Species, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea,

Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Wetlands (CIA).

Georgia's main economic activities include the cultivation of agricultural products such as grapes, citrus

fruits and hazelnuts; mining of manganese, copper, and gold; and output of a small industrial sector

producing alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages, metals, machinery, and chemicals. The country imports

nearly all its necessary supplies of natural gas and oil products. It has a sizeable hydropower capacity that

now provides most of its energy needs.

The nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is at $27.11 billion (2012 est.);

GDP (official exchange rate) is $15.93 billion (2012 est.) and GDP - per capita (PPP) is $6,000 (2012 est.)

1








Forest Management

Most of the forests are supposed to be leased on the

basis of long-term licenses –from 20 to 50 years. Prior to

the lease, part of the state forests were expected to be

handed over to local self-governments in order to give

rural communities access to forest resources” (CIPDD1,

2009:3). It must be noticed that in the case of Georgia,

tenure reform implies transfer of Forest Use Rights to

the private sector while land remains under the state’s

ownership.

Using the Georgian government reform in the forest

sector as a case study, this policy briefing tries to analyse

the implementation process of this new forest policy and

its impacts on SFM. The effectiveness of the policy

instrument is based on debatable arguments related to

the ability of market-based instruments to address

public issues and their power to transform developing

countries and transition economies. On the one hand, the

creation of markets and price-based initiatives for

natural resources (for timber in the case of Georgia),

raise incentives for the new owners to manage natural

stocks sustainably for their own economic interests,

while at the same time less governmental intervention is

needed in natural resource management.

On the other hand, transferring the rights of forest

management to private operators, raises concerns in

terms of effectiveness and efficiency, particularly when a

government has not set up a monitoring system to

ensure proper enforcement and adequate market

functioning. Relevant literature argues that it is

necessary that developing countries build and define

their capabilities before relying on market forces

(O’connor, 2004), (Anderson, 2001), (Kathuria, 2005),

(Caffera, 2011). As the Georgian case illustrates, without

strict environmental policy and strong regulatory and

institutional capacity, private incentives based on

market signals would not be enough in order to develop

sustainable forest utilisation strategies.

To address the key issues, as mentioned above, this

policy briefing is structured as follows:

1. The first section illustrates the transition process to

market oriented economy, along with the inclusion of the

private sector in forest management, as a justification to

address the limits of the bureaucratic forest planning in

Georgia.

2. The second section describes and critically evaluates

the process of forest reform and its deficiencies based on

empirical data.

3. The third section attempts to make comparisons

between the case of Georgia and similar international

cases. It then argues that a government first has to build

its legislative and enforcement capacity before relying on

economic instruments to ensure SFM.

4. The final section provides recommendations for the

further development of SFM practices in the future.

1. INCLUSION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN

FOREST MANAGEMENT

1.1 Implementing a New Forest Code in Georgia

The first significant effort towards forestry sector

development took place in 1999, when the new Forest

Code (FC) was adopted. The FC specified the processes

for the reorientation of the forest sector from central

planning to a more market oriented system. In

particular, the FC underlines that Georgia’s state

department of forestry will not directly carry out

commercial activities and that it will transfer them to

private enterprises. Furthermore, the FC recognises the

rights of regional authorities to manage local forests and

delineates additional categories of protected areas,

including those with regulatory functions, such as soil

and watershed protection. In addition, it defines the

ecologically sensitive areas -floodplains, steep slopes,

sub-alpine forests and areas, where endangered species

live. The FC provides the basis for both institutional and

policy reforms in the forestry sector, which allows

multiple forms of ownership to coexist (i.e. state, local

community, church and private) as long as with the long-

term lease of forests and the privatisation of timber

production rights .

However, despite the adoption of the new FC in Georgia,

little has been done in practice, towards moving to a

market oriented forest management system. The

privatisation and decentralisation of forestry was not an

easy process. As the discussion of the second initiative

(decentralisation) is out of the scope of this paper, we

will focus on evaluating the process of private actor’s

involvement in forestry activities in Georgia.

2




Forest Management

Since the adoption of the FC in Georgia, the situation in

the forest sector did not see any major changes. Forest

farms were managed the same way as during the soviet

era; they depended on central government subsidies and

were artificially tailored to the market requirements.

Despite the fact that the FC defines new additional forest

categories as mentioned above, few efforts were made to

prepare a National Forest Inventory (NFI).

The NFI is a database of continuously updated

information of a nation’s forest resources, including

timber volume and species composition, which is an

essential requirement in order to define the forest

groups. The unreliable forest data in the country created

fertile environment for illegal logging, corruption and

overexploitation. Regarding this concern, further

changes have been implemented in the forest sector in

2005, when the Georgian Law on Licenses and Permits

has been adopted, which defined the rights and

responsibilities of the private actors carrying out

forestry activities, under the license conditions and

according to the forest management plans.

