the case of the georgian forest reform:transition from centrally planned to market oriented forest m
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
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• The outdated National Forest Inventory (NFI), the improperly designed auctions that hindered competition, the poor enforcement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
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
Racha Region, Georgia
Racha Region, Georgia
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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).
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
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.
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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.
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
Georgia Mountains
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
www.goldmercury.org goldmercury.org
The Case of the Georgian Forest Reform: Transition from Centrally Planned to Market Oriented
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
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™.