1. Environmental NGOs in Russia Corporate Social Responsibility, local people and multilevel governance of natural resources in the Russian North 05.05. 2015

3. Strong and weak State in Russia USSR- Centralized government, communist party the only decision making body Perestroika– democratization from above (openness, freedom of speech) Early 1990s –political instability, economic reforms Putin 2000s-institutional turbulence, but again strong state. Putin - Medvedev- one dominant party government United Russia-”Party of thieves and cheaters”.

4. Environmental movement in the USSR Political opportunities: Centralized government, communist party the only decision making body, secret military industrial complex, policy for separation on industrialized zones and protected areas Environmental movement: in the 1960s –Nature Protection Core, Professional societies, All Russia society for Nature Protection, sustainability initiatives

5. Environmental movement since Perestroika 1987-89 Political opportunities: Perestroika, glasnost, opening to the world Chernobil accident Western money flow to build democracy Flash of social movements, liberalization, against pollution, anti-nuclear Social Ecological Union, many small and middle size NGO

6. Movement in the 1990s Fast economic reforms, collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, political instability, reduction of western money flow Multinational Corporations enter Russia Massive NGO deaths, professionalization of NGOs, dependence on Western funding, mushrooming of environmental education initiatives Offices of transnational NGOs established

7. NGOs in 2000s Political opportunities in the context of institutional turbulence: Putin’s anti environmentalist restructuring: closed Goskomekologia, federal forest service, new forest and water codes, restructuring of the ministries, decision to import nuclear waste Environmental movement: mass mobilization for the referendum, which failed, NIMBI against construction projects NGOs funded by governmental programs, hardships with NGO registration, repressions (fire inspections, tax inspections) Transboundary NGO projects, international co- management of natural resources

8. Law on Foreign Agents 1938, US, Foreign Agents Registration Act FARA 13 July, 2012 enacted by the State Duma 21 November 2012-the law on foreign agents was implemented NGOs which receive foreign money and do political activity have to register as foreign Agents NGO resist registration Prosecutor general Many under the court

9. 2014-2015 NGO-Foreign Agents Putin 2014—the law on foreign agent— have to work! 654 NGOs –financed from abroad Ministry of Justice can label NGOs as foreign agents even if they do not agree 15 NGOs were labeled, applied to the European Court of Justice, go through law suits in Russia

10. NGO-Foreign Agents Moscow Helsinki Group Memorial Golos (Voice) All Gey and Lesbian Organizations Gender Center in Saratov (for publishing the journal Social Policy) CISR—under consideration at the Ministry of Justice

11. Regional NGOs Baykal environmental wave SPOK, Kola Environmental Center, Aeths Phoenix (Far East) Environmental Watch, Sakhalin Indigenous Peoples Associations

12. Political opportunities under globalization context European part Networks with Europe Many EU grants EU Due-diligence legislation International donors from Europe and the US Far Eastern part No effective network with China, but networks with the US and European NGOs China banned logging: high demand in Russia, illegal logging boomed China green Olympics-small effect Laisy Act in the US: effect is not yet clear International donors hot spot strategy

13. NGO cross border networks in forest protection Mapping and assessment of virgin forests in Russia Promoting forest certification and sustainable forest management Creating specially protected areas (World Natural Heritage sites, National Parks, Zapovedniks, Zakazniks, Nature Monuments) Campaigning and negotiation with western consumers, direct action

14. Transboundary NGO networks Greenpeace World Wildlife Fund: several offices (WWF) Forest Club: Social Ecological Union, Center for Biodiversity Conservation, Greenpeace, Nature Protection Core, SPOK At Far East: Brock, WWF, WCS, and their networks

15. Major NGO networks ЭКОДАЛЬ

17. Two case studies at Kamchatka IUSN– developing non-wood resource business in Kamchatka WWF- helping indigenous people, involving them in sustainable businesses (ecological tourism)

24. Case Studies a) IUCN promotes sustainable non-wood resource businesses in Kamchatka oblast, settlement Esso b) IUCN promotes sustainable non-wood resource business in Palana, Koryak Autonomus Okrug, b) WWF promotes infrastructure for Nalichevo and Bistrinski parks; c) WWF promotes building an Itelmen sustainable community in Koryak Autonomous Okrug very distant from Koryak Zapovednik

25. IUCN agenda To develop sustainable business that will be environmentally friendly To transfer best practice to the indigenous people, that they do sustainable business instead of illegal hunting and fishing Connect with cultural revitalization and use indigenous knowledge To foster international trade of sustainable products

26. IUCN case studies Esso Tourist infrastructure Many civic initiatives Responsibility took an activist of the association of indigenous people Elderly people were active Fostering community involvement Palana No roads, no tourists Few civic initiatives Responsibility took a University professor Weak link to the association of indigenous people Conflicts and authoritarian governance

27. Outcomes of the project Esso Small group of elderly people started the business Small office established Several fairs of Fito Chai combined with community events Learned marketing strategies, developed advertising broshures Palana Only those who received the grant participate Transfer agenda to the publication project Took “indigenous knowledge” from the ethnography books and PhD dissertations Grant failed—returned money

28. WWF agenda Living planet effort Develop eco-tourism in Nalichevo and Bistrinski, Kovran, eco-trails Create an ecological refuge Tshanom (advise of Moscow ethnographer)-Brazil model Involve local people in activities from which the protected areas will benefit

29. Outcome Nalichevo park-eco- tourist trail build on the basis of a Soviet trail No indigenous people participate in Nalichevo Provide radio-stations for indigenous people in Bistrinsky Tourism inflow improved, but it is more commercial then ecological Tshanom Ecological refuge designated, money provided by WWF Governor reelected- refuge closed Multiple law suits, WWF gone-project failed, but organizational learning took place