1.2 Forest Policy Reform

The main driving force of the forest reforms was an

active campaign against illegal logging and corruption

that pushed the Georgian government to take measures

against those issues. In 2003, after the ‘Rose Revolution’,

there was an effort to liberalize the national economy,

which resulted in significant institutional and legislative

changes. The government also decided to privatize a

large part of the national property, in order to boost

budgetary revenues and disassociate itself from any

management responsibilities. The national forests were

among the national property that was decided to be

privatized. The Georgian Ministry of Environment, in

coordination with the Forestry Department (currently

Forest Agency) started establishing the legal and

institutional basis for the long term forest resource

management privatization; taking into account

international practices and experience related to forest

tenure arrangements. “Tenure” refers the allocation of

rights to use, manage, control, sell, lease or transfer of

resources.

Privatization is one of the types of tenure reforms

through which the new property rights on forest land

and resources are being created. In a more general

sense, privatization means transfer of productive assets

or economic rights from the state to individuals or to the

private sector (Pei, 1998). Historically, countries have

pursued two types of ownership transfers: a) some

countries prefer to transfer ownership on forest land to

private entities, while b) others maintain ownership on

forest lands but allocate use of rights to private owners

for a specific period of time (Pei, 1998) and (FAO, 2011).

The latter is applicable in the Georgian case, where the

government intended to transfer forest use rights to the

private sector through auctioning, as it did for instance

in the case of rights for timber harvesting. The reform is

based on the logic that the rights of the land-use and

management are separated from the rights of the land

ownership.

The purpose of the Georgian government was to enhance

the forests ecological, social and economic potential and

in particular, to raise the forest sector’s contribution to

economic development based on the principles of SFM.

In order to achieve these objectives, the Georgian

Ministry of Environment with the support of the World

Bank, which allocated USD 12m for the forest

rehabilitation in Georgia, intended to establish adequate

legal and institutional bases for forest management (The

World Bank, 2009). Key issues/actions that had to be

addressed by the Georgian government prior to the

transfer of the forest use rights to the private sector

included:

• Increase the area covered by forests through

afforestation and reforestation.

• Update the National Forest Inventory according to the

improved methodology, which is part of the preliminary

process in order to define forest categories, before

transferring forest units to the private sector for

production purposes. The Georgian government had to

hold reliable information about the country’s natural

resources in order to be able to properly allocate forest

units for different purposes and determine the annual

allowable forest cut to maintain the natural ability of

forests to regenerate.

• Allocate a local forest area for social purposes to avoid

overlapping of private and community tenure rights and

build capabilities of local authorities.

• Build public support by increasing stakeholder

participation and engagement in forest reform processes

and raise awareness regarding the economic

contribution of forest production, under sustainable

forest management.

3




Forest Management

• Develop a national forest standards and certification

procedure and exports measuring system.

• Strengthen the monitoring institutions and the quality

of human resource, including provision of monitoring

equipment and staff-training to improve forest law

enforcement.

In reality, at the time of the reform, all those initiatives

were suspended. The Georgian government declared a

large-scale national forestry sector reform without

completing the agreed activities (i.e. update of forest

inventory, afforestation/reforestation, monitoring

capacity, allocation forests for local population). The

transfer of the management rights to the private sector

was used by the government as a potential solution in

order to overcome some of the observed problems,

related to the public forestry agencies. The Georgian

government only maintained licensing and monitoring

functions.

Engaging the private sector in forest management in

general has particular positive effects on forest

governance, which will be discussed in the next section.

1.3 Benefits of Forest Privatisation

In principle, transfer of forest utilisation rights (whether

part or full) to private units encourages the creation of

long-term economic interests based on market signals

related to natural resource exploitation. In general, it

refers to the introduction of market forces that

significantly determine decisions and particularly

production activities. Market forces have a potential to

allocate resources more effectively than in the centrally

planned economy. The below-cost sale of timber

products, which resulted in forest overexploitation, was

one of the major problems related with the centrally

planned economy. But under the management of the

private sector, this problem is usually of a lesser

concern, as pricing is derived via more adequate

methods.

The main goal of private entities is to achieve efficiency

in production activities and gain cost leadership, while

operating in a competitive market. Their net benefits

(positive cash flow) will define their production

efficiency through investing in production processes.

That leads to innovation and efficient forest utilisation.

Furthermore, the introduction of several private

enterprises will destabilise the monopoly of the

previously operated public organisations, which were

subsidised by the public budget. Competition among

private forestry owners will promote efficiency in

production of forestry goods and services. Furthermore,

allocation of the management rights to the private sector

will reduce government expenditures allocated for

particular forestry operations and will raise revenues

through payments of private corporations for forest use.

Despite the advantages listed above, concerns related to

the long-term transfer of forest management rights to

private actors still remain in Georgia. If we assume that

the profit maximisation is the primary objective of the

private sector, they might not incorporate various

important functions of forest services in the forest

planning, as a result of missing markets and the failure of

the public policy to overcome the problem of market

failure.

