Model Forests in Russia
Corporate social responsibility
09.02.2017
Pscov Model Forest
• WWF-Stora Enso
• SIDA founder
• 3 pillars of sustainability: economic, social,
environmental
• Co-management, multi-stakeholder
governance
Corporate social responsibility as a
business strategy
•
•
•
•
Building Models of sustainability (Pscov Model Forest)
FSC certification to justify sustainable forest operations.
Stora-Enso—WWF partnership
A) with the goal to adjust the organizational and
institutional environment of the country to their business
• B) to intensify forest management
• C) to legitimize business operations in the eyes of both
transnational and local stakeholders, especially NGOs
and final consumers
What can we learn from this case
• Impacts of CSR (FSC, Model forest) on
the local practices on the ground
• TNC as agent of institutional change, to
what extent they can change the
institutions
• To what extent results can be
disseminated?
Context in Russian forest sector
• Constant restructuring of state institutions,
high institutional turbulence
• Extensive forest management
• Forest Code of 1997, 2006 (undeveloped
regulations
• Well developed NGOs networks
Transnational actors
TNC
Donors
ENGO
NGO
TNC
subsidiary
Space of
Place
Project with new practices
FSC
Level
International
(Global)
(EU)
(Pan-European)
National
(Russian Federation)
(NW Russia)
Stora Enso Business Network
Buyers
Wood
Supply
Russia
Regional
(Republic)
District
(Priluzie leskhoz)
Kingisepp
Local
(Logging company)
(Village)
STF-Strug
STF-Gdov
International
Level
(Global)
(EU)
(Pan-European)
National
(Russian Federation)
(NW Russia)
FSC International
WWF International
Local
(Logging company)
(Village)
Rainforest Alliance
Smartwood
WWF Germany
FSC Russia
WWF Russia
Regional
(Pscov oblast, St.
Petersburg)
(Kraj)
(Okrug)
(County)
District
(Leskhoz)
(Raion)
(Municipality)
Strugi Krasnie raion
Model Forest Network
WWF
NEPCon
Greenforest
Forest club
WWF
Eco-tour
Level
International
(Global)
(EU)
(Pan-European)
Stora Enso
SIDA
WWF Germany
WWF International
Steering Committee
National
(Russian Federation)
(NW Russia)
WWF Russia
Governments at
different levels
Regional
(Republic)
(Kraj)
(Okrug)
(County)
St. Petersburg
Forestry Research
Institute
Advisory Board
District
(Leskhoz)
(Raion)
(Municipality)
Local
(Logging company)
(Village)
Pscov
Model Forest
STF-Strug so
Forest Club
Civil Society
Transnational stakeholders
• SIDA-official agenda poverty reduction,
real interest to help Swedish companies in
Russia, required public participation in
decision making
• WWF- promote sustainability through
Model Forests, implement FSC
Interaction with governments
• Federal- “special status” of the Model Forest–
special agreement, could not change legislation,
could not reproduce lessons learned in intensive
forest management
Interaction with local stakeholders
• Small grants supporting community
initiatives
• Media campaign
• Public participation- forest club, one public
hearing with scenarios to choose (public
manipulated, but happy)
• Educational programs- very successful
• Citizens loved WWF and not STF-Strug
(Stora-Enso subsidiary)
Outcomes
FSC implemented in all Stora-Enso subsidiaries,
all workers safety, community involvement,
biodiversity conservation
Efforts to reproduce all other innovations failed
Strong expert community in Russia was created
CSR as a business strategy did not worked well for
establishing business in Russia but worked well
with final consumers and shareholders
In December 2008, STF- strug and other
subsidiaries (except two in Karelia were closed)
Model Forest Priluzie
• Silver Taiga (before 2002 WWF)
• With the international level: Swiss agency for
international development, WWF network
• Governmental agencies partners: forest agency,
ministry for natural resources, local forest
management units
• Business not interested on early stage, on late
stage Mondi Business paper—driver of
certification
1.Global
SFM
discourse
2.Donor
3.Silver
Taiga 4.Worki
ng
group
13. Forest
council
6.Scientis
ts
9. Local practice in
Model Forest Priluzie
5.Komi
government
agencies
8.Busines
s
7.Local
community
organisers
Time
Level
Gradient
(Negotiating NGO
International
(Global)
(EU)
(Pan-European)
National
(Russian
Federation)
(NW Russia)
Regional
(Komi Republic)
(Kraj)
(Okrug)
(County)
District
(Leskhoz)
(Raion)
(Municipality)
Local
(Logging
company)
(Village)
(Parish)
WRI
FSC
IMFN
WWF
Radical NGO)
Rainforest
Forest
GreenpeacEthics
Action
e
Network
Rainforest
Alliance
WWFRussia
Greenpea
ce-Russia
Biodiversity
Conservati
on Centre
Silver Taiga Foundation
Local groups in
Udora region
Sav
e
Pec
hor
a
NG
O
Business networks dynamics
• Mondi Business Paper-with its
commitment to certification-key player
• Certification of forest management unit
facilitates certification of chain of custody
• 15 leasers in Priluzie
Level
International
(Global)
(EU)
(Pan-European)
National
(Russian
Federation)
(NW Russia)
Mondi
Global
Business
Network
Timber
buyers
(China)
Ilym
Pulp
(Siberia,
Arkhangels
k)
Regional
(Komi Republic)
Mondi Business Paper
District
(Priluzie
leskhoz)
Local
(Logging
company)
(Village)
Veldoria
(timber
export)
Nodzul LZK
Kustyshev
Butalov
Grigorash
Komiles
-nab
Viledlec
(”mr
Durakov”)
Luzalec
Mag
Obselkho
ztekhnica
Agrilesservis
LZK
Priluzlec
Verkhnyaya
Lopya
Sevlespro
m
kompania
Local
logging for
personal
needs
Model Forest innovations
• Practice of public hearings when forest
industry rents the territory
• Forests for community use around villages
• Old growth forests excluded from
management
What practices changed?
• Social: Workers safety, salary in time, food
in the forest, medicine
• Environmental: biodiversity conservation
on the logging plots
• Economic: benefit big companies, while
small struggle, certification allows higher
prices abroad, under Mondi monopoly
Comparison
• Komi Model Forest
–
–
–
–
NGO-government partnership—the driver
Forest management unit a certificate holder
Innovations transferred to Komi
Multi-level governance: Model Forest Priluzie as a
Laboratory for Social Change
• Pskov Model Forest
–
–
–
–
NGO-business partnership—the driver
Company a certificate holder
Innovations transferred only to company subsidiaries
Less stakeholders involvement
• Different ways of introducing SFM into Russia—different
agents of institutional change