Abstract
With 20% of the world’s forests, Russia has global potential in bioeconomy development, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. However, unsustainable forest management based on ‘wood mining’ reduces this potential. Based on document analysis, participant observations and interviews, this article shows how non-state actors—environmental NGOs and forest companies—address forest resource depletion and primary forest loss in Russia. We analyse two key interrelated forest discourses driven by non-state actors in Russia: (1) intensive forest management in secondary forests as a pathway towards sustained yield and primary forest conservation; (2) intact forest landscapes as a priority in primary forest conservation. We illustrate how these discourses have been integrated into policy debates, institutions and practices and discuss their relation to relevant global discourses. The article concludes that despite successful cases in conserving intact forest landscapes, there is still a frontier between sustainable forest management discourses and forestry practice in Russia.
Highlights
The global transition to sustainable development and climate-neutral society in science and policy is associated
We have constructed and analysed the following two key interrelated forest discourses driven by non-state actors in Russia: (1) intensive forest management in secondary forests as a pathway towards sustained yield and primary forest conservation; and (2) intact forest landscapes as a priority in primary forest conservation
Based on Hajer’s approaches to the analysis of discursive hegemony (Hajer 1995), we identified and analysed two key forest discourses driven by non-state actors—environmental NGOs and forest companies—in Russia
Summary
The data for this article were collected from participant observations, analysis of literature and documents, and cross-checked through interviews. In 2004–2018, participant observation which was carried out during meetings, workshops and field trips in Russia constitute the source of the autoethnography materials. The researcher should not be drawn into participating in activities at the expense of writing reflective research diaries and carrying out objective research processes (Anderson 2006) For this reason, the lead author stepped out of active involvement in NGO activities in Russia to conduct the research. In 2018–2020, he carried out the second round of participant observations as an observer This part of data collection as well as analyses of his understanding and reflections with co-authors helped to create a more distant way to analyse the discourses.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