1.4 Missing Markets and Failure of Public Policy

The major concern of the private ownership of forests is

that many environmental benefits are public goods and

thus have no market price (FAO, 1995). Missing markets

is one of the root causes of forest degradation (Dasgupta,

2000) & (Pearce and Moran, 1994), as existing markets

fail to assess the total economic value of particular forest

services, and private landowners underinvest in

environmental forest functions. Hence, it is the role of

the government to ensure social and ecological aspects

of forest assets are maintained through properly

designed policy instruments.

Another cause of the overexploitation, is the failure of

public policies, which directly or indirectly encourage

deforestation (Pearce and Warford, 1993). The factors

that contribute to the conversion of forest land to other

uses such as agricultural expansion, infrastructure

development and urban development can be considered

as proximate causes of forest clearance. However,

government policies, which fail to incorporate

environmental and social issues into decision making,

can be considered as underlying (indirect) causes of

deforestation.

4




Forest Management

In view of the above, the Georgian government failed to

find a balance between economic and environmental

interests in the policy making process. This phenomenon

is particularly evident in developing countries, where

there is an emphasis on economic growth at the expense

of environmental degradation and social costs.

As a result, increased harvest levels of commercial

timber significantly contributed to the generation of

higher revenues for the Georgian budget. However, if the

overall costs of increased forest utilisation are

considered in the long-term perspective, the social costs

will most likely outweigh revenues received from the

short-term timber exploitation by the private actors. In

addition, the effectiveness of this new approach

implemented in Georgia, highly depends on the rights

and responsibilities of the private sector, as defined by

the forest use license.

2. THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRIVATE

SECTOR IN FOREST MANAGEMENT IN

GEORGIA

The transfer of forest use rights to the private sector is

regulated by the Law on License and Permits in Georgia

(the regulation N 132 of the Government of Georgia,

August 11, 2005). The main objective of that regulation

was to establish rules and terms for timber production

by the private enterprises. In the initial form, the

regulation permitted the forest production on the

territories, where inventory and management planning

were not carried out. Therefore, there was a lack of

defined forest categories, an essential component in

order to delineate forest groups for social, ecological and

economical purposes. It was only in 2009, when

amendments have been made to the regulation, which

permitted timber production only within the territories

where inventory and forest management has been

planned, prior to the allocation of forest use rights.

According to Ms. Jordania, a former lawyer at the

Georgian Forestry Department, this indicated that

preliminary inventorying should not been carried out by

the state bodies as it will incur higher costs. Hence, this

means, that the private companies will be required to

carry out forest arrangement works, including collection

of data on the available timber resources and

identification of the forest services that fall under the

forest protection categories (environmentally and

socially beneficial forests) within the areas that they

operate. The fact that the government had no

information about the national forest fund before

allocating forest use rights to private enterprises

induced a conflict of interests. As Mr Ilia Osepashvili,

Forest Officer from the World Wide Fund for Nature -

WWF-Caucasus Programme Office, declared, having

reliable information is important from a conservation

perspective in order to provide investors with accurate

information and the ability to protect their rights. This

will be discussed in the following two paragraphs.

2.1 Violation of the Rights of the Investors

Allocation of forest management rights through

‘auctioning’ can be seen as a market mechanism, which

forms the price of timber. The World Bank suggests that

the idea of auctioning (Karsenty, 2000), where a

government has to determine the starting bidding price,

while private bidders will determine the optimal price,

takes into consideration their capabilities and

opportunity costs. However, this is not always the best

solution, especially when the government does not have

information about the approximate economic value of

the forest resources it intends to auction.

In Georgia, the ministry officials responsible for the

allocation of forest units to private enterprises were not

able to determine the proper price of timber or provide

investors with the correct data, in terms of forest

quantity and quality, while issuing licenses for forest

utilisation. As a response to this concern, the Ministry of

Environment of Georgia (MEG) issued licenses based on

unreliable forest data. As a result, the Chinese investors

(Georgian Wood and Industrial Development Co., Ltd)

received 30% - 40% less forest resources than defined

by the auction (www.ombudsman.ge). That said, the

MEG overestimated the price, and investors paid more

than the real value of productive forests standing on

their territory.

5




Forest Management

2.2 Threat to Biodiversity

The transfer of Forest Use Rights to the private sector

based on the improperly defined inventory of forest fund

creates negative impacts on biodiversity. SFM in modern

terms can be defined as the use of forest resources in a

way that maintains their biodiversity, regeneration

capacity and the potential to ensure forests’ ecological,

economic and social functions in the long-term at the

local, national and global level (FAO, 2011).

Under improperly defined forest categories, it is likely to

grant access to ecologically sensitive forest units to

private entities for commercial use (e.g. for production of

timber). In the Georgian case, in 2006 and 2007, licenses

were issued for conservation value forests and

ecologically sensitive woodlands (Green Alternative,

2008). The risk of forest exploitation at the expense of

biodiversity protection is quite high in Georgia, if we

assume that it is important to assess biophysical data in

order to plan timber cutting activities in a sustainable

way. But under the business as usual practice, where

private companies concentrate on profit maximisation,

they have no incentive to internalise the social and

environmental externalities in their activities.

