Скачать презентацию Adoption of forest certification in Byelorussia and Russia Скачать презентацию Adoption of forest certification in Byelorussia and Russia

c6fb304fcd03c94010848231bad705a5.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 20

Adoption of forest certification in Byelorussia and Russia: comparative analysis Corporate Social Responsibility 09. 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 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: 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 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 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 forest certification • Russia • Agents • FSC office, national initiative, региональные, Organizational infrastructure 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 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, nonwood 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 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, 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 Agents of institutional change • Holdings • experts, NGOs • Certification bodies • Ministry of forestry creates the command 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

Conclusion • In Russia- 3 types of institutionalization of the FSC a) coercive-NGOs, b) 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