Corporate Social Responsibility 09.02. 2015 Adoption of forest certification in Byelorussia and Russia: comparative analysis Corporate Social Responsibility 09.02. 2015

New rules of the game: principles and criteria of forest certification Driven by non-state actors Uses forces of the market and economic stimulus 10 principles, 56 criteria Some roles do not contradict with national legislation and are implemented, others do not contradict, but are not implemented, others contradict

Why it is interesting to compare FSC in Russia and Byelorussia In Russia: Soviet system of forest management destroyed and reformed, market economics, many international and national NGOs, institutional turbulence In Byelorussia the Soviet system of forest governance was partly preserved, partly reinforced (Soviet type state agencies and their subordination, Young Communists, Pioneers, forest society), only World Bird Union, no other international NGOs, lack of institutional turbulence. Declared planned and socially oriented economy On the local level civil society institutions are similarly developed in Russia and Byelorussia (houses of culture, school forest management units, veteran organizations) Why Byelorussia needs non-state, NGO and market driven governance?

Interpretation of FSC requirements In Russia creates arenas of negotiation between stakeholders: virgin forests (old growth, how to preserve biodiversity, who are indigenous people, what kind of rights have local population– create consensual value of the product. Contradictions between the Forest Code of 2006 and FSC requirements are not fully resolved, although national standards are consistent with the FSC In Byelorussia – no arenas, long process of understanding of new requirements, new requirements are adopted by the governments, come down to the ground through national standards

Difference in organizational infrastructure In Byelorussia– old organizational infrastructure of the former Soviet Union, path dependent, evolved along the Lukashenko regime In Russia- organizational infrastructure is broken by market economy and reforms, although lingering effects exist

Organizational infrastructure for forest certification Russia Agents FSC office, national initiative, региональные, regional working groups Projects: WWF-IKEA Models Foundations, grants National standards accredited Transnational NGO networks (WWF, Greenpeace, et.) Certification centers Consultants and experts Certification bodies Byelorussia Non

State Forest Agencies Russia Rosleskhoz (under the Ministry of Agriculture) Regional representatives Lisnichestva- former forest management units (Leskhozes)—controlling leasers Byelorussia Ministry of Forestry– FSC certificate holder Regional Forest management bodies-6 Leskhozes-96– forest management logging, non-wood resource business, land maintainer, recreational sites maintainer Lestnichestva-834 President’s ideological agency, ideologists at any organization, ideologists work with public

Business Russia Market economics Holdings and their units are FSC certificate holders Small logging enterprises die out Byelorussia Planned socially oriented economy declared Bumprom- State holding—no interest toward certification –supply wood to Russia Lespromchozi (post Soviet logging companies) are part of Bumprom 85% of wood comes to Bumprom through the stock. 15% goes to social needs of local people in the villages

Civil society organizations involved in forest certification Russia International NGOs (WWF, Greenpeace, etc) Scientists International Bird Union Forest clubs Regional NGOs Active people in libraries, schools, clubs Soviet: All Russia Society for Nature protection, nature protection core, school forestry units, society of hunters and fishers Byelorussia Dissidents- protect Byelovezha International Bird Union Soviet: Byelorussian Young Communist (14-31 год)-22% of all youth are members, nature protection cores, Units in all leskhozes All Byelorussia Society for Nature Protection, Byelorussian society of hunters and fishers Pioneers and school forest management units Active people in libraries, schools, clubs—conduct Soviet type of actions Ideological workers introduced by Lukoshenko

Agents of institutional change Holdings experts, NGOs Certification bodies Ministry of forestry creates the command and control channel that is filtering concepts and discourses Certification bodies take the role of consultants although this is not allowed by FSC New roles are introduced into the legislative system Ideologists help to implement social standards

Карта аренды должна быть доступна для местного населения

Индивидуальная консультация с местным краеведом, Паданы, территория аренды Сегежского ЦБК. Фото М. Тысячнюк

Общественные слушания по плану рубок и выделению социальных ЛВПЦ, с Общественные слушания по плану рубок и выделению социальных ЛВПЦ, с.Вешкелица, территория аренды Запкареллес, Фото М. Тысячнюк

Территория аренды Запкареллес: Кладбище вблизи деревни Хаутаваара находится в водоохранной зоне, является метом социальной значимости для жителей деревни и граждан Финляндии, которые ранее владели домами в этой деревне. Фото М. Тысячнюк

Conclusion In Russia- 3 types of institutionalization of the FSC a) coercive-NGOs, b) normative pressure NGOs, c) Mimetic inside the holding, between holdings In Byelorussia- only coercive institutionalization through legislation