Furthermore, as Mr Macharashvili, Biodiversity

Programme Coordinator from the local NGO ‘Green

Alternative’ underlined, the fact that the obligation to

identify forests with high conservation value, remains

the responsibility of the private entities, raises concerns

regarding protection and conservation, as the

identification must be undertaken by the government

prior to the allocation of forest use rights.

2.3 Transparency and Accountability

The President of Georgia, M. Saakashvili declared in

2004 that he was struggling to fight corruption. As he

stated, “It is impossible to build democracy and reduce

corruption unless accountability and transparency is

guaranteed”. At that moment, the Order (N.197) of the

Minister on the Rules for Carrying out Tenders and

Auctions has been issued.

While in principle, auctions are the most transparent

way to allocate forest use rights, the whole process of

auctioning was quite far from being transparent in the

Georgian case.

The forest auctioning, conducted in 2008, illustrates

these arguments, as according to criticism the Georgian

Wood and Industrial Development Ltd, had no rivals

during the auction. For a fair licence allocation process,

all applicants should be incorporated in the process in

order to ensure equity and competition. The call for

applications regarding the auctions had been announced

in newspapers only 4 weeks earlier than the auction

date. With such short notice, other interested parties

could not make the required business decisions and take

part in auctions. It is clear that the process was

improperly designed to address corruption and the risk

of collusive arrangements was still quite high between

the regulated parties and the regulator.

Another aspect that determines the legitimacy and

accountability of a policy mechanism is the public’s

participation in the decision-making process. The FC of

Georgia (Article 35 and 36) states that the long-term

forest use rights can be granted to any applicant, after

the public hearings have been conducted. Despite these

requirements, public participation has been completely

overlooked during the process of the forestry reform. In

general, when there is limited public involvement in the

decision-making process, the population expresses

hostility against the new policy, even if a particular

policy mechanism may provide benefits for them, as they

have no information about their rights and the potential

threats of the planned activities. As a result, a conflict

was raised between the private company and the

community in one of the local districts in Georgia

(personal communication, George Namgaladze, Forest

Expert at local district, 2013).

6

Landslip in Georgia




Forest Management

In that particular case, the licence for timber extraction

was allocated close to the village, where people use

forested areas for several social purposes. One rural

inhabitant claimed, that granting forest use rights to one

person will deteriorate their livelihoods, as they will be

deprived of the right to enter the forest (Human Rights,

2008). Regarding this concern in the UK context, the UK

government in 1989, before the announcement of its

plan to sell 100,000 hectares of the Forest Commission

estate, declared that “No woodland would be sold that

there were public access rights to unless the same access

can be guaranteed”(Adam Smith Institute, 2002).

2.4. Forest Monitoring Capacity

Successful implementation of forest reform depends on

maintaining an effective mechanism of state control. The

creation of the Inspectorate of Environmental Protection

(IEP) within the newly established Forest Agency can be

seen as positive step in the development of the forest

sector.

Despite the fact that the detection of illegal activities

through this agency is possible, still this mechanism

appeared to be too weak to control the entire territory.

Each forestry worker is held responsible to check

thousands of hectares and at the same time, their

salaries are quite low, which again creates perfect

conditions for corruption. Monitoring is concentrated on

planned inspections of the selected entrepreneurs rather

than on random monitoring of license holders. Without

proactive and systemic monitoring, licence holders

might engage in activities such as excessive or non

registered harvesting and other breaches (e.g. cutting

the most valuable trees, and leaving sick and dried trees

on site). As a result of insufficient inspections, non

compliance with license conditions is a very common

phenomenon in Georgia (Inspectorate of Environmental

Protection Hot-line). In this regard, the certification

system, based on a third party audit as a safeguard

mechanism was initiated to address the deficiencies of a

weak governmental monitoring capacity. Initially, in

2007, the memorandum on cooperation between the

Georgian forestry department and the FCS was signed.

2.5 Introduction of Third Party Certification

The certification system based on market incentives has

gained international attention in forest governance

(Agrawal, 2008). National sovereignty can be seen as a

key barrier for implementing international forest

agreements at the moment. As a result, developing

countries see stringent environmental regulation as a

barrier for their economic development. Developing

countries see forests as a source of income and are

avoiding engagement in SFM that makes forest

utilisation more expensive (Dimitrov, 2005). As a result,

excessive harvesting of timber takes place in developing

countries that offer tangible economic benefits and are

not promoting forest protection and conservation (The

Economist, Dec 5, 2009).

7

The Ministry of Environment

Forest policy, legislation and

administration of forestry activities,

provision of subsidies.

Environment

Inspectorate

Control of movement of

wood along the roads and

control of Forest Use

Licenses holders.

State Forest Fund (2,2m)

Local Forest Fund (540,000 ha., 20%)

Commercial (600,000 ha., 21%)

Forest Agency Since 2010

Preparation of management

plans, monitoring and

controlling. However, forest

planning is still carried out by

the private contractors.

479 Guards/Rangers

One ranger per 5000 ha area of license

holders (Insufficient number of rangers

for their present tasks).


The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international not for-profit, multi-stakeholder organisation established in 1993 to promote responsible management of the world’s forests.

The chart illustrates the structure of the Georgian Forestry Sector until 2010.



Forest Management

However the certification regime, to some extent

bypasses national policy and creates incentives to

manage forests in a sustainable way in order to meet

consumer demand. The requirement that forest

management plans prepared by the forest owners had to

be based on international standards, such as criteria

defined by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was

also indicated in the Georgian Law. The certification

regime can be seen as a solution to address the poor

government capacity to monitor forest activities. Despite

these promises, this approach has not been proven

effective, as national standards of certification have not

been elaborated. In addition, no specialists in this issue

were engaged in the process. As a result, incorporation

of FSC principles in the license represented a formality

that could not be considered as a driver of SFM. On the

contrary, various circumstances had to be taken into

account before relying on this approach such as:

1. The capacity and experience of private enterprises to

be engaged in the FSC scheme. It was unclear whether

private entities were capable at that time to meet

those standards.

2. The level of the environmental awareness of timber

exporting countries. Engagement in SFM raises

production costs and a product’s price. Until timber

exporting countries are willing to pay higher prices

for a sustainably managed timber, companies will not

have any incentive to meet FSC standards. If we

consider that the main exporters of the Georgian

timber are mostly neighbouring countries with less

developed economies and without stringent

environmental standards, the consumer pressure to

manage sustainably the supply chain of timber

production is expected to be weak.

3. Furthermore, reliance on market forces such as

certification can be particularly important if there are

substantial volumes of wood exported, as costs of

such certification are significantly high. This is why

there was no progress on certification in the forestry

sector in Georgia (FLEG, 2010).

Thus, the ministry’s approach to monitor forest

utilization through certified commercial organization of

the FSC was flawed from the very beginning. In Georgia,

certification of local agencies often operated

without certified staff and equipment. The fact that they

are hired and paid by the private enterprises rose

further opportunities for corruption and created fertile

ground for private arrangements.

As a result, ministry officials decided to simplify the

licensing procedure undertaken by the private sector

and in 2007, a new amendment to the decision of

‘Government on Approving Provisions of Rules and

Conditions for Issuing Licenses for Use of Forest

Resources’ was introduced. According to the revised

document, the private sector was not required in the

future to meet the FSC principles, while conducting

forest activities for commercial purposes.

3. ANALYSIS OF THE GEORGIAN FOREST

REFORM AND COMPARISON WITH

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES

3.1 Development of the Forest Utilisation Plan

When analysing the policy options to be adopted in

order to address a particular problem, it is essential to

take into consideration the precedents and thus try to

avoid the mistakes that have occurred in the past. In

Georgia, the government officials had to pay attention to

the practices of SFM as implemented in other countries

and also consider the recommendations provided by the

global financial and environmental institutions. After the

careful examination of a particular policy, each

government has to assess its potential and its capacity to

decide how/if the country is ready for the reform and

what procedures must be implemented prior to the

adoption of a particular policy instrument.

Various factors have determined the failure of the new

policy instrument in Georgia. In general, in the forestry

sector it is recognised that SFM should be based on a

forest management plan (FMP) for a given territory, and

should be prepared according the results of the forest

inventory. Reliable data on forests is vital for all levels of

forest management, such as, forest classification,

demarcation and registration, forest resource utilisation

and planning. The fact that the Georgian forest inventory

has not been updated since 1982, created a situation

where regulators were not able to determine the proper

price of timber and could not provide investors with

correct forest data. Furthermore, international practices

illustrate a hierarchical system for the forest

management planning procedure that must be

considered by governments, before the allocation of

forest use rights to private entities.

8




Forest Management

The forest management planning procedure includes the

following steps:

1. National Planning, including strategic planning on

national level that includes the program of forest

development.

2. Regional Planning, covering strategic plan at the

regional level, including principles of SFM and

provides the allowable levels of forest utilisation.

3. Forest Management Plan, covering a management plan

for forestry districts, it determines annual allowable

cuts; it illustrates the principles to ensure the safety

of needs of the local population, protection of

biodiversity and use of forest resources for

commercial purposes.

4. Operation Plan, which illustrates the management

plan for each forestry operation e.g. for timber

production (must be prepared by a person

responsible for forest utilisation).

This hierarchical scheme clearly illustrates the gap

between the best practices and the Georgian case. The

first two stages, namely planning on national and

regional levels should be conducted by the government.

However, in the Georgian case they had not been

addressed prior to the allocation of the forest units for

commercial purposes. This task was allocated to the

private entities to be implemented.

Regarding this concern, the Forest Stewardship Council

(FSC) provides an option to be used by those countries

without an updated National Forest Inventory, before

allocating forest use rights. The government has to

appoint groups of independent experts, who will be

responsible for preparing the inventory in the particular

areas, while the private bodies have to cover the costs

for the inventory. This must be done before the

government declares the transfer of rights for a

particular territory to the private sector. In order to set

fair bidding prices, the government should have the

proper forest data prior to the allocation of forest use

rights. It must be noted that the issuing of new licenses

has decreased in Georgia. Insufficient number of bidders

indicates a lack of interest from the private sector. One

potential reason which makes investors reluctant to

invest in the Georgian forestry sector is unreliable

quantity and quality of forest resources. The licensees

operated in Georgia have expressed their concerns

related to lower wood volumes available on their

operational territories, compared to the ones suggested

in the tendering process (FLEG, 2010).

3.2 Competitiveness and Efficiency

Policies that permit imperfect competition in the forest

industry can have significant negative effects on the

competitiveness of the sector. Barriers to entry can

prevent the most efficient firms from operating. A study

conducted by the New Zealand Institute of Economic

Research in 1998, indicates that the local forest sector

has improved its competitive position since 1980, which

can be partly attributed to the devolution of forests to

private corporations, as the number of players has

significantly increased in the forest industry in New

Zealand. It must be noted, that the forestry in New

Zealand was dominated by public corporations until

1980, however as a result of the subsequent private

sector incorporation, the government now owns less

than 7% of the planted forests (Clarke, 1998). Likewise,

the transfer of commercial forests to the private sector in

order to promote competition and efficiency has been

successfully implemented in South Africa, where the

state owned a forestry enterprise, which has now been

privatised, with its rights transferred to five different

bidders. The disaggregation of the company has been

implemented in order to promote competition among

the different entities.

Furthermore, imperfect competition leads to

inefficiencies and the failure to adopt technologies that

reduce environmental damage. Through due diligence

and pre-selection, the government could choose the

most qualified candidates for the bidding, creating an

action which promotes competition and development of

the forestry sector. At this point, it is important to

underline the critical points that need to be considered

before granting the forest use rights to private bidders

(FSC, 2007).

Firstly, an authorised body has to develop a set of

transparent guidelines and indicators to evaluate the

potential candidates. E.g. 1. Participants should have

proof of financial status; as well as 2. Proof of financial

securities for investment and the level of the securities

need to be related to the value of the forest lease unit;

3. A track record in forestry operations; 4. Commitment

that the applicant is intending to use the resources from

an efficient perspective (producing the maximum

amount of output per given amount of resources in a

sustainable way).

9




Forest Management

In addition, the long-term use rights of resources should

provide incentives for private companies to invest in

forest activities. However, this is not really happening in

Georgia, as companies are still focused on short-term

profits, without understanding the long-term economies

of SFM. It is unclear if private license holders have forest

management experience, however if they want to

manage forests sustainably, they should have the

necessary experience.

3.3 The Role of the Government in Forest

Governance is Still Important to Ensure SFM

The case of Georgia clearly illustrates that forestry is an

‘intermediate’ sector that requires a flexible combination

of regulations and market mechanisms. It is obvious

from this case study that the new market-oriented policy

instrument failed to incorporate social, ecological and

economic aspects of the forest management as a whole.

If we assume that profit maximisation is the primary

objective of the private sector, then it is assumed that

private companies will not incorporate various

important functions of forest management. Therefore,

unless there is an adequate regulatory framework

developed in the country prior to the allocation of use

rights, all external costs of forest services will be passed

to the private sector. It remains the government’s

responsibility to define the forest categories and

discover biodiversity hotspots.

The reform process illustrates that the government of

Georgia was focused on short-term economic revenues,

without taking into account its long-term environmental

and social consequences.

However, aside from the environmental and social

aspects, there are also economic benefits from the

proper planning of forest management. If the woodland

is recognised as economically profitable, it will attract

more investors and enable the government to receive

more. In general, the liberalisation of the economy has

improved the overall investment through simplifying

business climate in Georgia but the environmental policy

is still not recognised as a priority.

In addition, the transfer of property rights (use rights)

does not mean that control and monitoring is not

required by the state. Low state monitoring and

enforcement capacity reduce the effectiveness of

marketable instruments to induce environmental

protection in developing countries (Caffera, 2009),

(Pattanayak, 2010), (Tao, 2009), (O Connor, 2004),

(Anderson, 2001), which was also the case in Georgia.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

This policy briefing has developed initial

recommendations for governments seeking to pursue

similar reforms in the future. In particular:

• Preparing a national forest inventory is a key

requirement to determine sustainable forest

management priorities, including the classification of

selected forest categories and determination of a

national allowable cut. Furthermore, the government has

to obtain the accurate forest data to avoid disputes

between the regulated parties and the regulator.

• The government has to guarantee the transparent

allocation of Forest Use Rights through properly

designed auctions that ensure the equity among all

participants. Designing competitive auctions with fair

procedures and requirements is important for

promoting innovation and efficiency in the forest sector.

• Ensuring public participation is an essential part of the

decision-making process as forests belong to the whole

nation and they are closely intertwined with

environmental, social and economic issues. Taking into

consideration the rights of local people before

transferring the Forest Use Rights to the private sector

will avoid any disputes between the new owners of

forest resources and the local population.

• Promote a strong verification, certification and

labelling system through knowledge and education,

prior to relying on a third party certification scheme.

• Lastly, the government has to build an effective

enforcement and monitoring capacity, considering any

technical or economic issues, such as the proper

distribution of budgets before relying on markets.

10




Forest Management

11

5. CONCLUSION

The aim of this policy briefing was to assess the forest

reform process in Georgia which started in 2010 and is

still ongoing. In particular, it intended to identify the

reasons which have created the gap between desirable

and actual policy implementation (Meltsner, 1972). As

the Georgian case clearly illustrates, prior to the

implementation of a new policy instrument, the

government must determine the policy’s feasibility. In

Georgia, there has been little focus on assessing the

implementation process of forest reform, particularly,

what measures should be considered by the government

prior to the adoption of a new policy mechanism. A

country has to build its policy implementation capacity

before relying on market forces (O’Connor, 2004),

(Anderson, 2001), (Kathuria, 2005). Furthermore, the

case of Georgia highlights that the role of the

government is significant in ensuring the effective

implementation of the main principles of effective forest

governance, such as transparency, accountability, equity,

competition and innovation through a properly designed

policy mechanism. Early reliance on markets did not

meet the initial requirements to ensure proper market

functioning and competition among forest industries.

Therefore, the successful shift to market-based

instruments requires a long-term process of capacity

building, which is an essential component of forest

sector development and the protection of sustainability.


Georgia Mountains



Forest Management

6. REFERENCES AND SOURCES (Agrawal, Chhattre, and Hardin, 2008) ‘Changing Governance of World’s Forests’, Science 320: 1460-62. (Anderson, 2001) Economic Instruments and Clean Water: Why Institutions and Policy Design Matter/,OECD, Paris. (Caffera, 2011) ‘The Use of Economic Instruments for Pollution Control in Latin America: Lessons for Future Policy Design.’ Environment and Development Economics, 16 (3): 247-273. (Carter, 2007) The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy. Second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. chapter 12. (CIPDD, 2009) Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (Unpublished paper) (Dasgupta, 2000) Valuing Biodiversity, University of Cambridge and Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm. (Dimitrov and Radoslav, 2005) Hostage to Norms: States, Institutions and Global Forest Politics, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4, Pages 1-24. (FAO, 2002) Forest and Forest Products/ Country Profile Georgia, United Nations, New York and Geneva. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/docs/dp/dp-26.pdf (FAO, 2011) Reforming Forest Tenure/Issues, Principles and Process (FAO, 2011) Decentralization and Devolution in Forestry http://www.fao.org/docrep/x3030e/x3030e0a.htm (Forestry Standards and Practices 2010), Tbilisi, Georgia. (Goulder and Parry, 2008) Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy/ RFF Discussion Paper. (Human Rights in Georgia, 2008) One More Georgian Forest Flogged off for Easy Money http://www.humanrights.ge/index.php?a=main&pid=7397&lang=eng (Japaridze, 2010) Review of the Current and Proposal Institutional Changes in Georgia (Final Report) FLEG / World Bank/Tbilisi (Karsenty. 2000) Economic Instruments for Tropical Forests/The Congo Basin case/ Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry CIFOR, CIRAD, IIED http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/7557IIED.pdf (Kathuria, 2005) Controlling Water Pollution in Developing and Transition Countries - Lessons from Three Successful Cases. Journal of Environmental Management, 78: 405-426. (Macxharashvili, 2009) CIPDD/Forestry sector in Georgia, Policy Brief (McAllister, 2010) Dimensions of Enforcement Style: Factoring in Regulatory Autonomy and Capacity. Law & Policy, 32 (1): 61-78. (O’Connor, 2004) Applying Economic Instruments in Developing Countries: From Theory to Implementation/ OECD

(Pattanayak, Wunder and Ferraro, 2010). Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in

Developing Countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4 (2): 254-274.Indonesia/ CSERGE Working

paper

http://www.cserge.ucl.ac.uk/Illegal_Logging.pdf

12




Forest Management

(Pearce, and Warford, 1993) World Without End, Economics, Environment, and Sustainable Development, Oxford, Oxford University Press. (Pears and Moran, 1994) The Economic Value of Forest Diversity, Earthscan Publications Limited, London (Pei, 1998) From Reform to Revolution: The Demise of Communism in China and the Soviet Union (Rosander, 2008) Illegal Logging Current Issues and Opportunities for SIDA/SENSA Engagement in Southeast Asia/Copyright-RECOFTC&SIDA Bangkok, Thailand http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Illegal_Logging_03_-_web-no-bleed_52.pdf (Recommendations of The Forest Stewardship Council, 2007) Cited in (Skodvin, T., Gullberg, A. T. and S. Aakre, 2010) ‘Target-group influence and political feasibility: The case of climate policy design in Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17 (6): 854-873. (The World Bank, 2009) Forest Development Project/Report/Georgia http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=104231&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P044800

Internet Sources Adam Smith Institute, 75: Out of the Woods (2002) Sale and leasing of state forests http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/75.htm Association Green Alternatives, Environmental Reports 2005-2012 http://www.greenalt.org/?lng=en_ -Does the Georgian Legislation Provide the Protection and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity? /Green Alternative /Policy Brief/ Tbilisi/ July2010 http://www.greenalt.org/webmill/data/file/publications/policy%20brief_biodiversity%20and%20EIA_ENG.pdf -Environment and Development in Georgia, Policy/Legal and Institutional Challenges in Selected Areas/ Tbilisi, 2007 http://www.greenalt.org/webmill/data/file/publications/Environment.pdf -Problems of Forestry Sector of Georgia: Illegal Activities and Legislative Collisions/Green Alternatives/ Tbilisi, 2006 http://www.greenalt.org/webmill/data/file/publications/problem_of_forestry_sector.pdf Biodiversity Hotspots/Conservation International http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx ENPI FLEG/Improving Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in the European Neighbourhood Policy East Countries and Russia /Regional Bulletin /June 2011 http://www.fleg.org.ua/fileadmin/user_upload/ufs/04.%20Program%20Information/4.02%20Program%20Components/4.02.05%20Public%20Awareness/FLEG_newsletter_4_ENG_.pdf Forests and the Biodiversity Convention Independent Monitoring of the Implementation of the Expanded Program of Work in Georgia/Global Forest Coalition, May 2008 http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/IM-Report-Georgia1.pdf Georgia: New Phase of Forest Reform http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=3164&it=news The World Group, 2006 Environment Matters/Combating Illegal Logging and Corruption in the Forestry Sector http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTENVMAT/64199955-1162240805462/21127309/6Combating.pdf

13


http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/75.htm












http://www.greenalt.org/?lng=en_








http://www.greenalt.org/webmill/data/file/publications/policy brief_biodiversity and EIA_ENG.pdf



















http://www.greenalt.org/webmill/data/file/publications/Environment.pdf









http://www.greenalt.org/webmill/data/file/publications/problem_of_forestry_sector.pdf










http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx










http://www.fleg.org.ua/fileadmin/user_upload/ufs/04. Program Information/4.02 Program Components/4.02.05 Public Awareness/FLEG_newsletter_4_ENG_.pdf










































http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/IM-Report-Georgia1.pdf



















http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=3164&it=news




http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTENVMAT/64199955-1162240805462/21127309/6Combating.pdf



















Forest Management

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ann Inasaridge is a Research Fellow at Gold

Mercury International. In the past, Ann has worked

at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and

Natural Resources of Georgia as a Strategy

Planning Specialist, responsible for developing,

coordinating and managing the Ministry’s strategy

for sustainable development. She has also

participated in drafting and developing the

Environmental and Resource Management Policy

of Georgia. Ann holds an MSc degree from the

London School of Economics and Political Science

("LSE").

List of Interviewees

(Jordania , 2013), Former consultant at the Legal Office of the Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Georgia. (Kvernadze, 2013), Head of the Department of Sustainable Development , Ministry of Economic and Sustainable Development of Georgia. (Macharashvili, 2013), Biodiversity Programme Coordinator , NGO- Green Alternative, Georgia. (Namgaladze,2013), Forest Expert, Former Head of the Forest Office in Ambrolauri Region of Georgia (Osepashvili, 2013), Forest Officer, WWF Caucasus Program

GOLD MERCURY INTERNATIONAL

Gold Mercury - The global governance and visionary leadership think tank. Gold Mercury works with organisations and leaders to

navigate global complexity and develop the strategic visioning and innovation required to build the sustainable business models,

cultures and brands for the future. Since its founding in 1961, Gold Mercury has been a pioneer in global governance and globalisation,

advancing international and economic cooperation in different spheres. GLOGO®, our Global Governance Monitoring and Rating

System is a unique framework to organize world complexity and report on the impact of major decisions and events on the future of our

world. Our historic GOLD MERCURY AWARDS® for Global Governance exemplify visionary leadership and sustainable decision-

making. Our laureates include the most visionary individuals and organisations in the world. Our Visionary Leadership Academy offers

executive programmes and Masterclasses to develop the new leadership and strategic skills required to lead in the 21st Century.

Gold Mercury International

Gold Mercury House - 13 Chesterfield St., Mayfair, London W1J 5JN

Message Centre: +442071932807, Email: [email protected]

Follow us on Twitter: @goldmercury and @glogo

www.goldmercury.org

www.goldmercury.org

[email protected]

Georgia

GLOGO®- Global Governance Centre for

Sustainable Globalisation

GLOGO® is Gold Mercury’s Centre for Sustainable

Globalisation. GLOGO® focuses on identifying and

monitoring the most critical global and industry

challenges, developing invaluable insights and

foresights in the process. Using this intelligence, Gold

Mercury develops anticipatory and sustainable

strategies, as well as new business and social models

and partnerships to address these global issues and

industry challenges. GLOGO® proposes a new

framework to understand global complexity,

organising our planet into eight global governance

areas with sustainability and business model

innovation at its core -what we call: Synergy

Design™.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



[email protected]

the case of the georgian forest reform:transition from centrally planned to market oriented forest m

Documents

forest policy reform

new forest policy

forest sector

forest licensing

better forest management

new forest code

forest utilisation plans

transfer of forest use